Lords Sitting of 18 July 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Life Assurance Companies (190); British Columbia (123); Curragh of Kildare* (183); Judicial Committee (212); Magistrates, &c. Election (Scotland)* (187).
Committee—Married Women's Property (196–216); Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* (154–217); Liverpool Admiralty District Registrar* (170–218).
Committee—Report—Passengers Act Amendment* (176).
Third Reading—Prayer Book (Tables of Lessons) (202); Customs and Inland Revenue* (146); Siam and Straits Settlements Jurisdiction* (197); Charitable Funds Investment* (181); Rents and Periodical Payments* (180), and passed.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—QUESTION.
EARL RUSSELL: I wish to put a Question to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the late negotiations respecting the differences between France and Prussia, of which I have given him private Notice. It is now unhappily but too certain that the calamity of war has befallen Europe. The first intimation we had upon the subject was by the statement of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs on the 5th July; and some days afterwards an announcement was made that France would declare war, and I have since heard that that declaration of war has been sent to Berlin. Now, if the French Government had stated what were their grounds for declaring war, and had not the French Chambers unanimously approved the course of their Government, I should not, as a Member of the British Parliament, have thought of putting any Questions on the subject, unless upon a regular Motion in this House; but it appears that the French Ministers have represented Her Majesty's Government as approving the course they have pursued. On the 11th of July, M. de Gramont said—"Up to the present all the European Cabinets appear to admit the legitimacy of our complaints," and on the 15th M. Ollivier, the Prime Minister, said—
"We commenced negotiations with the foreign Powers to invoke their good offices with Prussia, in order that the legitimacy of our grievances might be recognized. The majority of the Powers admitted with more or less warmth the justice of our demands."
Now on these statements of the French Minister several questions arise. Of course, no one would wish my noble Friend to undertake the responsibility of doing more than he has actually done with the laudable purpose of preventing war; but I wish to ask him, in the first place, whether he will make a regular statement such as was made in 1823 and 1854, in the former year with reference to the failure of the negotiations for preventing a war with Spain, and in the latter year with reference to the war with Russia? I wish, secondly, to ask, whether
380
the "approbation with more or less warmth" of Her Majesty's Government simply applied to the belief entertained by the French Government that they had good ground to complain that Prussia had sanctioned the candidature of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern for the Spanish Throne without informing France of it, or whether it extended to the threat of war, which was part of the communication made to the French Chambers at the same time? I ask, in the third place, whether the approbation of Her Majesty's Government—assuming that such approbation was given—extended to the further demands which were made by the French Government after the nomination of the hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern had been withdrawn; and I wish to ask why, if it was necessary in the view of the French Government that there should be a declaration to the effect that the Prince should never hereafter be a candidate for the Spanish Throne, that demand was not addressed to Spain, which was the Power supposed to be about to accept him? I think it would be more convenient if, instead of our asking for information on particular and incidental points, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would make an explicit statement, in the manner I have already intimated; but I think that, at all events, the House and the public in general have a right to know the truth as to this negotiation—short as it was, and which has ended so disastrously—and what part was taken by our own Government. I have not myself the slightest doubt that my noble Friend did not approve anything which he ought not to have approved, and that his efforts were directed to the maintenance of peace in Europe; but it is desirable that such information should be communicated to the public through the medium of an official announcement on which they may rely. I will not add another word, for I do not wish to enter into any discussion as to whether France was justified or not in its demands, and Prussia in its refusal.
LORD CAIRNS: I also wish to put a Question to the noble Earl, which he, perhaps, may find it convenient to answer—namely, Whether, in the present state of affairs on the Continent, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament any measure for the amendment of our law for

381
the enforcement of neutrality of our subjects in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission which sat a few years ago?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it may be more convenient if I first answer the Question which the noble and learned Lord has first put to me. The recommendation to which he refers was made all but unanimously by a Commission which was very ably constituted, and its object was to strengthen the power of the Secretary of State with regard to suspected violations of neutrality—and especially with regard to the fitting out of vessels of war in British ports. I am glad the noble and learned Lord has put the Question, for it implies his continued belief in the wisdom of that recommendation. My reply is, that it is my intention immediately to introduce a Bill for that purpose. With reference to the Questions of my noble Friend (Earl Russell) I would first remind him that in the private Notice which he was good enough to give me, he mentioned two Questions only, one of which he has omitted to put, and that he did not mention the three last. I can only say that, of course I am most desirous to withhold no information from the House. I stated the other day what was the beginning of our policy, and added that we had continued to adhere to it—promising to lay before your Lordships at the earliest opportunity all the Papers connected with this very sad event. That promise I hope to perform in the course of a few days. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands, but I cannot help thinking that it would be more convenient, and perhaps fairer to the Government, that your Lordships should have those Papers in your hands before I make a general statement. I should prefer to make such a statement when liable to be corrected by what your Lordships have been able to read, instead of asking you now to accept an ex parte statement. With regard to the apparent discrepancy between the statement of M. de Gramont and my statement in this House, I am happy to say I believe there is no difference as to the facts which I then stated. I believe that neither M. Ollivier, nor M. de Lavallette, nor M. de Gramont could in the slightest way impugn the perfect accuracy of what I said. I think, indeed, your Lordships will see that I said less than the Papers
382
warranted me in saying. I understand, however, that it is not as to facts that there is any difference, but that M. de Gramont has drawn an inference—which is always of course a matter of opinion. That inference, which I do not admit, he thinks he draws from the fact that most of the European Governments certainly exercised their influence in promoting some peaceful solution of the question. That, however, is a question which your Lordships will be better able to judge of when the Papers are before you; and, therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will make no statement till that time, when it will be my duty to make the fullest statement possible. It is unfortunately too true that yesterday evening a declaration of war was forwarded from Paris to Berlin. That will necessitate an immediate proclamation of neutrality on our part. I am happy to say that a fortnight ago our relations with France, with Spain, and with Prussia were all of the most friendly character; and although during the last 10 days we have used the strongest language compatible with their dignity and our own self-respect, I am happy to state I believe that language has not affected those friendly relations up to this time. Whatever may be the habit of free discussion in this country, I am quite sure your Lordships will think that Her Majesty's Government are bound to maintain that attitude of dignified reserve which will best enable us to maintain our rights as neutrals, to show perfect impartiality and justice to both parties, and in the end, when these clouds give signs of passing away, to act with more usefulness whenever there is a chance of restoring peace.

