Lords Sitting of 26 July 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE — Second Report—On Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Wexford Grand Jury* (258); Tyne Pilotage Act (1865) Amendment* (157); Courts of Law Officers (Ireland)* (254).
Committee—Railway Companies (262); Railway Companies (Scotland)* (263); Naval Knights of Windsor* (252).
Report—Railways (Scotland)* (162); Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)* (221); Naval Knights of Windsor* (252).
Third Reading—Vaccination* (239), and passed.

STATUE OF MR. CANNING.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, in rising to move the Address of which I have given notice, to restore to its original position, or one not more remote from both Houses of Parliament, the statue of the late Mr. Canning, I am anxious at the outset to disclaim all reflection upon Mr. William Cowper, as having been responsible for this extraordinary measure. Nothing in his career, and nothing in his character could lead me to view him as its author. Neither do I wish to cast reproach on Lord John Manners, who succeeded him in the office of Woods and Works, and who a short time ago—as I see by the report of Hansard—described the removal of the statue as temporary in its nature, when, in the other House of Parliament, requested to explain it. Having taken much pains to inquire into the origin of a proceeding so invidious, I am led to the belief—although it may be an erroneous one—that the removal of the statue entered into the ideas of the late Sir Charles Barry as to the further changes which were requisite in order to give full effect to the architectural arrangements by which we
  148
  are surrounded. It would be unbecoming and uncalled for to hold up to obloquy a man whose talents we have lost; but Sir Charles Barry is alleged, and possibly with truth, to have had remarkable impressions with regard to the best mode of placing colossal statues. He appears to have held that they ought to be as far as possible beyond the range of vision, on the same principle, perhaps, which led him to conclude that windows ought to exclude the light, and that legislative halls should be impossible to hear in. My Lords, the quickest way of bringing what has taken place before your Lordships, would be, perhaps, to cite a question which many noble Lords and others out of doors have put to me since the Notice stood upon the Paper. They have said, "Where is the statue gone to?" When the frequenters of this House enquire, "Where is the statue gone to?" it is safe to infer that the new site is not altogether equal to the old one. I will just remind the House of what passed among your Lordships a few weeks ago upon the subject. A noble Baron (Lord Lyveden) pointed to the sudden disappearance of the statue from the place in which it had been for forty years—a place in which it caught the eye of everyone who went to Parliament or from it, and which, as the noble Lord explained, had been chosen in order that the figure of Mr. Canning might appear to command and contemplate the scene in which his triumphs had been gained and in which his genius had exulted. The noble Lord inquired on what grounds so violent and strange a course had been adopted, and was told by the First Lord of the Treasury that the removal was essential to a project the late Government had formed for the improvement of the open space behind the statue; that certain maps would be put in the Library, and that the judgment of the House ought to be suspended. The judgment of the House has been suspended. The project of improving the open space has been substantially completed; and every Member of the House who ever came to Westminster is now in a condition to decide how far the pretext given for the removal of the statue was a valid one. It is now clear to every passer-by that the removal is essentially uncalled for. The new thoroughfare might have been made; the green transformed into a pavement, with a footpath over it; the trees destroyed: all these changes, good or bad, might have

