Lords Sitting of 3 July 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—National Debt Commissioners (Annuities)* (191); Prison Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* (192); Public Works Loan Commissioners (School and Sanitary Loans)* (193).
Second Reading—Conveyancing (Scotland) (141).
Report of Select Committee—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment* (171–190).
Committee— Shrewsbury and Harrow Schools Property* (140).
Report—Thames Embankment (Land)* (179).
Third Reading—Canonries* (169); Crown Private Estates* (175), and passed.

CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) BLL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(NO. 141.) 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, he took it for granted that for those of their Lordships who had land in Scotland, it was not necessary for him to go into minute particulars respecting the existing law of land rights and conveyancing in Scotland. He felt bound, however, to snake some observations in respect to those peculiarities for the information of those of their Lordships who might have had no opportunity of becoming practically acquainted with the subject. The clauses most likely to excite difference of opinion affected the relations between superiors and vassals with respect to feus. A large extent of property in Scotland was held under this tenure, and the Bill proposed to abolish expensive and unnecessary forms now attending every change of feuar, whether by death or sale—namely, renewal of investiture and charters and writs by progress. It also reduced the period within which the rights of any person to succession as heir might be challenged from 40 to 20 years; it provided for the commutation of existing casualties; and it prohibited the creation in future of casualties in feus. The Bill likewise abolished the distinction between fees of heritage and fees of conquest, and provided simpler forms of conveyance, as to the clauses providing which he thought there might be also possibly some difference of opinion. Whatever objections might, however, be raised to the details of the measure, he did not know that there could be any question as to the objects of the Bill. He did not suppose any of their Lordships who had had a practical acquaintance with the subject would deny that there was a great need in Scotland for facilitating the transfer of land and for making changes in the law relating to land rights and conveyancing. This was the main object of the Bill. The measure was based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission which sat upon the subject some years ago, so that the proposed changes in the law

1687
had been before the country for several years. It had been said that some of the proposals in the Bill if passed into law would not work well, and that some difficulties would arise. Under the present law, there were many similar difficulties, and he was convinced that these difficulties would be diminished, and not increased by the changes which the Bill proposed. The Bill had been a long time under consideration, and it had been very carefully prepared; and if there were faults in the measure they could be easily remedied in Committee. On the whole, he thought he could safely recommend the Bill to the favourable consideration of their Lordships.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD COLONSAYsaid, he fully agreed in the propriety of making certain changes in the existing law. He approved generally of what his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack stated to be the two leading objects of this measure—namely, to dispense with what were called charters by progress, and to enable persons holding property by feu tenure to redeem what were called the casualties of superiority. So far, the measure would be in accordance with the Report of the Royal Commission in 1838, and would, he believed, meet with general approval in Scotland. He expressed general approval also of certain other provisions in the Bill. But as to the clauses by which it was proposed to carry out these objects, considerable amendment might be necessary. The Bill, however, went far beyond the objects to which he had referred. It contained provisions calculated to subvert the relations of superior and vassal—to unsettle the whole system of land tenure in Scotland, and to introduce confusion and uncertainty as to titles. The existing system was well understood—conveyancers were familiar with it; but if the whole system of land tenure in the country was to be suddenly uprooted, confusion would be inevitable. The Royal Commission referred to, comprehended men of great eminence and qualifications for the task, and they reported very decidedly against what was now proposed to be done, and pointed out some
1688