ROYAL MINT.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I rise to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the past and present management of the Mint, and although I very much regret that it is the intention of the Government not to assent to my Motion, I feel bound, nevertheless, to call your Lordships' attention to the mismanagement of the Department to which my Motion refers. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that when the Coinage Bill was under consideration I moved for certain Returns connected with the gold coinage,

  383
  my object being to show that considerable loss occurred in the process of coining. Some of those Returns were granted, but others were refused on the plea that they were too voluminous to lay on your Lordships' Table. But I have made inquiries, and find that refusal was made because the officials of the Mint did not wish for any searching inquiry, and because the Returns would have exposed certain malpractices connected with the coinage. I also moved, when the Bill was in Committee, for certain Returns connected with the coinage of silver and the transactions between the Bank of England and the Mint. I was informed on that occasion that no record was kept of those transactions; I saw at the time that was a subterfuge, and that the officials know these Returns would disclose certain malpractices at the Mint which they would prefer were not made public, for not only is a record of these transactions kept but the Returns could be granted with ease. I have found, however, that a Return has been presented to the House of Commons, which gives me the principal part of the information I desired to obtain by the Returns for which I moved. That Return, I have heard said, is not strictly correct; but it is a Return presented to Parliament, and as far as the figures to which I wish to refer are concerned I have reason to believe they must be correct. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) who answered me on that occasion, admitted that as regards the gold there was great loss in coinage. He said that although the Government was not supposed to make money by the gold coinage, they made a considerable sum by the silver; and at another time (on the 24th March) he said that although there was a loss resulting from keeping the silver up to the proper standard, through wear and tear, yet on the manufacture there was a profit of something like £20,000 a year. Now, I am not going to hold the noble Marquess to any statement he made on that occasion, because not being himself connected with the Mint he must have been dependent on the officials; but I can assure him that statement is entirely erroneous. It is quite true that a profit was made in the Mint in the year 1859 of £27,032 on the coinage of silver, and this arose from the large quantity coined and the very small purchase of worn coin,
  384
  £647,064 worth of silver was coined in that year as against a yearly average of £341,018, and the purchase of worn coin amounted to only £8,096 as against the average of £14,633. But although this profit of £27,032 was made in this year, there was a loss of £5,373 during the next nine years. Now, my Lords, as regards the coinage of silver, there should be an uniform profit. The price of silver is 5s. 1d. or 5s. 1⅜d. per ounce, so that there should be a profit of 7½ per cent upon the silver coin. In 1868 the sum purchased was £312,252, which should have yielded a profit of £23,368, but the Return showed a loss of £10,896; so that, adding the loss on to what the profit should have been, we find that the Mint was £34,265 on the wrong side that year in its silver coinage; but inasmuch as the loss on the purchase of worn silver was £18,058 in that year, the net loss to the Mint through mismanagement was £16,207. Now, what became of that sum of money? How has it disappeared? The noble Lord admits gold was abstracted during the process of coining, and I say that the loss now arises from peculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself contradicts the noble Lord, and admits that there is a loss on silver, for in the Estimates I find he asked the House of Commons to vote £1,000 to make good the loss on silver, in addition to £15,000 for the loss occasioned by repairing that coinage for the coming year, which has to be paid out of the pockets of the people instead of the Exchequer being replenished by the legitimate profit of £20,000. But the most extraordinary loss is in the coinage of copper. One ton of copper costs about £100, and when converted into coin it is worth £358, giving an actual gross profit of £258; yet I find the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for £1,000 last year to make good the loss on the copper coinage. I have been rather amused to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking slightingly of the loss on the gold coinage, saying in all probability it went up the chimney. I think it is more likely to have gone up "the spout." Now, I find another item in the Estimates of £1,800 for the expenses of an inquiry into foreign mints. This represents the expenses of three gentlemen who are going to inquire into the method of coining adopted on the Continent;