  149
  been perpetrated, while the statue stood in its original position. A stone path now leads from the old site to the new one; but as it serves no kind of purpose, except that of taking the pedestrian from where the statue was to where it is, by bringing it to the former site, the function of the path is superseded, and no argument can be raised against the restoration from any possible obstruction it would lead to. But if the statue is not replaced on the exact spot from which it was taken, it may at least be fixed on the alignment on which it was visible before, and which had so much to do with any grandeur or propriety attaching to it. My Lords, I need not touch on the indignity to Mr. Canning involved in the privation of an honour formerly bestowed upon him; but I may remind the House, perhaps, of a circumstance which does in some degree enhance it. Mr. Canning died a few months after he had readied the power for which his past career so eminently fitted him. A mourning nation was compellod to heap upon his tomb the marks of gratitude with which they were not able to illustrate his existence. A peerage was conferred upon his family; his remains were buried in the Abbey; and his statue was so placed as to make him live for ever in the memory of Parliament. Such gifts are too sacred to be tampered with. But let me say a word on the injustice to the original subscribers at whose expense the monument was formed. I am indebted to the researches of Mr. Milnes Gaskell, and a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) for the fact that the site was given by the Crown, who therefore acted for the public. The statue was conferred upon the public by the friends of Mr. Canning. According to the new arrangement the public would be forced to take away what it accorded, and to retain what it acquired. A kind of fraud would be accomplished, unless, indeed, the original subscribers thought proper to defeat it by withdrawing the statue, since they had lost the site; and if they came to this conclusion no doubt many capitals on either side of the Atlantic would be prepared at once to welcome and to honour it. But the principle involved goes a good deal beyond the proceeding I have brought before your Lordships. If one Government, on some fantastic theory of taste, may move the statue from a thoroughfare which every one passes, to a thoroughfare which no one passes, on his
  150
  way to Westminster, another Government may take it to Storey's Gate, another to the Palace, another further to the West, until it reaches Hampton Court, and becomes an object rather for the enlightened foreigner to seek than for the Members of the two Houses to have habitually presented to them. So, too, the well-known statue of Mr. Pitt may be removed from its majestic situation on the southern side of Hanover Square, and put into the midst of the enclosure. Even the figure of Achilles, consecrated by the ladies of Great Britain to a name yet more illustrious, might be removed from the neighbourhood of Apsley House and from the monument, combined with which it does so much to keep the Duke of Wellington amongst us. My Lords, the powers, virtues, and achievements of Mr. Canning do not bear upon the question. It is not proposed to devote new structures to his fame, or to confer new privileges on his descendants. It is only sought to guard the honour he obtained; and it devolves on those who have reduced it, to point out on what grounds it was extravagant, or by what events it has been forfeited. I have endeavoured to consider, not how much, but how little, could be said upon the subject. Topics will occur to every one, which others are entitled to approach: "non majoræ veto;" could I presume to add, my Lords, "sed et his placabilis celebræ est?"
  Moved, That an bumble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to give Directions that the Statue of Mr. Canning may be restored to its original Position or to a Site not more remote from the Houses of Parliament than that on which it used to stand.—(The Lord Stratheden.)
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, as a near relative of the late Mr. Canning, wished to be allowed to say a few words upon the subject brought under their Lordships' notice. Though forty years had elapsed since Mr. Canning's death, his affectionate respect for the memory of that illustrious statesman had not undergone the slightest abatement, nor had anything happened to diminish the popular regret at the loss of that eloquent voice and commanding ability. It was not, however, his intention to allow any private feelings to sway his judgment in dealing with a subject of this nature. Whatever those feelings might be, they were satisfied by the recollection that whether the statues erected to Mr. Canning

  151
  remained, or whether they perished with other perishable materials, it might be said of him, as a great historian had said of an illustrious man of old—
  "Quidquid ex illo amavimus, quidquid mirati sumus, manet, mansurum est, in animis hominum, in æternitate temporum, fama rerum."
  Among the statesmen of modern times he knew no one to whom that eulogy might be more justly applied than to Mr. Canning. The statue in question, being a memorial of his merits as a Statesman, was erected, not by Parliament, for Parliament was not sitting at the time of Mr. Canning's decease, but by his numerous friends and admirers, who desired thus to perpetuate the memory of his public services. Permission was given either by the Crown or by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster—perhaps by both—to place the statue where till recently it stood, although it had been raised by public subscription; and that spot had been selected because it was near to the House where his fame had grown up, where his eloquence was so often heard, and where his public principles were best known. If there had been any necessity founded on reasons of public convenience, for its removal from this spot, Mr. Canning himself, if alive, would be the first to recognize this necessity. But it appeared from the speech of the noble Lord, who no doubt had carefully ascertained all the circumstances connected with the case, that no such necessity existed, and that the statue had been removed without sufficient reasons. He (Viscount Stratford dc Redcliffe) could say nothing on this point, knowing no more than what had been stated to their Lordships. He had no right to attribute blame to any one, but if the statue had really been removed without sufficient reasons, he should hope that the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord would have the effect of securing its return to the original site or at least to a more conspicuous one than it now occupied. The practice had in all times been to place memorials of that kind near the places where the subjects of them had attained their distinction, and to place them so that the attention of the passer-by might be attracted to the memorial. They should at all events be placed in conspicuous positions, because, among the advantages which they produced, the sight of them might possibly inflame many youthful breasts to strive after the same eminence and achieve the same distinction in the
  152
  service of their country. The position which the statue had occupied for many years was eminently calculated to answer all these purposes. It was now, however, thrown back upon a site where it could hardly attract any attention. It was, in fact, erected at some distance from the principal roadway, so that passers-by could not read the inscription, without going out of their way to inspect it. So completely was it in the shade, among the trees, that persons who had not considerable quickness of sight might easily pass by without observing that there was any statue there at all. To read the name on the pedestal would require an unusual exertion, and future statues might be so placed as completely to screen that memorial which had first occupied the ground. The circumstances of the case were undoubtedly such as to justify the noble Lord in bringing forward his Resolution, and therefore he confidently hoped that their Lordships would consider it with favour, and take their share in causing the statue to be restored to its old site, or at least put in another place where it would be equally conspicuous as at first.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHrose to give his most cordial support to the Resolution, and he was glad that it was concurred in by the noble Lord who had just sat down, who was a near relative of the lamented statesman whose merits the statue commemorated. That statue was subscribed for by a number of the admirers of Mr. Canning and it was placed in the position it had so long occupied, because it was felt that it would best commemorate his great public services by being near the scene where he had reaped his laurels. It had recently been removed to a place where, buried among trees, it was very difficult to distinguish it at all. The practice had always been to erect statues near the spot where those whose memory they preserved had earned their distinction. Thus they found that a memorial to the lamented Sidney Herbert had appropriately been placed in front of the War Office, in which he so long laboured for the welfare of the soldier. In Trafalgar Square—a sort of out-of-door Westminster Abbey—were the statues of great Admirals and Generals who had distinguished themselves in their country's service; and when the statue of an ingenious and philanthropic doctor was lately placed there it was generally felt to be out of place in the company in which it was put, and was very properly