of the serious evils to which it would lead. The bodies in Scotland whose members were most conversant with the subject, and best qualified to judge, were decidedly opposed to it. He had presented Petitions from several of these bodies and from other bodies and parties, some of whom were largely interested, praying that no such interference with the tenure of land should be sanctioned, or, at least, not without full inquiry by a Royal Commission. Several deputations from various parts of Scotland had waited on him, urging the same views. One of the results of this interference with tenure would be the substitution of leases for fens. That was pointed out by the Royal Commission, and was confirmed by the recently expressed opinions of those most conversant with feuing transactions; and it was well known that those who desired to acquire small portions of land for building purposes in Scotland, greatly preferred feus, which gave a perpetual right of property, to leases which gave only a temporary right. Feu duties were themselves valuable property, and a convenient and favourite investment, especially for educational or religious endowments. One of the Petitions he had presented was from an endowment society holding feu duties to the extent of nearly £20,000 per annum. He had also presented Petitions from banks, insurance companies, and other holders of feu duties, as investments or securities. Some of these Petitions stated, and he had been informed from other sources, that since the scheme of this Bill had been ventilated, that valuable class of property had fallen greatly in the market. He hoped the Government would not, without inquiry, persevere in a course of legislation so unnecessary and unpalatable, already condemned by a Royal Commission, and also by those best qualified to form an opinion on the subject, and not asked for or desired by any class of the community. The Royal Commission had recommended various improvements on conveyancing to be introduced gradually. He had when Lord Advocate introduced measures for effecting some of these improvements. His successors in office had followed the same course. Nothing now remained necessary to be done but to carry into effect the other two recommendations of

1689
the Commissioners already mentioned. If this Bill were confined to these objects and some of the minor points of which he had expressed approval, it would be a beneficial measure and would give general satisfaction in Scotland, instead of being as it now presented itself most obnoxious. Another part of the Bill to which he strongly objected, was that which had for its object to do away with the system of service of heirs. It might effect some saving of expense on succession, but in cases of transfer and mortgage it would necessitate an investigation of title at every transaction, which would on the whole cause greater expense. It would introduce uncertainty and insecurity as to title, and diminish the value of property.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that notwithstanding the extreme technicality of the measure to unlearned persons, he hoped their Lordships would allow him, a layman interested in property in Scotland, to say a few words in favour of the Bill. He believed there was not a layman in that House who could not, with a lawyer at his elbow, master the provisions of the Bill in an hour. He entirely concurred with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay) as to the mischief and danger of damaging in any respect the feudal tenure in Scotland, which was one of the most popular tenures in the country. It was a valuable security and a valuable investment, and cautious men like Scotchmen rather rebelled against the shorter tenures which were common in England. Many of their Lordships had no doubt heard the story of the Scotchman who was offered a 999 years' lease, and made an urgent appeal that it might be extended to 1,000, and on being laughed at, shook his head and said—"Time soon slips awa'."No doubt, there was a reluctance on the part of Scotchmen to build houses or invest money on anything short of a perpetual tenure, and therefore it was by no means only in the interest of superiors that the House ought to guard this tenure. Most of their Lordships were in the position of superiors; many were in the position of feudals; and if it were really true that a Bill of that kind would materially injure the rights of superiors, it would undoubtedly act upon the value of land in Scotland, because it would be unpopular
1690
with proprietors to give that particular form of tenure. He entirely agreed that they ought to preserve, as far as they could consistently with the object which they all had in view—namely, to simplify tenures and cheapen processes—all the essential securities of the feu tenure. The objections which his noble and learned Friend had brought against the Bill seemed all to be objections that could be dealt with in Committee; but even on the second reading, it might be well to point out the weakness of his objection to the 3rd clause. That clause purported to give a new and short definition of feu tenure, and he (the Duke of Argyll) admitted at once that any attempt to give abstract definitions of property must always involve some risk; but after reading the clause over and over again in the interest of superiors, and knowing that that was one of the points chiefly objected to by the legal profession in Scotland, it appeared to him to take in every service and every duty, for it said—
"From and after the passing of this Act an estate of superiority shall consist of the right to the feu-duties, services, and casualties, which are by law or covenant incident to a feu."