  385
  but, on inquiry, I find that nearly all the machinery in use in foreign mints went from this country, so that we could ascertain all we want to know about the practice in foreign mints, by making inquiries of certain engineering firms in this country. I may be told that the foreign mints may have improved on the machinery supplied to them, but even this may be ascertained without going to this enormous expense. Moreover, most of the coining on the Continent is done by contract, and it is not likely that contractors will give a Government Commissioner, who is competing with them by advertisement, much information as to the way in which, they carry on their work; so that altogether this £1,800 will be completely thrown away. And who are the gentlemen commissioned to make this inquiry? The Deputy Master is one of them—a most excellent, financial man; but, unfortunately, he knows nothing of the practical part of the business, and will gain very little by his trip. Then there is Mr. Roberts, lately appointed chemist to the Mint; he is to go, but his qualifications for the post are very doubtful. Ever since the Mint was taken out of the hands of those contractors who were called the "moneyers," the appointments there have formed one uniform system of jobbery. The appointments were regarded as political prizes, and so distributed; but an outcry was raised, and matters were smoothed over by appointing two scientific men successively to the office of Master of the Mint. Neither of them, however, knew anything of the process of manufacture, and their management was signalized by increased losses. Then we were told this would all be done away with, but now we have another nice little job perpetrated by the appointment of Mr. Roberts, a gentleman of no very great talent, to the office of chemist. Well, Mr. Roberts is to go on this Commission of Inquiry, and the third gentleman is Mr. Napier, one qualified in every respect for the duty, but for all that the very last man who should have been sent. In 1858 a sum of £1,100 was set apart for the purchase of a filing machine in accordance with an estimate sent in by Mr. Napier for the purpose; but, before the order was executed, an officer in the Mint made a machine answering every purpose which cost only £60, and nobody knows what became of this £1,100. I believe this Commission
  386
  is going to Spain, but Mr. Napier manufactured the machinery in use there, so he is going to Spain to see how his own machines work, and he is to receive £2,000 for doing it. Perhaps, however, as the war has broken out the trip will be postponed. Now, my Lords, what I say I am prepared to substantiate before a Committee, and I challenge contradiction. That an inquiry is needed even at this late period of the Session is patent, for the House of Commons has only recently voted no less than £18,000 to make up the losses in the Mint. I have been told that Mr. Fremantle and Mr. Rivers Wilson have made a report on the subject of some of these complaints, and have suggested improvements; but these improvements would have no effect upon the working of the establishment, and would not touch the main defects in the system. One of the alterations made in consequence of that report was a revision of the scale of wages. Formerly the workmen had a retaining fee varying from 6s. to 10 s. per week when unemployed, and a certain wage beside when at work. But the pay was very small, and it was thought this might lead to peculation. The scale has accordingly been revised by the payment of £1 per week as retaining fee, but the revision is calculated to give the men a little less on the whole, a result to be expected when the arrangement was made by so skilful a financier as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the country saves £100 a year out of the workmen's wages. But the most extraordinary part of the revision is to come; and this affords another instance with the sugar duties, hawkers' licences, and the gun tax, of the readiness with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer jumps to conclusions, without being at the trouble to inform himself upon the subject in hand. The workmen are by this new scale to receive less when coining gold than when coining silver, although the temptation to peculation is greater; so that at the time when their honesty should be secured by good payment, they are to be treated with a niggardly hand, and who can be surprised if they help themselves? The noble Marquess says there has been only one case of dismissal for peculation; but, if he inquires further, he will find there have been 12. No prosecution has followed these dismissals

  387
  nor even an inquiry. Prosecutions would not be palatable to the Mint authorities, because they would expose the system. Now, I can assure your Lordships, that these statements I have made are true in every respect, and I challenge contradiction; and I trust the Government will think the facts really demand a searching inquiry. More than a year since, I brought the subject before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was pooh-poohed, and I was told that a private inquiry would be made: but no inquiry has been made, and the system remains unamended. I therefore move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the past and present management of the Mint.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the past and present management of Her Majesty's Royal Mint.—(The Lord Rossie.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I regret that it is my duty to decline to accede to the Motion of the noble Lord, but I feel sure your Lordships will admit, when I have made a brief statement of the facts of the case, that the Government is warranted in refusing the Committee. I must admit that two cases of peculation have occurred at the Mint; but the persons concerned were dismissed, and there has been no reason to suspect a recurrence of the practice; I am sure, therefore, the noble Lord is under a misapprehension, when he says there have been 12 cases of dismissal for peculation during the last few years. As regards the charge of wasteful management, I must repeat the statement I made on a previous occasion. The noble Lord, I fear, confuses two things—namely, the loss occurring from the necessity of keeping the silver coinage up to the proper standard, and the gain which accrues from the coining; and, on the whole, there is a distinct gain, although I may, on a previous occasion, have overstated the amount. There is, notwithstanding the information of which the noble Lord appears to be possessed, a gain of £5,000 a year on the silver coinage. The amount of waste on the gold coinage has, within the last few years, been extremely moderate: it is, at present, 1s. per £100; and an eminent firm of refiners in the City have given an opinion that this is very satisfactory. So much for the past. With regard to the present, I must say that as the Department has recently been reorganized,
  388
  it would be hardly fair, before it had got into full working order, to institute an inquiry. The staff has been reduced, thus effecting a saving on this year's Estimates of £5,000; the system of the payment of wages has been altered, resulting in a small saving and in a marked effect on the staff; and the melting and coining departments have been united, avoiding that apparent confusion between the accounts of the two departments, which has, in some respects, misled the noble Lord. Lastly, I come to the Commission of Inquiry, which has been travelling on the Continent. Now, if the machines in use on the Continent have been mostly made at Birmingham, much may be learnt, as to their application and the character of the metals used, by the proposed inquiry. As regards the members of that Commission, I must say the noble Lord spoke in scarcely justifiable terms of Mr. Roberts, who is a very eminent chemist, and has proved his capabilities by devising a system for depriving gold of the obnoxious properties on which the noble Lord recently commented. The noble Lord did not fail to admit that Mr. Napier was eminently qualified for a post on the Commission; and, as regards the Deputy Master, he has exhibited great abilities in discharging the duties of his office, and I do not think the noble Lord has said a single word to show he has forfeited our good opinion. I have only a single word to add; and the noble Lord must forgive me if I speak candidly. The noble Lord will recognize this book which I hold in my hand; it contains the larger portion of the charges made by the noble Lord; and I ask him whether it is good that he should endeavour to throw discredit on a recently re-organized Department upon the basis of a pamphlet written by a discharged official of that Department?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I rise in consequence mainly of a remark made by the noble Lord on a previous occasion, which has occasioned considerable pain to the relatives of a late very distinguished public servant. As a personal friend of Professor Graham, the late Master of the Mint, a man of great eminence in all scientific matters, I feel it my duty to notice an imputation on his fidelity made by the noble Lord on a former occasion. On inquiry at the Treasury,