  153
  removed to a site near St. George's Hospital—a much fitter position for Dr. Jenner. The statues in honour of the Duke of Wellington at Hyde Park and Constitution Hill had been placed upon those sites to remind the spectator that he was in the immediate vicinity of the house where that great Commander resided. In the same way the statues of illustrious Statesmen should be placed, if possible, near to the scene of their labours, and he believed it was in contemplation to erect statues to Lord Palmerston and to Sir Robert Peel in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. He trusted that the question now raised by the noble Lord opposite would receive the attention of the Government, and that the statue might be so placed that in coming to their Parliamentary duties all might see it and remember the great public services of Mr. Canning, and the loss which the country had sustained in his death. Their Lordships should remember that he was the illustrious father of a scarcely less illustrious son, and that both father and son might be said to have sacrificed their lives in the performance of their public duties.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he had been one of the first to complain of the alterations in the neighbourhood of Palace Yard, because he thought the whole of the arrangements were bad; but he did not know whether any imputation rested upon the present or upon the late Government. It behoved the public to watch narrowly the removal of statues: there should be a sacredness about them, and they ought not to be carried off for slight and trivial reasons. The statue of Canning had been appropriately placed near the House of Commons, on account of the foremost place he occupied in that Assembly; and now it was to be removed to a comparatively obscure position, in order that it might be grouped with others, including, as he understood, the statues of some railway engineers, while a site nearest the one that had been devoted to Canning's statue was to be occupied by one of Sir Robert Peel. He should never think of entering into a comparison of the merits of the two Statesmen in reference to such a question as this; but when the statue of Canning had occupied a site for forty years, and had been there saluted by every passer-by it seemed strange that it should be placed where it would not be seen by one in twenty of those who would have seen it if it had remained in its original position.
  154
  The country had a right to ask why such a change was made. If these things were done with Statesmen now deceased, they might be done with any of their Lordships, for whom he supposed some of these places were reserved, when they came to have statues. Their Lordships might be fairly called upon to vote in favour of the Resolution unless the Government would undertake the re-consideration of the matter with a view to placing the statue of Mr. Canning in a position not inferior to that which, it had so long occupied.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he was sure the relatives of the late Mr. Canning must feel satisfied, from what had passed in the House that evening, that their Lordships and the whole country were really anxious that every possible respect should be paid to his memory. There was not the slightest reason to suppose that any disrespect to the memory of Mr. Canning was intended by the removal of his statue. That step had been taken by the late Government and he was sure it had not been taken without due consideration. They were the proper persons to explain what their views were. The present Government had only followed in the footsteps of the late Government, and it had never until that moment struck any one of them that the occurrence would cause any displeasure to Mr. Canning's relatives. He was quite ready to admit that there was something displeasing and invidious in the removal of any statue when it was once erected. He remembered that when the late Duke of Wellington was spoken to about the removal of the equestrian statue of himself at Hyde Park Corner he expressed the extremest displeasure at the idea, and declared that if it were removed he would not allow it to be erected in any other place. Such, no doubt, were the feelings of those to whom statues had been erected during their lives, and similar feelings pervaded the breasts of the near relatives of those who were dead. In a great measure this question must be looked upon as one of taste. Whether in this case the new position of the statue was more or less honourable than the old one, what other statues were to be grouped with it, and whether they were those of engineers or politicians, he could not say; but if the statue of Mr. Canning were restored to the position it once occupied it would still be at the end of the row. He had heard it said that one of the statues

