Lords Sitting of 10 July 1871

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Aylesford, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* (249); Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels* (250); Pedlars' Certificates * (252).
Second Reading—Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal (184); Factories and Workshops Act Amendment (239); Kingsholm District Boundary* (215), discharged.
Report—Burial Grounds* (231); Life Assurance Companies Act (1870) Amendment* (243); Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation* (244); Courts of Justice (Additional Site)* (218).
Third Reading—Dogs* (202); Owens College* (245), and passed.

ARMY REGULATION BILL—NOTICE.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I beg to give Notice that on the Motion that the Army Regulation Bill be read a second time I shall move the following Resolution in lieu thereof:—
1316
"That this House is unwilling to assent to a second reading of this Bill until it has had laid before it, either by Her Majesty's Government or through the medium of an inquiry and Report of a Royal Commission, a complete and comprehensive scheme for the first appointment, promotion, and retirement of officers; for the amalgamation of the Regular and Auxiliary Land Forces; and for securing the other changes necessary to place the military system of the country on a sound and efficient basis."

IRELAND—MEATH AND WESTMEATH ELECTIONS—STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES.—OBSERVATIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD DUNSANY,in rising to call attention to the growth of disaffection in Ireland, as evinced at the elections for Meath and Westmeath; and to point out the apparent connection between such disaffection and a vicious system of party Government long followed in Ireland: Also to ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether it was intended to lay down some rules as to the qualifications and the selection of stipendiary magistrates? said, that last year it was found necessary to pass a Coercion Bill for Ireland in consequence of the state of that country; and this Session the operation of that Coercion Bill had been extended for another year, and its provisions had been made much more stringent. Recently, three county elections had taken place in Ireland, and at each of them the Members elected had been returned on the express—perhaps on the sole—ground of their hostility to this country and its institutions. To these incidents might be added the inauguration of the statue of Mr. Smith O'Brien, the Corporation of Dublin, headed by the Protestant Mayor, taking part in the ceremony. It would be a great mistake to throw away whatever useful lesson such facts might afford. The newspaper Press of the country afforded a good index to the state of public feeling, and five out of nine of the journals in Dublin, enjoying the largest circulation, were decidedly engaged in the advocacy of rebellion. These disagreeable facts were the more serious, inasmuch as they followed close upon the passing of two measures which it was hoped would have a healing effect in Ireland, and existed simultaneously with a state of our foreign relations which was not encouraging to domestic rebellion, and when there was a marked increase in the material prosperity of the country. Such a state of things was

1317
extremely serious. It was not merely that there was disaffection in Ireland; there had been disaffection there before, and Coercion Bills had had to be passed on previous occasions; but the most alarming symptom of the time was found in the discouragement of the good and loyal people of the country. The elements of order had been weakened, and the Protestant and loyal population had been alienated—not so much by disgust at the recent legislation, and by the distrust excited by the sacrifice of great interests to party exigencies which had inspired that legislation. Nevertheless, it was his firm belief that their loyalty might even now be relied on in case of danger. It was commonly said that the recent legislation for Ireland could not be expected to have immediate effects, and that no farmer expected to reap the harvest as soon as he had sown the seed. But surely, although the harvest might not be ripe the corn blades were not long before they appeared above the ground. In Ireland, however, the growth which had resulted from the passing of the Church and Land Acts was shown by such matters as the meeting held at Mullagh on the 29th of June, called together by eight priests, and attended by 4,000 or 5,000 people, who denounced the much-vaunted Land Act as affording no adequate protection for the tenant, and who groaned and hooted at the name of the Prime Minister. The state of Ireland was not loyal or contented, and he believed that it was owing in a great measure to the pernicious system of party Government which had so long prevailed in that country. Party Government in that country was not based on the union of those who held similar opinions or something like similar opinions. Ireland had for the last 40 years been practically under the dominion of the Irish priesthood. Party Government in Ireland, represented by an alliance between the Liberal and the Ultramontane parties, was insincere. It was not a party alliance of that kind which was recognized in England, and could not be looked upon with either favour or respect. With regard to party Government in Ireland there was really no materials for forming a Government which could be founded on principles of stability. The alliance between the Irish Liberals and the Roman Catholic priesthood was absolutely incompatible—it
1318
was already at at end, or its dissolution was threatened. What was the practical working of the system in Ireland? The Lord Lieutenant, the principal officer of the Government, represented the Crown, and must of necessity be a partisan. The whole Irish Executive—the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, the Law Officers—even the Castle tradesmen and the Government organ of the Press—were changed with every change of Government. He was not speaking from a party point of view, for the same system was pursued whichever party came into office; and if on the one hand there were illiberal Liberals, there were on the other Conservative Repealers. Why should not the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, and Law Officers continue in office without reference to a change of administration. This, he believed, would do much to tranquillize the country by lessening the inducement for political lawyers to keep up an agitation, for at present barristers' speeches in nine cases out of ten were hustings' harangues rather than addresses delivered in the interests of their clients. Military, naval, and civil service appointments no longer depended in this country on political grounds, the principle of competitive examinations having been wisely introduced, and why should not a similar reform be applied to Irish appointments? Honesty and morality demanded a change of system. Unless the priests, who were deserting to the Repealers, were conciliated, a majority of Repealers might be returned at the next Election, and they could only be conciliated by further concessions, such as an Ultramontane University and another slice of the land—concessions which would only give satisfaction for a time. Among the great evils to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention, and as illustrative of the evils which had arisen from the character of party Government in Ireland, he would instance the appointment of the stipendiary magistrates. It was most desirable that some means should be found of restricting the appointment of political partisans to judicial offices, and the selection of those magistrates was one of the most glaring instances of the effect of party Government. He disclaimed the intention of casting any imputation on the present Lord Lieutenant, who was actuated by