  389
  where there was no interest in defending the memory of a dead man, I have found that there was never a shadow of suspicion on Professor Graham's perfect integrity. There have been, no doubt, small cases of peculation, as, I take it, there always must be in a Department dealing with such valuable materials, and where many workmen are engaged; but they are detected as promptly as possible. I am afraid the noble Lord has been influenced by a clerk who was dismissed, or ceased to be employed, during Professor Graham's Mastership.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I am quite ready, as far as Professor Graham is concerned, to acquit him individually and personally from anything improper; all I have to say with regard to Professor Graham is that he was not a fit person for the office, as he continued the jobbery which he found in existence and which had prevailed there ever since the Mint was a Government office. He appointed his own brother, a calico printer, to an office for which he was entirely unfit not only on the ground of general incompetence, but from his well-known habits of intemperance. I am quite ready to admit that the bulk of the information I possess upon the subject is obtained from Mr. Ansell, who was for many years employed by the Master of the Mint, and who, as the Returns show, succeeded in making even the gold coinage a paying department, as it should be, instead, of a losing departent, as it is; but my statements are also founded on, and confirmed by, Returns presented to both Houses of Parliament. Mr. Ansell also put a stop to peculation, and made himself very unpopular among the officials in consequence. Mr. Ansell gave up very valuable appointments in order to fulfil his duties at the Mint, under the repeated promise of promotion when a vacancy should occur; and I am afraid I am responsible for what is called his dismissal, for, when I applied to the late Prime Minister for his promotion, Mr. Graham, who, in common with the other officials, feared an exposure from Mr. Ansell's promotion, wrote him a letter of dismissal as follows:—
  "Royal Mint, Sept. 28, 1868.
  "Dear Sir,—I regret to have to inform you that it is not in my power to continue your present engagement as an extra officer in the Coining Department, while the Mint is only so partially occupied as it has been for some time past. Your
  390
  assistance will not, therefore, be required beyond the 31st of December next.—I remain, faithfully yours,
  "THOMAS GRAHAM.
  "G. F. Ansell, Esq."
  After this dismissal the profit ceased and the loss recurred. I accordingly applied to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an inquiry; but I was treated rather summarily, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he deprecated any inquiry. Only two or three months, however, after giving him that notice, and while he was still engaged in the Mint, Mr. Graham warmly recommended him for the office of Gas Inspector to the Corporation of London, stating that he was a well-informed practical chemist, and "a man of tried integrity." Within three months after the Master of the Mint dismissed this officer — who, as the Returns will show, had saved the country some thousands—he writes this testimonial—
  "I beg to express the very favourable opinion which I entertain of Mr. G. F. Ansell's qualifications for the office of Inspector of Gas to the Corporation of London. Mr. Ansell is a well-informed practical chemist, and has given much attention for several years to gas. He is the inventor of an ingenious instrument for indicating the presence of fire-damp in the atmosphere of mines, which is much admired by scientific and practical men. Mr. Ansell is also a man of tried integrity and great energy. From what I have seen of him at the Mint I would say that he would devote himself entirely and conscientiously to the work of the new office, if appointed."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Who signed that letter?
  LORD KINNAIRD: Thomas Graham. And, notwithstanding this high testimony to the value of his services, this man was dismissed because he knew too much of what was going on in the Mint. I challenge the Mint authorities to prove a single statement in his book to be false. If they can, why do they not contradict him? They dare not. Mr. Ansell's book has been some months before the public, and if the Mint could have challenged his statements, which are very damaging, they would certainly have done so. I challenge contradiction. I am very glad the noble Lord has given me the opportunity of making this statement with regard to Mr. Graham, a talented man, but quite unable to cope with the clever men about him, unaided by Mr. Ansell. Now that Mr. Ansell has been dismissed, you see what is the result. The noble Lord has told your

  391
  Lordships of reforms which have been made at the Mint; but I can assure him I expect little good to result from those reforms, for the very men who then had charge of these departments, and who permitted the peculations and mismanagement which Mr. Ansell stopped, are the men who are now promoted to the chief management of the operative departments of the Mint. I hope, therefore, the matter will not be allowed to drop, for I am sure there is no Department in this or any other country more corrupt than the Mint.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNErose to explain. In the Table published by Mr. Ansell, the operation of melting appeared to have been left out of sight. The coining operations had been put forward, but the losing operations were kept behind. The statement in the memorial, in respect to the alleged promise made to Mr. Ansell, was absolutely without foundation.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdraw.

LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.
(The Duke of Richmrnd.)
LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.

  (NO. 190.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the measure originated in representations made to him when President of the Board of Trade. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cave), then Vice President, undertook to deal with the question; but a change of Government caused the measure to be in abeyance for some time, and when, subsequently, it passed through some stages in the House of Commons, Mr. Cave's illness necessitated its abandonment. He believed the present President of the Board of Trade was favourable to legislation on the subject, though, owing to his prolonged ill-health, he was not committed to any of the details of the Bill; and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), had rendered material assistance to Mr. Cave in its preparation—especially on some of the legal points which it involved. Admitting that Government should not interfere too much with private undertakings, he (the Duke of Richmond) did not
  392
  think the Bill went further in this direction than the Regulation of Railways Bill, passed during his presidency of the Board of Trade, which required railway companies to render accounts in a uniform manner, and to give shareholders the fullest information of their business transactions, which, he believed, had worked extremely well. Up to this time policyholders in assurance companies had had no voice, and little or no information, as to matters which deeply affected them. They represented something like £400,000,000, or half the amount of the National Debt, and no class of sufferers from the commercial disasters of the last few years was more to be pitied than policyholders. One company was transferred to another behind their backs; and he might mention as an instance that the Tontine Office was transferred to another office, the latter to the English and Irish Church, that to the British Nation, and that again to the European. The policyholder must either submit to such transfers or sacrifice all the money he had put by for his family; and one of the objects of the Bill was to put him on the same footing as the shareholder, by giving him a voice in questions of amalgamation or the transfer of business. The Bill also provided that life accounts should be kept separate from all other accounts, and all receipts in respect of life assurance carried to a separate fund, so that greater security would be afforded to the policyholder. It was further provided that statements of accounts should be prepared and laid before Parliament every year. Upon that point Prussia was so careful that she required insurance companies to obtain a concession from the Government before granting any life policies; they were then bound to show the amount of their receipts and expenditure; while the Government reserved to itself the right of withdrawing the concession should it any time deem the company to be in an unsatisfactory condition. Another provision of the Bill was that every company should, before commencing business, make a deposit of £20,000, to show that it was a bonâ fide undertaking. The result of the Bill, if passed into law, would be that small bubble companies would not come into existence, while strong companies would be much better managed. The latter part of the Bill would place the policyholders in the same