The objection of the noble and learned Lord was that it did not include all duties; but if it did not, words could easily be inserted in Committee to remedy the defect, and if the noble and learned Lord chose to propose an addition to the clause, the Government would have no objection. He knew of cases of persons who held estates under his family, where the superiors were entitled to many rights which had become absolutely obsolete—as, for instance, a number of gentlemen were bound by the feu to keep six-oared boats to enable the Earl of Argyll to cross certain ferries. Again, one of the rights of superiors which would be interfered with by the Bill was that of defending the feu against the invasion of third persons. Was that a valuable right to preserve? He was involved once in litigation of that kind, and so far from being regarded by hint as a privilege to be coveted, he looked upon it as a damnosa hœreditas. Again, it was the right of the superior to make roads, fences, drains, and so on for the feuar, but he had never heard of such a right being

1691
claimed. If the superior reserved to himself to do those things, of course he would have to do them; but under ordinary conditions, the superior had no more right to enter upon his vassal's land than to enter upon that of any other proprietor, and he had never heard an instance of a superior attempting to enforce a right to construct roads, drains, or fences, even where it would be greatly to his interest to do so. Those were matters mentioned by the noble and learned Lord as rights which would not be covered by the Bill; but if they were valuable rights, he maintained that they would be covered by the words of the 3rd clause. He could not say that he, as a superior, was in the least alarmed by any instances which his noble and learned Friend had given, where the rights of superiors would be liable to be invaded if the Bill passed. There were other portions of the Bill to which the noble and learned Lord had referred that were obviously mere questions of detail, and of those, the question of the recovery of duties and services was one. He could only say that he had looked very closely at the Bill, and having heard what the noble and learned Lord had to say, he was wholly unable to see the dangers which had been pointed out by his noble and learned Friend as involved in any one of the clauses to which he had drawn attention. It appeared to him that if the Bill were allowed to go into Committee, whatever objections were entertained to particular parts of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord might be there dealt with, and if it were thought necessary, a remedy might be applied. He trusted therefore that the House would not object to the second reading of the Bill—especially as there was so much in it which the noble and learned Lord had admitted to be valuable, and if any alterations were really required the House could make them in Committee.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had not answered any of the objections which had been pointed out by his noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord Colonsay), and he would suggest that the clauses which were objected to should, in Committee, be omitted from the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORadmitted that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay) was entitled to speak with
1692
great authority on that subject, and whatever fell from him on such a question would have due weight with their Lordship's House. He thought, however, that the noble and learned Lord had misapprehended the object of the Bill in regard to certain points on which he had offered objections. Nothing could be more foreign to the intention of the Bill than to discourage feus, or the system of holdings that was now in existence. On the contrary, he was of opinion that it would tend much to their encouragement. With regard to the 3rd clause, he thought it was amply guarded by the Proviso, that a lawful reservation of any right, other than feu duties, services, and casualties, contained in a grant or conveyance of land shall import an estate of property to the extent of the right reserved. If, with respect to that portion of the Proviso in which the words "an estate of property" occurred, it should be thought by their Lordships that those words were not happily conceived, nothing could be more easy than to modify them in Committee. In Clauses 5, 23, and 24, most ample provision was made in respect of all feu-duties created after the passing of the Bill, for placing on record every species of covenant or condition which in any respect qualified the feu. The noble and learned Lord had referred to the section which enabled a superior to merge his estate of superiority in the estate of property, by a process like that which in England was called enfranchisement; but it struck him (the Lord Chancellor) that the objection was one that applied to the substance more than to the form of the clause. The question seemed to be in reality whether it was best when the superior acquired a title to the property of the land, and so united his interest with that of the feuar, the title of superiority should remain, or whether it should be merged in the property and extinguished. As regarded the 15th clause, it was only carrying out the great object of the Bill, which was to afford greater facilities than at present to the feuar, and to relieve him from inconvenient burdens. If the right to enter was given to the superior, he had not only the same right as every landlord had in the case of his tenant, but the same right which existed in England when land was sold, reserving a perpetual rent. This was a very com-

1693
mon form of contract at the present time especially in Lancashire. With respect to the objection taken by his noble and learned Friend to the 37th clause of the Bill, it was that it gave the powers mentioned therein to an individual Judge, and not to the Court of Session. Of course, if it were thought better that the powers should not be given to any particular Judge, the alteration was one that might easily be made, but the powers themselves were closely analogous to those which were given in England by the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act; where, however, they were always exercised by a single Judge. He was much gratified when he heard the noble and learned Lord speak of the great importance of the Bill, and he had no doubt it would be found when the Bill got into Committee, that those portions of the measure that were objected to bore but a small proportion to the other parts which would be regarded by their Lordships as highly valuable. Whatever objections there were to the Bill could be readily considered and dealt with in Committee, and he trusted therefore that their Lordships would consent to read the Bill a second time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 15 th instant.