1319
the honourable principles which guided every English gentleman; but he was convinced that the change he advocated would tend to produce a better tone in the public mind, and was most desirable in the interests of honesty and morality. The noble Lord concluded by putting his question—Whether it was intended to lay down some rules as to the qualification and selection of stipendiary magistrates?
LORD DUFFERIN,in reply, said, the Government had at present no intention of laying down rules as to the qualifications and selection of stipendiary magistrates in England or Ireland, and, even if the present system was attended with some disadvantages, it could not be lightly abandoned. It would not, he thought, be alleged that any Government had been actuated by any other motive than a desire to secure the persons best, qualified by antecedents and education to discharge the duties of their office. The Government were responsible for the appointments that were made, and he believed that, on the whole, the magistrates selected had discharged their duties satisfactorily. His own opinion of the results of recent legislation and the general condition of the country was very different from that of the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany); but no advantage would be derived from his endeavouring to show that appreciation of the state of the country was the more correct, and that the noble Lord laboured under misapprehensions. He could not conceive by what machinery the great officers of State could be chosen, as suggested by the noble Lord, whose censure had fallen on those Governments which he usually supported, as well as on those of opposite principles to his own. It seemed to him premature to pronounce any very decided opinion on the effect of recent legislation; but his acquaintance with the North of Ireland induced him to think that the Church Act had been accepted with perfect good faith, which reflected the greatest honour on those who so vigorously opposed it; while as to the Land Act, his conviction was that, on the one hand, the Courts intrusted with the administration of its details had discharged their duty with perfect satisfaction both to landlords and tenants; and that, on the other hand, as day by day its working became more familiar and better understood, all classes
1320
in Ireland would become more and more satisfied with it.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEexpressed his concurrence with the noble Lord who had brought this subject forward. While he admitted that the resident magistrates had generally shown more impartiality than could have been expected from the mode of their appointment, he maintained that the appointments were a reward for political services. They were not like other magistrates, appointed and dismissed by the Lord Chancellor, but held their appointments at the will of the Government, to whom alone they could look for advancement, and from whom they received secret instructions. They were thus not guided by law, but by the humour of the Government, which, according to the political views of the hour, made the law active or passive. The present Government existing on popularity, law was dormant and rowdyism in the ascendant. Irishmen did not love English rule; but it had so misruled them as to leave them no alternative save priestly socialism. There was little use in the Chief Secretary promising to preserve the integrity of the Empire if in the same breath he released those who, at Clerkenwell, first showed the use of petroleum, giving them the opportunity of organizing an international league through English towns and new raids from America. If the Premier was to bid for popularity against Mr. Martin, the fuse was already lighted to the powder magazine on which we stood.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, that the answer of the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin) had greatly astonished him—in fact, it was no answer at all, and we must assume that in the noble Lord's opinion the Church of Ireland liked to be robbed, and that the landlords approved of a third of their property being made over to the tenants on their estates. The fact was that the distrust and disgust in Ireland, in consequence of recent legislation, was widely spread in all classes of the community. As to the Irish Land Act, he would remind the House of his unavailing opposition to the provisions which intrusted the onerous duty of administering that measure to assistant barristers at Quarter Sessions. The result is that they postpone the cases from one Quarter Sessions to another before they can make up their minds