  393
  position before the Court, with respect to the winding-up of the company, as that in which the shareholders stood now. The result of its operation on the whole would, he felt satisfied, be to affect most favourably the interests of those provident people who sought to make provision for their families by giving a fresh stimulus in that direction, and thus tending to increase the welfare and prosperity of the country, which the fraudulent proceedings of the last few years had done so much to check.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to say that the Government approved of the general provisions of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BILL—(No. 123.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
BRITISH COLUMBIA BILL—(No. 123.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to make further provision for the government of the Colony of British Columbia, which was one of the youngest of our Colonies, and which was somewhat peculiarly situated, owing to the nature of its population, who were for the most part engaged in gold digging. It would be remembered that in 1866 Vancouver Island was united to British Columbia, and made subject to the Legislature of that Colony, which was increased in number, so as to provide for the representation of Vancouver Island. The Council of the Colony at present consisted of five Government officers, of eight councillors nominated by the Governor, and of nine others, who were considered unofficial members, who also had to be nominated by the Governor, but who, practically, were elected by the colonists. The practice, however, was not in accordance with the law; and while Her Majesty's Ministers did not think the Colony was in a position for the establishment of what was called responsible
  394
  government, they thought it was desirable that she should have a new Constitution, enabling the inhabitants to take a large part in the transaction of their own affairs. It was proposed, therefore, by the Bill that Her Majesty should, by means of an Order in Council, constitute a Legislature, consisting of the Governor and a Legislative Council—in fact, should give to the Colony a new Constitution. The new Council should consist of six Members appointed by the Governor, and nine to be elected by the people. Her Majesty was also empowered to delegate certain powers to the Governor, enabling him, by his proclamation, to determine the qualification of electors and elective members, to divide the Colony into convenient elective districts, to appoint returning officers, issue writs, to take the poll, and determine the validity of all disputed returns; and, generally, to see to the orderly conduct of the elections.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  LORD LYVEDENpointed out that the Bill would commit entirely to the hands of the Governor the power of controlling every step in the formation of the representative assembly, from determining the franchise of the electors, to the validity of the return of the elected. That he regarded as a great power to intrust to a man who was not in the highest order of colonial Governors. British Columbia was a most important Colony, and it would, in his opinion, have been more constitutional and statesmanlike to leave these details to be worked out in the same manner as had been done in previous cases, instead of deviating from the usual practice by putting them entirely under the control of the Governor.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that the change proposed by the Bill was by no means a large one. It would simply legalize a state of things which already existed in practice.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
(The Lord Cairns.)
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.

  (NO. 125.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that after the Bill had been read the second time, their Lordships had referred the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee, which, after examining its provisions with great zeal and diligence, had reported it with considerable Amendments to the House. These Amendments altered the Bill so much that he thought it would be a convenience to their Lordships if he briefly explained them. First of all, then, it was provided that the earnings of a married woman, whether they were wages or the result of trade, or of literary, artistic, or scientific skill, should be treated as though they were property settled to her separate use. The Bill next proceeded to deal with the mode of protecting investments which had been made by married women, whether by means of their earnings or otherwise. Under the existing law a husband might, after giving proper notice, withdraw from an ordinary savings-bank, or a Post Office savings-bank, any deposits placed there by his wife. The Bill, however, as amended, provided that all deposits made in the name of a married woman, or of a woman who might marry after she had made such deposit, should be deemed her separate property, as though she were an unmarried woman. The 3rd and 4th clauses provided that where a married woman, or any woman about to be married and her intended husband, might apply to the Governor of the Bank, or to the directors of any joint-stock company, that any sum not less than £20 of the public funds deposited, or about to be so, and any shares in the company, might be held by them as the separate property of the wife, and the dividends paid to her. This provision was greatly needed, because women who had saved up £100 or so were very unwilling to ask their future husbands to sign any documents with reference to it. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) had given notice of an additional clause dealing with shares in friendly societies in the same way; and this would improve the Bill still further. To all these clauses a Proviso was attached that if any
  396
  investments were made by a wife with the moneys of her husband, and without his consent, application might be made to the Court in a very summary way; and it was likewise provided that nothing contained in the Bill should authorize the making of any investment in fraud of creditors. With regard to personal property coming to a married woman as next of kin to a person dying intestate, it was provided that it should belong to her for her separate use. In like manner she would have the separate use of land coming to her as heir-at-law to an intestate person. The 9th clause would, in his opinion, prove highly beneficial. At present, if a husband affected a policy of insurance in his own name, intending it as a provision for his family, it became after his decease a part of his general estate and was available to pay his debts. Indeed, as it was one of the assets most easily got hold of, it was usually applied to that purpose. This Bill, however, provided that if a married woman effected an insurance on her own life or the life of her husband, expressing on the face of it that it was intended for her own separate use and benefit, it should enure accordingly. The next provision was a very important one; if a husband effected a policy of insurance which expressed upon the face of it that it was to be for the benefit of his wife and children, it should be deemed a trust for the benefit of the wife for her separate use, or of the wife and children, according to the interest so expressed, and should not be liable to the claims of his creditors; but if the Court should find that the policy had been effected and the premiums paid by the husband with intent to defraud his creditors, they would be entitled to receive out of the sum secured an amount equal to the premiums paid. After these explanations he trusted their Lordships would have no difficulty in going into Committee on the Bill.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, he thought the Bill as it now stood to be of a practical, workable character. It would enable married women to enjoy the benefit of any money they might have earned by their industry or talents. Even those who were adverse to some portions of the Bill agreed that this particular object ought to be carried out. But when the Bill came up from the other House of Parliament it was based on a very much