  155
  to be placed near that of Canning was to be that of his own son, and there could be no objection to such an arrangement if the position were properly chosen. Entertaining feelings of the profoundest admiration for the late Mr. Canning, he would recommend the noble Lord to withdraw the Motion, and to be satisfied with the assurance given to himself, the House, and the relatives of Mr. Canning, that the Government would take the matter into their consideration, with a full sense of the interest which their Lordships felt in the permanent position of the statue.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the object of the House evidently was to bring about the restoration of the statue and he felt sure that the statue was more likely to be restored if the Address was carried, than if it was withdrawn. He should not therefore feel inclined to withdraw it.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he hoped that a portion of St. Margaret's Churchyard from which the bodies had been removed and which was now enclosed, would be added to the street when the works were finished.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he hoped that no further arrangements would be made without due notice being given to their Lordships. It might be well if the matter were considered by a Committee of this House, or of both Houses, for it was a public question as well as one of private feeling. He understood the statue of Canning was to be put back under a tree, on a different road from that it formerly stood in, that Sir Robert Peel's statue was to be placed opposite with the back to the Houses of Parliament, and that a statue of Lord Palmerston was to be put in a corner looking in a slanting direction towards Westminster Abbey. From the plans it appeared that the statues were grouped without any regard to congruity and taste. He had heard it stated that the removal of the statue of Mr. Canning was originally suggested by the late Sir Charles Barry, who believed that any fine statue placed in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament would have the effect of dwarfing his own work. Their Lordships would be glad to learn that the Government would take the matter into their consideration. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would re-consider the matter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid he hoped that, after the statement of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury), the Motion would
  156
  not be pressed. He was not in a position to say to whom the plan for the removal of the statue was originally to be attributed, but he was perfectly certain that his right hon. Friend the late First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper) entertained the same feelings of respect for the memory of Mr. Canning which had been so gracefully expressed by so many of their Lordships.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that whatever his own opinion, he could not hesitate to yield to the wishes of the noble Marquess, as the representative, in that House, of Mr. Canning, on the subject.
  Motion, by Leave of the House, withdrawn.

RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL—(No. 262.)
(The Duke of Richmond.)
RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL—(No. 262.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  LORD REDESDALE presented a Petition, signed by a large number of Members of the Stock Exchange, praying that this Bill might be so amended that the rights of the bondholders and other creditors of railway companies might be duly protected. The noble Lord proceeded to say that as he could not address their Lordships in Committee, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few observations with reference to some of the provisions of the Bill. In the Bill as originally framed were clauses providing for the sale of insolvent railways under certain circumstances; but it was found that the difficulty of effecting such sales would be so great that the Select Committee struck out all those clauses. At the present moment, therefore, the Bill retained only the arrangement clauses, which enabled the directors to submit a scheme for relieving a railway company from its difficulties. If such scheme were assented to by a certain number of the shareholders and debenture-holders, the Court of Chancery might then sanction it; but as the provision for the sale of railways if the scheme should fail, had been omitted from the Bill, it appeared to him objectionable to retain these arrangement clauses. He intended, therefore, to move that they be struck out. In regard to arrangements, the present Bill went far