1321
as to what decision they will come to. The system of stipendiary magistrates was neither good, safe, nor wholesome—in fact, if a Return was obtained of the number of Petty Sessions they had to attend, it would be found impossible for them to discharge their duties. He knew a case himself in which the stipendiary magistrate had ten Potty Sessions to attend to in a fortnight, at very considerable distances one from the other. As to the Laud Act—that Act which was passed to rob the landlords—only recently a Lord Justice of Appeal had given a very honest and straightforward opinion of the Act, and the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench had stated that it was so drawn that every clause of it—and sometimes every line of a clause—was calculated to give rise to litigation. The effect of recent legislation was to sow religious discord and social distrust in every part of Ireland; and the recent Bill of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), so far from quieting this distrust, was looked upon as an abuse of Parliamentary power. It neither gives security to the vendor or the purchaser of lands, but it leaves the uncertainty of the claims to be made by the tenants on the lands exactly in the same position as has been so ably shown by the Lord Justice of Appeal. The vender knows not what he has to sell, no purchaser can ascertain what he is about to buy, and the confusion which has been created by the Land Act is confirmed by the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, The result of the Irish Church Bill and the Irish Land Bill would certainly not be either to establish peace, or to attract capital to Ireland.

WAR OFFICE—REWARDS TO INVENTORS.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHrose to call attention to the present unsatisfactory mode of adjudging the amount of rewards due to inventors whose inventions had been in whole or in part adopted by the War Office; and to move an Address for Papers. Everyone must be aware that within the last 20 years great changes had been made in the armaments of this country. It was not many years since the 68-pounder smooth-bore was the heaviest and most powerful gun in the service; whereas we had now rifled 600-pounders of 20 and even 35
  1322
  tons weight. This country was admittedly in advance of other countries in its heavy artillery. We had made the experiments, and the results of them had to a great extent been made use of by other countries. The carriages necessary for the manipulation of these enormous guns had required great ingenuity and industry in order to perfect them, and which now worked guns of 12, 18, and 25 tons with as much facility as we formerly worked those of three and five. These results had, however, been obtained at an enormous outlay in experiments—hundreds and thousands of pounds had during the last 12 years been fired away at Shoeburyness and elsewhere. Where one invention had succeeded and been adopted into the service, many had failed and been found wanting. Many thousands of pounds had been wasted on stool projectiles or iron targets until our present cheap and efficient chilled iron projectiles were invented, and about £40,000 in experiments utilizing our old cast-iron service guns until the present system, known as Palliser's, was tried and adopted. While much credit must be given to the officials who conducted the experiments which had such beneficial results, there was one class connected with those results whose claims had, as a rule, to a great extent been overlooked or neglected—namely, the inventors, who, generally, at their own risk and expense, had perfected and reduced them into a practical form. In some cases others had profited by the ideas of the original inventors, made use of their official position for perfecting the inventions at the expense of the country in the Government workshops, and pocketed the rewards, while the original inventor had been left out in the cold unnoticed and unrewarded. In claims of this nature it was evident that the inventors must be brought into collision with the officials of the Government, who from interested reasons or professional jealousy might be disposed to throw obstacles in the way of a fair estimate of the inventor's claims to recompense. It was to remedy this unsatisfactory state of things that he wished to suggest that some independent tribunal of arbitration, unconnected with the War Office, should be constituted for the purpose of examining the claims of inventors whose inventions had been wholly or in part adopted by the Govern-