  397
  wider principle, emanating from an altogether different set of ideas. The Bill then proposed to treat a married woman in all respects as an unmarried one as far as property was concerned. Indeed, as far as the utter separation of property could bring about that result, it was a Bill to separate husband and wife. He would not now enter on a discussion as to whether that was desirable or not; but he might be allowed to remark that the opinions of those who advocated the entire separation of husband and wife as regards property had not been accepted by the community. He opposed the Bill when it was introduced into the House, but the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had now in reality framed a fresh measure.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he believed the Bill would prove one of the greatest social blessings ever brought about by legislation. Women were now closely competing with men as producers; he believed there were as many as 800,000 women employed at wages in England, and putting their earnings down so low as at £20 each, their total earnings would be £16,000,000 a year. Surely that was a sum which should be protected from the violence and rapacity of husbands. But he wished the Bill had also secured to the woman any savings she might have made from her earnings before marriage. One clause in the Bill secured these savings if invested in the savings-banks; that was a good provision as regarded money, because it would encourage providence; but money was not the only property a woman about to be married would be possessed of. How many young women possessed articles of value, such as jewellery and clothes, or had invested their savings in a sewing-machine or a mangle?—yet these were not secured to them by the Bill, and would become the property of the husband immediately after marriage.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Earnings of married women to be deemed their own property).
  LORD LYTTELTONsuggested that the Bill be made retrospective in its action.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that would be in violation of the principles which guided the legislation in such cases as this. To
  398
  make this Bill retrospective would be to take from many men what they now believed to be their property. The property of a married woman could not be effectually secured without the intervention of trustees, and the Bill made the Bank or the managers of savings-banks and joint-stock companies trustees as to such property as might be invested; but it was impracticable to protect a woman's earnings before marriage unless they had been invested.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Bill had been greatly improved in the Select Committee, and, he believed, when its provisions came to be understood, women would be quick to take advantage of it. As to particular chattels bought by a woman before marriage out of her own property, it had long been settled that they continued her separate property; and she might protect any property other than that provided for in the Bill by appointing a trustee.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Deposits in savings-bank by a married woman to be deemed her separate property).
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, it seemed to him that this and the next two clauses were founded on a total absence of principle. Married women were compelled by them to invest their money in one of four different ways—as a deposit in a savings-bank, as a Government annuity, in the funds, or in a joint-stock company, because they provided that if they were not so invested they should not have those savings protected by law for their separate use. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said they could appoint a trustee; but anyone who knew anything of the habits of the women whom it was proposed by this Bill to serve would know that such a thing as a trustee never entered their heads. What was needed was some simple process by which property of all kinds acquired by a married woman could be secured to her separate use. Why could it not be provided that any property a woman had should remain hers, unless the husband could prove that it belonged to him? He knew of an instance in which a widow married, bringing to her second husband the property of her first, and this second husband died, having willed the property away from the woman and her children.

  399
  He hoped that on the Report the question might be placed on some sound principle.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not admit that the clause was devoid of principle. The principle of the clause was that of carrying into the humbler ranks of life that protection to women that already existed in the higher ranks; that was, that property having been placed in some tangible form, should, through the intervention of trustees, be protected. It was impossible to secure property to the woman unless by pointing out how it was to be invested.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (As to married woman's property in funds) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (As to married woman's property in joint-stock company).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that whereas this clause provided that only paid-up shares might be conveyed to the separate use of a married woman, it made no similar provision in the event of the shares not being fully paid up. In the event of the shares, as far as they were paid up, becoming the sole property of the wife, to whom were the directors of a company to look for the payment of the remaining calls upon such shares—the husband being protected by another clause in the Bill from liability for his wife's debts?
  LORD CAIRNSexplained that the husband would not be liable for calls upon the shares not fully paid up, which had belonged to his wife before her marriage, until he committed some act that rendered him liable at law. He would, however, introduce an Amendment to meet the case referred to by the noble Marquess.
  EARL POWISinquired whether a married woman would have a right to vote at meetings of the company in respect of her shares?
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, she would have a right to vote if the shares stood upon the register in her name.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYmoved the following new clause after Clause 4:—
  "Any married woman, or any woman about to be married and her intended husband, may apply, in writing, to the committee of management of any industrial and provident society, or to the trustees of any friendly society, benefit building society, or loan society, duly registered, certified,
  400
  or enrolled under the Acts relating to such societies respectively, that any share, benefit, debenture right or claim whatsoever in, to, or upon the funds of such society to which the persons or persons so applying is or are entitled may be entered in the books of the society in the name of the woman as a married woman, entitled to her separate use; and it shall be the duty of such committee or trustees to cause the same to be so entered, and thereupon such share, benefit, debenture, right or claim shall be deemed to be the separate property of such woman, and shall be transferable and payable with all dividends and profits thereon as if she were an unmarried woman; provided, that if any such share, benefit, debenture, right, or claim has been obtained by a married woman by means of moneys of her husband without his consent, the Court may upon an application under section eight of this Act order the same and the dividends and profits thereon, or any part thereof, to be transferred and paid to the husband."
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Deposit of moneys in fraud of creditors invalid), agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Personal property coming to a married woman to be her own), agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Freehold property coming to a married woman to be her own), agreed to.
  LORD HOUGHTONmoved to insert the following clause:—
  "If any married woman after the passing of this Act become entitled to a sum of money not exceeding two hundred pounds as legatee under a will, it shall form part of her separate estate, unless the County Court Judge of the district in which she lives shall, upon the application of her husband, otherwise order; and the order of the said judge shall be binding and conclusive on the said married woman and her husband as to all or any part of the said sum so bequeathed."
  The Court of Chancery was in the habit of apportioning all legacies to the wife above £200 between the husband and wife. He thought the Bill should do the same thing for the poor woman that the Court of Chancery did for the rich woman.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, the noble Lord was about to proceed further than the Court of Chancery, because instead of apportioning the legacy between the husband and the wife, he proposed to give it altogether to the latter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought the point deserved attention and hoped the noble and learned Lord would consider it.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  An Amendment made by inserting the 1st November, 1870, instead of the 1st January, 1871 as the date when the Act shall come into operation.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 216.)