  157
  beyond any measure which had yet received the sanction of Parliament. The importance of maintaining the credit of debentures secured on railways could hardly be over-rated. They were regarded as most valuable securities, and amounted at the present time to about £100,000,000. He believed the passing of this Bill would produce very serious consequences, because it would enable a company which fell into difficulties to obtain priority for the money they required over these securities, against the consent of the holders. In addition to his notice to omit Clauses 6 to 20, which related to arrangements, he intended to propose some minor Amendments. He thought that there ought to be a limitation as to the interest to be permanently allowed on debenture stock, and he proposed to move, as an addition to Clause 21, a proviso that whenever a company created any debenture stock bearing a higher interest than 5 per cent, it should fall to that rate at the end of seven years. He should not, as Chairman, take any part in the discussion of the Bill in Committee; but should he have occasion to make any further remarks, he would do so on the Report.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, it was certainly true that the Bill had come from the Select Committee in a very different form from that in which it was originally sent to it, but he thought the Committee came to a proper conclusion when they decided to strike out that part of the Bill which related to the sale of railways. They had not had sufficient evidence before them to warrant their proceeding with those clauses. He did not think, however, that the Committee by so doing had made the Bill useless. He could not concur with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees that clauses from 6 to 20 ought to be expunged. He thought the adoption of the arrangement clauses would be very beneficial. His noble friend objected to that portion of the Bill which allowed the creation of pre-preference stock. That, however, was a matter which had been much discussed before the Committee, and the Committee having decided that the clauses bearing upon it ought to remain in the Bill, he (the Duke of Richmond) was not disposed to agree to his noble Friend's proposal to strike them out. With regard to that part of the Bill which related to loan capital and debenture stock, giving the companies unlimited power to raise money
  158
  at whatever percentage they might think fit, that matter was also much discussed in Committee, and the Committee felt that companies in such a position as to require those arrangements were in most cases—probably in all cases—the best judges of what they required, and that they ought to be left to borrow money in that manner which they thought best. If they could borrow money at 5 per cent they were not likely to pay 7 per cent for it. Their Lordships would not be justified in restricting them more than any other persons in such a matter. He should object, therefore, to his noble Friend's Amendment upon that point. With regard to the audit clause, he had some doubts as to how it would affect the companies, and as he had not seen the clause before, he would ask his noble Friend to withdraw it now, and to bring it up again on the Report.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees appeared to think that the Bill would have a disastrous effect on public credit in the course it proposed with regard to debentures. There could be no doubt that when the Bill came up to this House from the House of Commons, providing as it did for the sale of railways that could not meet their engagements, very considerable alarm was felt by shareholders at the prospect of what might be a sacrifice of their property. After a great deal of consideration the Committee decided that, although some provision must be made for companies unable to meet their engagements, still it was impossible to pass clauses for that purpose until considerably more consideration had been given to the subject. The noble Lord had inferred to the Petition from the Stock Exchange, and appeared to think that the members of that body were very anxious for the security of debentures; but he (Lord Cairns) thought the Stock Exchange were a body who cared very little indeed about debentures, or whether the credit of debentures was destroyed or not. The Stock Exchange simply said in their Petition that they viewed with alarm the clauses of the Bill which related to a compulsory sale of railways, as providing means for the destruction of the interests of the proprietors in railway property, and they begged to impress on their Lordships that such provisions were intended for the benefit of the debenture class of persons who had advanced the smallest portion of