  1323
  ment. Such a tribunal should be composed of scientific men capable of entering fully into the merits of each invention. They should have no connection with the War Office, and the Minister for War should be guided in his decision by their award, as he was now by the Ordnance Council. The objection to the Ordnance Council was that it was composed, doubtless, of honourable and gallant men, but still subject to professional jealousies, not necessarily scientific, and therefore in so far incapable of judging of the merits of scientific inventions. It was not, perhaps, generally known that up to 1865 patents were hold good as against the Government, and if an invention was adopted by Government, the inventor could make his own terms. In that year a decision in the Court of Queen's Bench was given in the cause of "Feather v. the Queen"—Sir Roundell Palmer being Solicitor General—which reversed the old doctrine, and laid it down as law that no patent rights held good as against the Queen. Thenceforward the unfortunate patentee was entirely at the mercy of the authorities. But, notwithstanding this decision, the Government received a tax of £175 on each patent, and a patentee was therefore much in the position of a proprietor whose property was requisitioned for the public benefit. He was obliged to part with it. But the adjustment of claims in the two cases was very different. In the landholder's case an independent jury of householders was empanelled to assess the remuneration, or a sworn arbitrator was appointed. In the case of an inventor the interested party itself assessed the value. No doubt, as long as patents were considered valid as against the Government, there was great difficulty in dealing with patentees; but over since this decision—although for the purpose of making security more secure a special proviso was inserted in every patent specifying that if Government had need of the invention they were at liberty to use it—which had not yet been appealed against, the Government appeared to be recompensing themselves for the past by treating patentees in the most offhand manner. The consequence was that many valuable inventions were lost to the public, because patentees would not subject themselves to the injustice and humiliations to which they were at
  1324
  present exposed. He had selected four or five cases, which he would now shortly lay before their Lordships. Major Palliser, who claimed to have invented the mode of breeching heavy rifled guns, as now adopted uniformly throughout the service, and also to have invented the principle upon which all rifled projectiles were now studded, had been offered the ridiculous sum of £1,500, which he had declined. The £22,000 which he received was for other inventions, and was a very inadequate sum for what had saved the Government hundreds of thousands of pounds. Captain Scott, R.N., invented the present mode of controlling the violence of recoil of the heavy rifled ordnance used in the Navy, without which it could not have been worked. His invention was universally adopted, and he patented his plans by special permission of the Admiralty, who in a Minute forwarded to the War Department, said—
  "The Admiralty consider Captain Scott's claim to be entitled to a large and liberal consideration."
  In another Minute dated January 28, 1870, occurred the following:—
  "In the Hercules, the 10-inch muzzle-loading rifled guns are worked with extraordinary facility by the admirable machinery of Captain Scott, whose improvements in gun-carriages and their gear have been extensively adopted in the Navy."
  Sir Spencer Robinson, late Controller of the Navy, remarked—
  "I certainly am of opinion that, as far as the experiments have gone up to this time, most important benefits have accrued to the naval service through Captain Scott's exertions, and that, without those exertions, neither 12 nor 20-ton guns would have been successfully worked on the broadsides of ships."
  After Captain Scott's inventions had been adopted into the Navy, he applied for remuneration, and was answered by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that all expenses connected with guns and gun-carriages were borne on the Army Estimates, and that they would be prepared to report fully to the Secretary of State their opinion as to the value of his plans. Captain Scott remonstrated, on the grounds that some of his improvements for which he was seeking reward were essentially ship questions, and that in others his plans had been adopted by the Admiralty after they had found plans of the War Department impracticable or unsuccessful; in addition to which the advisers of the War De-