PRAYER-BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL—(No. 202.)
(The Lord Chancellor)
PRAYER-BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL—(No. 202.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that the professed object of this Bill was to carry into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission sanctioned by Convocation. Anything relating to public worship ought not to be regulated by Parliament merely, and probably in future such changes would be made in the same way as the changes now before the House had been made. But an Amendment had been introduced in Committee which was not in accordance with those recommendations — on the contrary, it was opposed to them. In the second part of the Bill, as it now stood, there was this passage—
  "Upon special occasions, to be approved by the Ordinary, other Lessons may, with his consent, be substituted for those which are appointed in the Table of Lessons."
  The word "special" had been introduced in Committee. Now, this was completely contrary to a decision come to by the Commission after full deliberation, for on a division the recommendation as it originally appeared in the Bill was carried by 14 votes against 10. He thought that such a change should not have been made without any notice whatever. Indeed, he must protest against the introduction of any changes in the recommendations of the Commission, as it would serve as a precedent for introducing changes in Parliament next year, when the other and more important recommendations of the Commission would probably come under consideration. He asked their Lordships to reinstate the original wording of this part of the Bill by striking out the word "special."
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, that the introduction of the word had been made in Committee by
  402
  the Archbishop of York, on the recommendation of several of the clergy, who thought it would conduce to the more effective working of the Bill; and he himself had concurred with his most rev. Friend in the advisability of the Amendment; but at the time he forgot the discussion and the decision on the subject by the Commissioners; but even now he must say that he thought it would be better for the Ordinary that the word "special" did precede "occasions." The real point had been whether or not they should leave it to the discretion of a conscientious clergyman, who objected to the reading of Lessons from the Apocrypha, to use other Lessons in their stead. The danger was that if the word were omitted, the clergy would not deal fairly with the Bill. He would speak frankly as far as one man could speak for another. When he said that when clergymen asked leave to omit the Apocrypha, on the ground that the feelings of their people were much opposed to it, he should consider that a special case. After all, it only referred to one or two Lessons in the course of a fortnight in the year. He thought, therefore, that the word might be retained.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when he recommended their Lordships to agree to this Amendment, he was not aware that the matter had been discussed by the Royal Commissioners, and that they had agreed nem. con. to omit the words. The Archbishop of York, who had also been in favour of the words, was also ignorant of these circumstances; and therefore he thought that the words ought to be struck out.
  EARL STANHOPEwas understood to be in favour also of omitting the word.
  Word "special" struck out.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL—(No. 212.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL—(No. 212.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the measure was introduced in fulfilment of an obligation into which he entered a short time since, when his noble and learned Friend Lord Westbury

  403
  brought before their Lordships' consideration the fact that there was a very heavy arrear of appeals from India, which could not be heard by the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, owing in a great degree to the present constitution of that Court, and owing also to some causes which existed in India. He had himself stated that one of the difficulties connected with the constitution of the Judicial Committee was that Judges of the Superior Courts were made ipso facto members of the Judicial Committee by the Act establishing that tribunal; but that, with regard to all other persons, there was only a power of appointing two persons to sit at one time as members of the Judicial Committee. The choice being thus limited, it was found that the members actually holding other judicial offices had little time to attend to the business of the Judicial Committee. The Chiefs of the Courts of Common Law could hardly on any occasion attend; the Master of the Rolls attended from time to time, and also one or other, and sometimes both, of the Lords Justices of Appeal. The retired Judges who were members likewise attended. There was a great advantage in putting on the Committee eminent members of the Bar, who, having retired from practice, were yet willing to devote themselves to this duty. At the present time nobody was under any obligation other than a moral one to attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee; and it was very difficult, under the circumstances he had mentioned, to maintain the Court as a tribunal sitting regularly de die in diem, like the other tribunals of the country during Term. The object of the present Bill, therefore, was twofold—firstly, to increase the number of persons who might be placed by Her Majesty on the Judicial Committee; and, secondly, to secure a special payment to a certain number of members—namely, four—of the Committee, in order that those who received such special payment, independently of any pension to which they might be entitled, should be held bound to attend the business of the Judicial Committee, as all other Judges were bound to attend the Courts to which they were attached. To effect that object, what the Bill proposed was this—to authorize Her Majesty, after the passing of the Act, by warrant under Her sign manual, to appoint two persons
  404
  who had filled the office of Judge of any of the High Courts of Judicature in India, or the office of Legal Member on the Council of the Governor General of India, to be members of the Judicial Committee; and it was proposed that there should be paid to each of those persons, during the time he serves as member of the Committee, a salary not exceeding £1,000 a year in addition to their pensions. In the case of the Chief Judge of the High Court of Calcutta retiring, he received a pension of, he thought, £2,000; and the Legal Member of the Council of the Governor General also had a considerable pension on his retirement. In addition to their pensions, those persons, on being appointed members of the Judicial Committee, would each receive £1,000 per annum; by which means he thought there would be no difficulty in securing their regular attendance, except during the vacations, for the despatch of appeals coming from India. It was proposed also to take power to appoint as members of the Committee any of the following persons, not exceeding two—that was to say, any person who had held the office of Judge of the Supreme Court of any possession of Her Majesty other than India, and any person being a barrister of not less than 15 years' standing; and each of them would be paid an annual sum, including any pension to which he may be entitled, so that the whole shall not exceed £2,500 a year. In that way it was thought they might place on the Judicial Committee members of the Bar who, having attained eminence and distinction in their profession, might be desirous of retiring to the quiet and much more dignified position of holding an office in which they might be eminently useful. He thought there would be no difficulty in finding men of that character in whom the public would have perfect confidence. The Bill further authorized the payment to any member of the Council other than those holding judicial office, or those appointed under this Act, an annual sum not exceeding £500. This especially referred to any of the retired Judges who might be members of the Judicial Committee. A Judge desirous of retiring from the Common Law Courts or the Court of Chancery had a pension allowed him. If he retired from the Common Law Courts he saved the expenses of the circuits, or about £500, and he would also have the £500