  159
  the capital, at the expense and sacrifice of the share class, who had advanced upwards of three-fourths of the capital. He did not think that supported the view taken by the noble Lord. The Stock Exchange would be satisfied as the winding-up clauses had been struck out.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he agreed to a great extent in the views of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. Much anxiety was felt out of doors with reference to the Bill. There was no parallel to the amount of the railway securities except the aggregate of the National Debt. The holders of the various classes of widely-differing securities with different rights attached to them were necessarily very jealous and suspicious of each other, being naturally anxious that the rights and claims of their own class should not be unjustly postponed to those of any other. Under these circumstances, it became the duty of their Lordships to look most cautiously and narrowly upon all propositions submitted for their consideration, involving the relative rights of different classes. Bondholders formed a very peculiar class, between £100,000,000 and £150,000,000 being invested in this form of security, and the arrangement clauses of the Bill may interfere very seriously with their rights. The proposition was that when a railway company was unable to satisfy the demands of its creditors a scheme should be submitted to the Court of Chancery, not for the purpose of winding-up the concern, or, as in the case of ordinary insolvency, of handing over the management to the creditors, but for the purpose of raising further capital to enable the company to extricate itself from its embarrassments and to continue its operations easily and prosperously. The money so to be raised was not for the advantage of the debenture-holders, but clearly for that of the original shareholders, who would reap all the benefits of the re-establishment of the company on a solvent basis, and ought, therefore, to raise the necessary funds from their own resources. There was nothing to justify their Lordships in subjecting the bondholder to any obligation whatever, without his direct personal consent. It might be said that the bondholder would be benefited to some extent by the arrangement, inasmuch as he would otherwise fail to receive his interest regularly. But, on the other hand, if the company could not pay its way the railway might be handed over, as in the
  160
  case of ordinary property, to the creditors, allowing the debenture-holders and preference shareholders to make what they could of it. In such a case there might be some ground for saying that the minority of debenture-holders should be bound by the majority in deciding as to the working or ultimate disposal of the line, but not for urging that debenture-holders should be bound against their will to assent to any scheme for the benefit of ordinary shareholders. The position of the bondholder, and his right of priority over all other claimants is simple and distinct; at the same time, the question is one of momentous importance, and in legislating upon it care must be taken not to violate those primary principles of justice and right upon which all property in this country is founded. As long as confidence was unshaken, there was little difficulty in dealing with the debentures. The companies relied upon their being either renewed by the holders when the first period expired, or else upon finding other capitalists disposed to accept them. Under ordinary circumstances there were always persons willing to lend money, upon undoubted security, for short periods, at fixed rates of interest, without participating either in profits or losses. But the classes to whom he referred will read with close attention the debates upon this Bill, and if they find that the security upon which they have hitherto relied so confidently became the subject of doubt and discussion, distrust amounting to something like a panic will be created; the debentures as they fall due will not be renewed or taken up by other investors, and the consequence will be that companies, otherwise in easy circumstances, will be crippled. Therefore, whether their Lordships looked to the justice or the policy of the case, the right course was to bear in mind the true nature of the railway bond, and to take no stop which would weaken the credit of it in public estimation.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDadmitted the great difficulties with which this question was surrounded, but maintained that it was absolutely necessary for the sake of the railway companies themselves, and of the holders of their securities, as well as of the public at large, that it should be dealt with by Parliament. He quite agreed that there ought to be some power which would prevent abuses, and give greater security to the shareholders. It

  161
  appeared to him that the only security which they could have was that they should possess a proper knowledge of what was proposed to be done by the directors. No doubt the shareholders were primarily liable, and therefore it was but right that they should have accurate information of what was proposed to be done. With respect to the preference shareholders, generally speaking, they knew very little indeed of what was going on, and therefore it was nothing but right that no scheme should be adopted unless it had the assent of three-fourths of them. At the same time it was quite obvious that the effect might be that the holders of a few shares might possibly step in and prevent any arrangement from being carried out which was concurred in by the general body of shareholders. Nothing but the extreme difficulty of the case and the involved condition of several railways had induced him to accede to the pressure which had been put upon him and consent to the alteration in the Bill. The general credit of the country was very much shaken by the events which took place last year, and he would be the last man in the House to press forward a Bill which might affect credit still more; but the difficulties had reached such a height that it was absolutely impossible for the railways to go on without some general measure being passed for their guidance.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, that the Select Committee to which this measure had been referred, having discussed every clause in the Bill and had a division upon almost every one, it was a little hard to find that every clause was now attacked by some one who had been defeated in the Committee. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees objected to one clause, the noble Lord opposite to another, and other noble Peers to other clauses. In point of fact, if all their objections prevailed, there would not be a single clause left in the Bill. With respect to the preference shareholders, he thought the Bill would be for their benefit, because three-fourths of them would never assent to any proposition putting a preference over them unless they found that, if they did not, there was very little chance of their getting a dividend at all. It might be therefore taken that the preference shareholders would only assent to that which was for their own benefit. This Bill was one to enable a railway in difficulties to go to the Court of Chancery, and, if possible, make
  162
  same arrangement to enable it to go on. The noble Lord opposite was anxious that the power of sale over the rolling stock should remain in the hands of the creditors; but the effect of that would be that such a power might be pressed at aninconvenient time with the intention of bringing down the shares to a point far below their value, and then the very men who had assisted to bring about that state of affairs might step in, and out of the misfortunes of others make a very handsome fortune. At present the power of sale was not to lie for twelve months, which would carry them over the nest Session, and then if it were found absolutely necessary that there should be a sale it ought to be arranged by an Act of Parliament. This matter had assumed greater importance since the decision of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), because it would never be worth the while of large debenture-holders to seize the rolling stock; it was only small holders that would be tempted to do so, and no railway which had the slightest regard for its own reputation would permit its rolling stock to be seized for the purpose of securing a small debt. As the Bill left the House of Commons all the property of the Company, real and personal, could be seized; but that clause had been altered, on the ground that to permit the rolling stock to be seized might greatly inconvenience the public. He did not think it a proper way of treating the Bill that all those who were in a minority in the Committee should now get up in this House and attack the clauses seriatim.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he did not refer to the question of the sale, because that power had been taken out of the Bill, but to the Petition, which stated that great alarm was felt in monetary circles with respect to the proposed interference with the rights of parties. The proposal to give power to sell the railway in no degree interfered with those rights.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Restriction on Execution, against Personal Property of Company).
  LORD CAIRNSmoved, after page 14, line 1, to insert ("the term judgment includes decree, order, or rule"). As the Bill came up from the House of Commons it affected the rolling stock of the companies, but it was only protected against