  1325
  partment for war material had been his competitors for gun - carriages. Notwithstanding Captain Scott's remonstrance, the Committee recommended £2,000 as a full remuneration for his broadside carriages, including all the personal expenses he had incurred during nine years' experiments. This remuneration was immediately rejected as totally inadequate. He now came to Mr. Lynall Thomas, who claimed to have been the first to introduce the heavy rifled ordnance on the present system. In 1858, when he first proposed to make a 7-inch 6½-ton gun and an 8-inch on the principle of the ordnance now in use, he was told that Sir Baldwin Walker, then Surveyor of the Navy, had said that no ships ever could carry such guns, and that the very idea of utilizing such guns was preposterous. It was not till the next year that he could get a guarantee from the Government. General Peel being then in office, that he should be remunerated in case of success. With his 7-inch gun—the first with which a heavy shell of 150 lbs weight had ever been fired with so high a velocity from rifled ordnance—the enormous range of 10,000 yards and upwards was obtained, and this success was the cause of the experiments with Armstrong guns during the next few years, on which upwards of £2,000,000 was expended. The Armstrong guns were now superseded by the Woolwich gun, which, in manufacture and principle, was identical with that recommended by Mr. Lynall Thomas, who had received no remuneration whatever. Frazer, who received £5,000, was declared by Thomas to have pirated his patented system, and Mr. Thomas claimed that all the 7-inch, 8-inch, and 9-inch guns now adopted into the service were identical with his recommendations. In 1868 Commander Harvey brought under the notice of the Admiralty a torpedo which he had invented. The Admiralty declined to adopt the invention; but having learnt that it had been adopted by a foreign Government Mr. Childers thereupon had fresh trials instituted, and became so satisfied with it that he adopted it into the service. Commander Harvey estimated his claim at £5,000, considering the great expense he had incurred; but the Government awarded to him only £1,000. The Government had, at the same time, offered £15,000 to an Austrian for his fish torpedo, which was
  1326
  as yet unproved, while Commander Harvey's had been thoroughly proved, The reason was that in one case the Austrian kept preserved his secret; whereas in the other Commander Harvey, having given his secret to the War Office, was at their mercy. He (the Earl of Denbigh) believed that it was necessary for the honour and also for the interest of this country that some independent tribunal should be formed by which all such claims as these should be properly examined. It might be said that the claims of inventors were very excessive; but these were as a drop in the ocean when compared with the enormous amount expended on experiments. An arrangement could be made by which the expense of such a tribunal could be covered by the forfeiture of deposits paid before arbitration in case an invention proved to be frivolous.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for,

  1. The documents submitted to the Committee that decided on Captain Scott's claims, and the subsequent correspondence thereon:

  2. Correspondence between Mr. Lynall Thomas and the War Office, from 29th March 1871 to the present time:

  3. Correspondence relative to Major Palliser's claims to certain inventions adopted into all the heavy wrought-iron guns of the service known as the "Woolwich guns," and also to the system upon which all the heavy projectiles in the service are studded.—(The Karl of Denbigh.)

  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) suggested that those who had decided the claims of inventors were prejudiced against those claims; but the system by which inventors' claims were at present discussed by the War Office afforded no ground for the imputation of prejudice. The Ordnance Council who considered these claims consisted of the principal officers of the Department, and as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, he was the President. On that Council there were the Surveyor General of Ordnance, the Financial Secretary, the Adjutant General, the Inspector General of Artillery, the Inspector General of Fortifications, and other high officials. The cases to which the noble Earl had alluded would be an illustration of the practice of the Council. To take the case of Captain Scott first. There was not the slightest doubt, on the part of anyone who had knowledge of the subject, of the value of Captain Scott's in-