  405
  now proposed to give him, making a difference to him of £1,000 a year altogether, in addition to the pension he actually received. In that manner it was thought they might obtain for the Judical Committee members who would undertake the positive duty of regularly attending its sittings in the mode he had described. Lastly, the Bill contained a clause enabling the Judicial Committee to sit, if it thought fit, in two sections. That, he hoped, would have the effect of disposing of the present arrear of appeals from India, because they might place in each of those sections—having thus secured members bound to attend—a Judge from India, and also another Judge under an obligation to attend from the two members to be appointed in addition to the present Judicial Committee. And they would only want in each case a third person to preside, who might be found among the ordinary members of the Judicial Committee, all of whom now attended from time to time, but most of whom did not think it reasonable that they should be under the actual necessity of attending regularly from week to week and from day to day in the way in which the ordinary tribunals sat. There had been intimated to him some objections with reference to the appointment in the first instance of the Judges in any Court in India, and it had been suggested that in some Courts there were native Judges whom it would not be desirable to appoint as members of the Judicial Committee. It was not, however, very probable that they would be Privy Councillors, and none could be appointed who were not; but, if it was thought desirable, there could be no objection to confine the appointment to the Chief Justice in each Court; while, with reference to the colonial Judges, the appointment might be limited to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of any Colony. Although at present there was not an instance of any person being made a Privy Councillor who had come from any part of Her Majesty's dominions other than India, yet he had known at least one Canadian Judge who would have been a very suitable person for such a position; and he could not but think that, as the importance of colonial tribunals increased, there might be found coming from the Cape, from Canada, or from Australia, some who
  406
  would be worthy of being placed on the Judicial Committee. Under these circumstances, he trusted that their Lordships would be disposed to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that although from the state of the House it did not seem that much interest was taken in this Bill, yet it was a subject of great public importance, on which he desired to make some observations. With regard to the 2nd clause, which gave power to appoint two Privy Councillors who had held the office of Judge in any High Court of Judicature in India, there ought to be a clear and positive definition on the face of the Bill as to what persons could be appointed and what offices they must have held—because owing to the constitution of the High Court of Bengal there might be appointed persons who would be quite unsuitable for the Judicial Committee, and who had never had a case argued before them. The practice had been to treat the Chief Justice of Bengal as a person who was ex officio qualified to sit on the Judicial Committee, and he thought it would be desirable to continue that practice. There were now three ex-Chief Justices of Bengal, two of whom had rendered very efficient service, and he regretted that power was not taken by the Bill to appoint all three—the amount of remuneration, if it was limited, being divided among them. By the 3rd clause it was proposed to appoint on the Judicial Committee any person who had hold the office of Judge in the Supreme Court of any country other than India, and the consequences might be the appointment of the Chief Justices of Sierra Leone, the Straits Settlements, Gambia, the Mauritius, or any of the Colonies whose Chief Justices were of a different stamp from those whom it was desirable to appoint on the Judicial Committee. To the 4th clause there was a still more serious objection, its object being to give to Judges who were entitled to a retiring pension a sum of £500 a year, in addition to their pension for their services on the Judicial Committee. There was in this country an ample scale of retiring pensions for Judges, and attached to the receipt of those pensions there was always considered to be the obligation—no doubt

  407
  an imperfect one—to give some portion of their time to the transaction of the judicial business of the country. As soon, however, as there was introduced a system of picking and choosing and bribing a retired Judge with £500 a year; extra, an end was put to the honourable; understanding which now prevailed; for it was utterly impossible to maintain that obligation when a payment was made to some persons for their attendance, and he hoped his noble and learned Friend would consider that point. He also trusted that a reconsideration would be given to the proposal to divide the Judicial Committee into two portions, a step which he held to be quite unnecessary and which might lead to the effect of their decisions being weakened.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the division was not to be permanent.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that at any rate for some time there would be two divisions by whom decisions would be given. At a further stage of this Bill, when he hoped it would attract more interest, he should invite the attention of their Lordships to the points he had enumerated.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought his noble and learned Friend had misunderstood the effect of the last clause. It was not intended that there should be two permanent divisions; but changes might be made from time to time, so long as it was necessary to have two divisions, and any number of combinations might be made of the members of the Judicial Committee. Comment had always been made on the decisions of the Committee, and, he feared, it would continue to be made.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.