SOUTH SEA ISLANDERS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that he rose to put a Question in the terms of the Notice that he had given, to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the South Sea Island Papers lately distributed, As to whether any further communications of importance have been received by Her Majesty's Government upon the subject, particularly as relates to the disposal of the prisoners convicted at Sydney of murder on board the brig Carl; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay the Papers on the Table of the House? With regard to the latter part of the Question, he thought their Lordships would consider that he was right in asking for the Papers, subject to their being no objection to producing them. Pro-
  1694
  bably some of them might consist of Minutes of the Executive Council of New South Wales, and sometimes it was objectionable that such Papers, when relating to capital cases, should be laid before Parliament, because their publication might tend to produce embarrassment in the colony. With regard to the Papers lately distributed, he wished to make a few remarks. The first part of them repeated some of the information which he had sent home before he left New South Wales, and to which he drew attention last Session. In another part was contained the reports of naval officers who were ordered to inquire into the statements made after the murder of Bishop Patterson. It appeared that in accordance with a suggestion which he (the Earl of Belmore) made to Commodore Stirling, that officer had written to the Admiral in China, who had sent a ship of war down to the islands near the line. This ship—the Barrosa—was met by the Blanche, which had been sent up from Sydney, and there were interesting Reports from the officers commanding them—Captains Moore and Simpson—upon the labour trade and skull-hunting. With regard to Captain Hayes, the notorious pirate, whose name had been before mentioned in connection with this matter, it appeared that the Barrosa had only missed capturing him by a single day, having left Mulgrave Island one day whilst he arrived there the next. He had been in the custody of the captain of an American man-of-war—the Narraganset—but was released. In one part of the Papers, the reason given was, that the British Consul at Samoa had failed to bring charges against him which would hold water, although in another place that gentleman expressed great surprise at his having been released. With regard to skull-hunting, although it was admitted that it prevailed amongst the natives of the Solomon Islands, yet there seemed reason to think that no white man had taken part in it. Captain Moresby, of H.M.S. Basilisk, it was true, heard from a native pupil of the Melanesian Mission at Norfolk Island, the same story which the Rev. Mr. Brooke told the year before last, at the time of Bishop Patterson's murder; but, on the other hand, Captain Simpson could find no trace of white men having been engaged in it. The reasons he gave for his belief were,

  1695
  shortly, that it would not pay. Mr. Brooke had surmised that the captains of British ships had taken war parties in their vessels to procure the heads of their enemies, in return for being allowed to trade—tortoiseshell being the article of trade. But he (Captain Simpson) found that tortoiseshell could only be collected in small quantities at any one place—a few pieces at a time, as was shown by the case of a fine of two tons of tortoiseshell, which had been inflicted by Captain Montgomerie, of H.M.S. Blanche, on the inhabitants of an island who had murdered the crew of the Marion Renny, but which fine had never been collected, and which Captain Simpson altered to a punishment of a different sort. He (the Earl of Belmore) should not hesitate to accept this view, but for the reason that in the case of the Carl a naval officer had boarded her a few days after the massacre on board that ship had taken place, and could find nothing to excite suspicion, and had passed her as having all correct; and if one naval officer had been deceived in one case, so might a second be also in another. As regarded kidnapping, Captain Moresby, of H.M.S. Basilisk, thought that amongst the islands where his cruise had extended, it had entirely ceased, as far as procuring men by force went. He thought that men were still procured by fraud, but that the evil was gradually curing itself. Captain Simpson had found that it had ceased amongst the Caroline, Marshall, and Solomon groups, but that it still continued amongst the Gilbert group. On the whole, he (the Earl of Belmore) hoped that though it had not been entirely put down, yet that it had been checked. A right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lichfield) had mentioned to him that he had heard from his friends of the Melanesian Mission, that they had met but one labour ship during their last cruise for every ten the preceding year. There was one subject as to which he should like information to be given. As he had before stated, Captain Montgomerie, of H.M.S. Blanche, had inflicted a fine of a large quantity of tortoiseshell on the inhabitants of an island, as retribution for the murder of the crew of the Marion Renny. Captain Simpson, on arriving at the island three years afterwards, found that the fine had not been collected; and, instead of
  1696