  163
  the execution of creditors who became such after the Act passed. He felt sure that no clause would be agreed to which interfered with the existing rights of creditors. If they agreed to the clause as it stood, they would take away for a year from creditors who had advanced goods to a railway upon the faith of having the ordinary remedy by judgment and execution, and would allow the railway company to sell the rolling stock. At the end of the year, therefore, the creditor might find the rolling stock in the hands of other parties without having any remedy whatever.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYopposed the Amendment. In the opinion of the Select Committee, if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord was passed, the whole benefit, which it was expected would be derived from the clause by exempting the rolling stock, would be destroyed.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord as to the opinion of the Select Committee. The feeling of the Committee at first was that the words proposed or words to the same effect should be in the clause, but by some means or other the words were struck out, and when the mistake was discovered there was an indisposition to re-open the question. He thought it, however, a very strong measure that the rights, which persons who had sold goods to a company at present possessed, should be taken away.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Preparation and filing of Scheme Arrangement).
  LORD OVERSTONEobjected to the clause, and moved its omission. In his opinion it was most unjust that when railway companies were unable to cope with their difficulties they should have power to go to the Court of Chancery, and with its sanction create pre-preference securities.
  On Question that the said clause stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 35; Not-Contents 14: Majority 21.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Richmond, D.

  Exeter, M.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Winchester, M.

  Devonshire, D.

  Airlie, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  De Grey, E.

  164

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Cairns, L.

  Clarina, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) [Teller.]

  Colonsay, L.

  Home, E.

  Denman, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Powis, E.

  Seaton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Spencer, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Templemore, L.

  Templetown, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Granville, E.

  Overstone, L. [Teller.]

  Lichfield, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Wenlock, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Monson, L.

  Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 262).

AGRICULTURAL GANGS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to postpone Legislation upon the Subject of Public Agricultural Gangs until the Commission, lately re-appointed, has reported? The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had lately introduced a Bill on this subject, and showed the very great evils arising from public agricultural gangs in use in five or six counties only, and involving the employment of some 6,000 or 7,000 children. After the second reading of this Bill it was withdrawn, but some further explanation seemed to be required from the Government, on the subject. It appeared to him that the question of agricultural gangs was capable of being dealt with apart from the general question of the employment of children in agriculture. In his opinion the subject was one which imperatively demanded immediate legislation. One of the Assistant-Commissioners, speaking of the system in its most favourable form, said—
  "The subjection of the gangworkers to one of their own class, however respectable he may be, as their only master and employer, places them in an anomalous position as labourers, deprives them entirely of those motives for good conduct or respectable behaviour which naturally accompany