  1327
  ventions. Those inventions were mainly for the naval service, and they came only incidentally under the consideration of the Ordnance Council. The Board of Admiralty requested the Ordnance Council to consider the subject, and asked that a sub-committee should be appointed to investigate and report to the Ordnance Council respecting the remuneration that should be given to Captain Scott. The sub-committee was entirely independent, and had no connection whatever with any rival of Captain Scott. They considered the case with great care, and came to the conclusion that £2,000 was a sufficient reward to give to Captain Scott, taking into consideration that he had been employed on full pay to carry out his invention. Captain Scott conceived that this was not a sufficient remuneration, more especially as he represented that he had been put to considerable expense in carrying out his invention. The Board of Admiralty, accordingly requested that further investigation should be made into the expenses incurred by Captain Scott. With respect to the case of Major Palliser, it seemed to him to be an instance showing that the claims of inventors had not been overlooked. Major Palliser had received, in the shape of rewards, and of payment for expenses incurred by him, £22,500 up to the present time; and, in consequence, he had given tip all claim on the Government with respect to two of his inventions. But he had raised a number of claims on minor matters of which he conceived himself to be the inventor, and which he conceived would be of great benefit to the War Office. Those minor claims had been considered by the Council and also by a sub-commit tee, who reported that in respect of two out of these five or six claims it might be equitable to give Major Palliser £1,500. Out of all those who decided the question he thought only two could be said to be associated with the manufacturing Departments. All the rest were perfectly independent of those Departments.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHasked, Whether in these cases inventors were allowed to plead their own cases? If not, it would appear that the War Office got confidential reports from officers, and who those officers were nobody knew.
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, he would come to that point. He could assure
  1328
  their Lordships that it was with the greatest difficulty that he individually was induced to agree in the opinion of the sub-committee that £1,500 should be offered to Major Palliser in respect of these inventions. With respect to the proceedings of the Council, when it was desirable to do so they received personal explanations from inventors and, if necessary, called in a referee. As to Mr. Lynall Thomas, five or six Secretaries of State, he thought, had severally considered his claims, and had successively come to a conclusion adverse to them. In 1859 or 1860 Mr. Lynall Thomas produced the gun to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) had alluded. The noble Earl, in calling attention to Mr. Thomas's claims, had omitted to mention the fact that the first gun produced by this inventor in 1859–60, burst on the 16th round; whereupon Mr. Thomas desired to construct another gun, but the proposition was opposed by the Ordnance Select Committee, who recommended that no further gun should be produced of that description. In 1861, when he was Secretary of State, he was directed to intimate to Mr. Thomas that if a second gun were produced its soundness should be tested by two large charges of powder, and that its construction would be at his own risk and expense, as the Department were not prepared to encourage his proceeding with the construction of a second gun. That second gun, however, was made, and it also burst at the second round. Mr. Thomas was called upon to refund a sum of money expended at Woolwich upon the gun; but unfortunately he was not in a position to refund the money, and up to the present time it had not been refunded to the public. Mr. Lynall Thomas had also made application for a reward on account of certain theories he had hold for many years on gunnery; but competent authorities had given the opinion that those theories were not sound. Lastly, Mr. Lynall Thomas had raised a claim in respect of an alleged similarity between some patent of his, and an improvement that Mr. Frazer had effected in the construction of the Armstrong gun; but their Lordships would agree that no consideration could be given to this claim until at any rate some primâ facie evidence was produced by Mr. Thomas in support of his state-

  1329
  ment. In regard to the general principle on which this question rested, a circular published on the 23rd of February, 1809, clearly laid down—that no liability on behalf of the public would be recognised on account of any expenses incurred by inventors, unless such expenses had been incurred under the distinct and written authority of the Secretary of State. It appeared to be impossible to lay down any plan under which inventors should have a right to appeal to arbitration against the Government. The Secretary of State acted not for himself but as the guardian of the public purse in respect of those claims. An arbitrator would have no data to go upon in these matters. It would be impossible for an arbitrator to form any satisfactory opinion as to the value of these inventions. He hoped their Lordships would believe that these claims were investigated with every desire to do justice. As to the Papers which had been asked for, they were so incomplete—for in all the three cases there were representations made which had not yet been decided—that it would not be advisable to lay them on the Table.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,while he admitted the difficulty experienced in the settlement of inventors' rights, said, he did not propose to enter into the question of the Patent Laws, but wished simply to state what he knew of Captain Scott's construction of a gun-carriage—as he happened to be at the Admiralty when Captain Scott introduced that invention. When very heavy guns were first put on board Her Majesty's ships, and the opinion was expressed by a noble Lord that the guns could not be used at all, the War Department were asked to make some carriages for those guns; but although they made several attempts they utterly failed, as was shown by a trial which took place on board an American vessel, when the second shot rendered the ship incapable of carrying on an action. At the time when the Government were most anxious to have an efficient gun-carriage Captain Scott came forward and devoted himself to the subject with such success that the Admiralty appointed him to the department charged with the fitting up of gun - carriages, and his efforts had been of great service to the department. True, he received full-pay, and that he
  1330
  also received about £2,000; but, considering his close devotion to the improvement of gun-carriages for so long a period, the present Admiralty, without being very lavish, might fairly give Captain Scott some additional remuneration for all that he had done for them. With regard to Major Palliser, no doubt his invention of a particular kind of shot was of great value when the Government were paying very dearly for steel shot; but the amount of award in his case was widely different from that in Captain Scott's, since the former received £22,000, while the latter obtained £2,000 only. He hoped, therefore, the Admiralty would re-consider the case of Captain Scott, and decide to give him a further award.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEthought that when inventors laid their schemes before the Committee referred to they should at the same time submit a statement of the expenses to which they had been put in carrying out their invention, in order that the Committee should have sufficient data upon which to make their award.
  VISCOUNT GOUGHurged the necessity for having independent judges to decide upon the value of inventions. Out of the £22,500 Major Palliser had received he had spent £13,000 or £14,000 upon the experiments necessary to enable him to bring his invention to perfection. A large part of this was personal expenditure; nor could it be said that these experiments had been senseless or extravagant, for the War Office themselves had admitted them to be prudent and well-conducted.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it was no easy thing exactly to determine the value of inventions before they had been put into actual practice for some time. In estimating the amount of remuneration that an inventor should receive, it must be borne in mind that there were two classes of inventors—those private inventors who carried out their experiments at their own expense, and those who, being in the public service, obtained the assistance of Government materials and machinery in perfecting their inventions. But beyond this it could scarcely be said that Captain Scott had been altogether unremunerated for the expenses to which he had been put. He believed that he was accurate in stating that it was partly in consequence of his inven-