  it, he exacted from two of the chiefs a promise that they would execute a third chief, who was responsible for the murder of the crew. This, it appeared, had since been done. Commodore Stirling said that this was the only part of Captain Simpson's conduct of which he had not approved; and he (the Earl of Belmore) wished to know what opinion Her Majesty's Government had expressed on the subject. Without committing himself to an opinion, he was inclined to think that it was better to exact retribution from the man who was, there seemed little doubt, morally responsible for the murder of 22 white people rather than adopt the old plan of retribution by shelling a defenceless village. As regarded the case of the Carl, it appeared by the Papers that two men had been found guilty at Sydney of murder, on board that ship, and had been sentenced to death. This sentence had, it was known, been commuted; but the Correspondence contained in the Papers stopped short of giving any information on that point, and he should be glad if the Papers he had given Notice to move for could include the despatch giving the reasons for such commutation, and the reply of the noble Earl. Two other men, named Mount and Morris, had been found guilty of manslaughter at Melbourne, but the Papers likewise stopped short of giving any information as to the sentences passed upon them. There was only one other matter to which he need allude, and that was the position of the British Consul towards the Fijian Government. It might be premature to express an opinion at present, and he understood that the new Consul and the new Commodore had orders to inquire and report on the state of affairs. The noble Earl had stated on a former occasion that the ultimate recognition of the Government, at present recognized as a de facto one, would a good deal depend upon how it behaved with respect to the suppression of kidnapping. From what appeared in the Papers, he did not anticipate very much from its action, for if all that was stated in the despatches of the late Consul was true, it would appear that one at least of the Members of that Government was implicated in some of the irregularities of the labour traffic. He begged to put the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he hoped the noble Earl would excuse him, if he abstained from following him into certain matters he had touched upon, and which were not included in his Notice. With regard to the proceedings in connection with the ship Carl, and the persons belonging to her who had been convicted of murder, it was quite true the Papers presented did not bring the intelligence down to that point at which they would give information of the sentences that had been passed upon the persons convicted. But at the same time, the only information in his possession on the subject of the commutation of the sentences passed on the persons found guilty of the atrocious proceedings referred to was contained in a despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor of New South Wales, dated the 30th of December, 1872, in which he said—
  "The capital sentences passed upon Dowden and Armstrong, the two men convicted of murdering a large number of Polynesians on board the brig Carl, have been commuted to penal servitude for life—the first three years in irons. It was the opinion of the Executive Council—in which I concurred—that it would have born improper to have executed these men, seeing that they were in the service and acting under the orders of Dr. Murray, the owner of the brig; and that he, the instigator and most active perpetrator of the murders, had escaped all punishment by being accepted as Queen's evidence against his own employés."
  With respect to the prisoners Mount and Morris, who were convicted of manslaughter before the Supreme Court of Victoria, and sentenced to penal servitude for 15 years, some technical question had arisen which had been referred to the Law Officers in the Colony; and he would not object to lay Papers on that subject upon the Table when he received further information. He could assure his noble Friend that with regard to the labour traffic, measures had been taken to send back to their homes those islanders who had been induced to enter into engagements under false pretences, and he had reason to believe that the officers intrusted with that duty were doing their utmost to carry it out to a successful issue. At present the Papers were in a very incomplete state, and it was undesirable to add to them; but as soon as they were complete further Papers would be presented.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in reply, said, that after what had fallen from
  1698
  the noble Earl, it would not be proper for him to press his Motion. Very likely an opportunity would occur next Session of renewing the discussion on this subject. As regarded Dr. Murray, who had been admitted as approver, the more that came out about him the worse he appeared to be. When he first told his story to the late Consul at Levuka (Mr. March), he of course made the best story for himself, and even at the trial at Sydney the whole truth did not come out about him. But at the trial of Mount and Morris at Melbourne, it appeared that Dr. Murray had, not in a moment of conflict, but after everything was quiet, deliberately fired several shots from his revolver through holes bored with an augur in a bulk-head in the hold of the ship amongst the natives confined within. Anything more cold-blooded had probably never been heard of since the world existed.

  THE MARRIAGE LAWS.—QUESTION.