  165
  the relations beween the employer and the employed, and encourages a feeling of independence as regards the upper classes of society which shows itself in that rude and disorderly behaviour which characterizes the gangworkers in almost every parish where this system prevails."
  This was the main objection to the system. The next point was that the children engaged by these public gangmasters were generally much younger than those employed in the ordinary course of agricultural labour. On this point the same Gentleman (Mr. Longe) said—
  "It would appear, moreover, to be the tendency of the common gang system to bring even younger children into field work than the private gang system. Wherever the two systems are found working together the younger children are always in the common gang. The faculty of making little children work is the peculiar art of the gangmaster, and the common objection of farmers to employing children themselves is the difficulty of getting any work out of them without a regular gangmaster."
  Then the wages of the children of course suffered material reduction, part of their earnings going into the pockets of the person engaging them. Moreover, children of tender age—five, six, or seven years old—were sent to a distance from their homes and employed by a farmer who had no interest in them, and knew nothing about them. This was another of the evils attending the employment of children in public agricultural gangs. Now, without in any way raising the very difficult question of what was necessary in the way of legislation for regulating the employment of children in agricultural labour generally, he thought that one thing was necessary for the proper conduct of these public gangs—namely, that the person who had the control of them should have a licence from the magistrates in Petty Sessions. That licence might be granted upon a certificate of fitness to have children employed in gangs from either magistrates, Boards of Guardians, or other respectable persons living in the neighbourhood; and a condition might be imposed upon the gangmaster to the effect that he should not employ mixed gangs of boys and girls. But that the hour was so late, he would have made some remarks upon the serious subject of the employment of mixed gangs. The statements made on this point in the Report of the Children's Employment Commission must have startled all who read them. He felt strongly that, if it were possible, there ought to be immediate legislation with the view of checking the very great evils that had been brought to
  166
  light. If it went merely to the extent he had suggested, it would do much to check these evils for a time, and until the whole subject of the employment of children in agriculture could be dealt with by the Legislature.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, the subject was one of very great interest, and deserving of some consideration. On the publication of the Report of the Children's Employment Commission a measure was introduced in that House by a noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury)—who took great interest in all questions affecting the welfare of the labouring classes—which would have met to some extent the difficulty and the evils of the gang system. That measure had been withdrawn, the noble Earl thinking that the questions involved in it could not be discussed with any probability of the Bill being passed this Session. This occurred at the end of last week, and it was then the question arose as to what course could be taken with regard to the public gangs working in certain districts. As soon as his attention had been called to the subject by the Notice given of this Question he conferred with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he was now able to state that the opinion of the Government was that, although the questions raised in the Report concerning public gangs were much intermixed with those affecting private gangs, and the whole question of the education and condition of the agricultural labouring classes was involved, yet there were two points connected with public agricultural gangs that could be dealt with. The Report showed that in a comparatively small district, in which, perhaps, 7,000 or 8,000 children were employed in public agricultural gangs, there was a state of things which was a crying evil, and almost a shame to the county, and which could not be permitted to pass unnoticed any longer. The Government were of opinion that, late as it was in the Session, it would be their duty to introduce a Bill which should go to the extent of requiring the masters of these gangs to take out licences from Petty Sessions and of prohibiting the employment of mixed gangs; and the Government hoped and believed that such a Bill might be passed this Session, while, in their opinion, it would materially reduce the evils of the gang system, it would not be a measure commensurate with the evils which had to be dealt with. The Government did not yet possess all the

  167
  information necessary to enable them to deal with the whole question, which was not likely to be ripe for discussion for some time, but they thought they would not be warranted in delaying the attempt to legislate upon the two points he had named, and, therefore on an early day, a Bill would be laid upon the table of the House. Whether it could pass or not this Session depended very much upon the feeling of Parliament in both Houses. Members and noble Lords had been in possession of the Report of the Commission since the commencement of the year, and knew the extent to which the evils in question had already gone, and the probability there was that, if they were left alone they would be greatly increased and intensified. He could not say more than that Government would attempt legislation this Session upon the points he had indicated.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYhoped that this House and the other House of Parliament, seeing that there was a great evil demanding an immediate remedy, would be inclined to pass the Government measure this Session.

COURTS OF LAW OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 254.)—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved the second reading of this Bill, which was founded on the second Report of a Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Court of Chancery and the superior Courts of Common Law in Ireland. A Bill founded on the first Report, the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill, had been passed this Session. This Bill, which, with one or two exceptions, carried out the recommendations of the Commission, was divided into two parts—the first relating to the appointment of officers and the consolidation of Courts, and the second to the superior Courts of Common Law; and he understood that the second part was likely to call forth Amendments to which he should not offer opposition.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.