  1331
  tion that that gallant officer had obtained the rank of captain; that during the period in which he was engaged in prosecuting his experiments he had been in receipt of full-pay; that he had been permitted to make use of Government materials; and that he had been engaged in experimenting on board Her Majesty's ships. Moreover, that the question as to the amount of remuneration he was to receive for the expenses he had incurred in conducting his experiments was not raised before the Committee of Ordnance was owing entirely to the fault of Captain Scott himself, inasmuch as in making out his claim to remuneration he had omitted altogether to make any statement with reference to such expenses. Captain Scott now refused to receive the £2,000 offered to him on the ground that it does not include his expenses; but he had been informed by the Admiralty that if he would lay before them a statement of the amount of those expenses, and show where and how they had been incurred, they would remit the matter to the Council of Ordnance for re-consideration without loss of time. He regretted that the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) had not given notice of his intention to refer to the case of Commander Harvey's torpedoes; because had he done so he (the Earl of Camperdown) would have taken care to place himself in a position to furnish the noble Earl with the information he required on the subject. If the noble Earl desired to allude to this matter again, and would put a Notice of his intention to do so upon the Paper, he would gladly give him any information upon the subject that he could obtain.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he would not press for the Papers named in his Motion after what had fallen from the noble Earl who had spoken on behalf of the Government; although he must express his regret that no answer had been given to his Question whether or not inventors were allowed to plead their own causes before the Committee of Ordnance, either in person or by their agents?
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL—(No. 184.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL—(No. 184.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was unnecessary for him to go over the ground that had been travelled over last Session when a measure similar to the present had passed through both Houses of Parliament; but in the progress of the Bill through their Lordships' House some Amendments were introduced, with which, as it was understood, all parties—including the Government—were satisfied; but in the other House alterations were made, very unexpectedly, on the Motion of a Member of the Government, in contravention of the understanding which it was supposed to have been come to; and as their Lordships were unwilling to assent to those alterations, the measure was suffered to drop. The present measure, since its introduction into the other House this year, had been referred to a Select. Committee, whose sanction it had received. The object of the Bill was to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. It had become necessary that such a stop should be taken in consequence of the change in the law which had been effected by the Irish Church Act, by which the successors of the present Bishops of the Disestablished Church of Ireland, in the event of their assuming the titles held by their predecessors, would be liable to penalties under the terms of the statute it was now sought to repeal. The Ecclesiastical Titles Act was passed with the view of preventing persons from assuming the titles of any sees or dioceses other than those recognised by law, and its Preamble contained a strong protest against the assumption of such titles. While admitting that the case of the future Bishops of the Disestablished Church of Ireland demanded that some alteration should be made in the existing law upon the subject, he thought that it was desirable that there should be placed upon record on the face of the Bill a distinct protest against the recognition of a right on the part of foreign Powers to grant any jurisdiction to be exercised in this country by persons acting under their autho-

  1333
  rity. The only question that had arisen on the former occasion with reference to the matter was as to the form in which that protest should be drawn up in the Preamble of the measure. This matter had been settled by the Committee adopting in part the form in which their Lordships had put it in the Bill of last year, and partly the form preferred by the other House. As this was the chief point of dissension last year, and their Lordships had approved of the object and provisions of the Bill in other respects, it was not necessary that he should detain their Lordships by offering any arguments. He should, however, be perfectly ready to give any explanations, either now or in Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD COLCHESTERconsidered that Her Majesty's Ministers were introducing an Imperial remedy to meet a special Irish difficulty. The Committee of which he had been a member had reported that it was inexpedient to make any change in the law. In only one point had circumstances changed since then, and that was in regard to the ecclesiastical legislation of the past two or three years. The Bishops of the Protestant Church of Ireland would in the future be open to the same penalties as the Roman Catholic Bishops of England, unless some change were made in the law, and therefore some change should be made; but he did not see why the change should be greater than the circumstances rendered necessary.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEopposed the second reading. The Roman Catholic Bishops were the representatives of a foreign Power, and had their titles conferred upon them by that Power. Certainly there was a proviso appended to the last clause, declaring that nothing in the Act shall be deemed to authorize or sanction the conferring any title, precedence, or authority within this realm by any other person than the Sovereign; but inasmuch as such titles had been recognized by successive Lords Lieutenant of Ireland, who had publicly received Cardinal Cullen, and given him precedence as holding the highest rank in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, he did not see that such a declaration would be of much use. He could not see why the existing Act should be repealed, unless
  1334
  it was in order that Roman Catholic Bishops might be received at Court, according to rank and precedence.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he had pointed out in the House of Commons during the discussion that had taken place at the time of the passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act that, except as a legislative protest against the right of a foreign Power to grant ecclesiastical titles in this country, the statute would be wholly inoperative, inasmuch as it would be very easy for those who were inclined to do so to evade its provisions—and he even divided the House twice in unsuccessful endeavours to make its provisions more stringent. As he had foreseen, since its passing the Act had remained a dead letter, not a single instance having occurred in which the penalties it imposed had been attempted to be enforced. Under these circumstances, he could not see what harm could result from its repeal, especially when he found that the protest it contained, which was its only valuable part, was to be renewed in the present Bill, and the Bill was further necessary to give proper protection to the future Bishops of the Irish Church. He should therefore support the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 239.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 239.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, road.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it would effect an important change in the law regulating factories and workshops. By the Workshop Act of 1867 the inspection of all places where people worked not inspected by the Government Inspectors was handed over to the local authorities. The latter, however, having failed to enforce the provisions of the Act, it had become necessary to transfer the power so held by the local authorities to the Government Inspectors. The object of the Bill, therefore, was to transfer the jurisdiction over workshops now committed to the local authorities to

  1335
  the Inspectors of Factories, and to consolidate, to a great extent, the Factories and Workshops Acts,, and they would hereafter be construed as one Act. It was satisfactory to see that that legislation for factories and workshops had been successful in enlisting the sympathy of all who came under its operation. The operatives and the employers alike were impressed with a conviction of the importance of the working of those Acts, and of the beneficial results they had had on all parties; and it was a matter of congratulation to those who originated the Acts that the Inspectors had now scarcely any difficulty in carrying them into effect. By a slight addition to the staff of the Factories Office it was thought that the whole ground now occupied, partly by the local authorities and partly by the Inspectors, would be covered by that one office, and that the Acts would be uniformly enforced throughout England.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Morley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was pretty certain that this measure would not got through the other House this Session, and he trusted that the noble Earl would employ the Recess in re-constructing the Bill in a more workmanlike shape.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would be glad if the state of business next year permitted the introduction of a consolidating and amending Act in regard to factories and workshops. The present Bill was necessary to remove a great flaw in the working of their legislation on that subject.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  PEDLARS CERTIFICATES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for granting Certificates to Pedlars—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 252.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.