  LORD CHELMSFORD,in rising to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Laws of Marriage presented to the House in the Session of 1868; and to ask the Lord Chancellor, Whether there is any probability of the introduction by Her Majesty's Government of any measure founded on that Report? said, their Lordships would recollect that some time ago a celebrated case occurred, known as the Yelverton case, which exhibited in a remarkable manner the difficulties which arose in ascertaining the legal status of an individual in consequence of the difference of the marriage laws existing in the United Kingdom. That case was tried in the Irish Courts and in the Scotch Courts, and ultimately it came to their Lordships' House for final decision. In the progress of the case, there was a great conflict of opinion upon questions involving the peculiarities of the Scotch marriage law, and also the statute law of mixed marriages in Ireland. The result of the controversy was, the expression of a very great desire that, if possible, an inquiry should be instituted with a view to ascertain whether the marriage laws of the different parts of the kingdom could not be brought into closer conformity. The Government of the day were pressed upon the subject in the House of Commons, and a Royal Commission was issued in 1865 for the pur-

  1699
  pose to which he had referred. That Commission, of which he was appointed Chairman, consisted of men most of whom had attained to high judicial positions. England was represented by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, Lord Cairns, Lord Lyveden, Lord Hatherley, Lord Penzance, Mr. Walpole, the Queen's Advocate, and himself; Ireland by Lord Mayo, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and Mr. Monsell; and Scotland by the Lord Justice General, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Dunlop. They began their labours by obtaining a summary of the marriage laws of the three different parts of the United Kingdom, and by the desire of the Commissioners he issued a Circular requesting, and which elicited, information on various heads, and which was addressed to all the Archbishops and Bishops in England, Ireland, and Scotland, Protestant and Roman Catholic; to the Moderators of the Scotch Church, Free Church, and United Presbyterian Church of Scotland; to the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland; to persons connected with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland; to clergymen of the Established Church in England; to the President and Vice President of the Wesleyan Conference in England; to various persons, members of the Dissenting Bodies in England; to the Registrar General in England and to many of the Registrars throughout the country. In all no fewer than 97 persons gave evidence before the Commissioners, or valuable information in reply to the Circular. The inquiry extended over three years, but that arose from the fact of many of its members having judicial and other functions to perform, which made it difficult to appoint convenient times for our meetings. The present Lord Chancellor not only gave his assistance as a Member of that Commission, but undertook to prepare the Report of the Commission, and that able and carefully prepared document was entirely his work. The Report was signed by all the Commissioners, with one exception. The late Lord Mayo, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, had been unable, from the pressure of his official duties, to attend a sufficient number of the meetings of the Commission to justify him in signing the Report. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Mr. Monsell signed the Report, but dissented from the recom-
  1700
  mendations affecting the Law of Divorce and the Jurisdiction of Divorce Courts, believing that the marriage tie was indissoluble, and that divorce a vinculo was contrary to the law of God. The Lord Justice General also signed the Report; but in a note he expressed his preference for the Scotch law of marriage. The Report of the Commissioners began by laying down the principles of a sound marriage law. It contained recommendations as to the capacity of persons to contract marriage; and as to the solemnities that should be required—as to the requirements preliminary to marriage, the requisite notice, residence, and declaration of the parties—with respect to the publication of bans it did not recommend their abolition, but that the publication of them should not be required as a condition of the lawfulness or regularity of a marriage. It recommended the abolition of canonical hours, and the solemnization of marriage in the presence of witnesses; it recommended the repeal of the law as to mixed marriages; it contained most important recommendations as to the notice of the intention to solemnize marriage, and as to the certificate of the minister or civil officer receiving the notice, and the Report suggested that this certificate would supersede the necessity for a licence, and recommended that the practice of granting common licences should cease. It contained most valuable recommendations for the registration of all marriages, and recommended the repeal of all existing statutes upon the subject of marriage, and the embodying the enactments necessary to give effect to the recommendations in a single statute. The Report was made five years ago, and it was matter of regret, if not of reproach, that nothing had been done since that period. Of course, a measure of so much importance could only be introduced under the authority of the Government, and he did not expect that at the present moment his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would be prepared to give any pledge on the subject. He trusted, however, that some assurance would be given that the matter would not pass altogether unnoticed, and that his noble and learned Friend, as the author of the Report, and more competent perhaps than any other person to address himself to the subject, would not allow the labours of the Commis-

  1701
  sion to fall to the ground without bearing fruit, but that he would add to his high reputation by improving a law which affected the domestic relations of every family in the kingdom, from the highest to the lowest.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it would not be possible for him to give a pledge as to the time or manner in which the Government would deal with this subject, if indeed during their tenure of office, it would be possible to deal with it at all. He was, however, grateful to his noble and learned Friend for calling their Lordships' attention to a question the importance of which was much greater than most of those which occupied the attention of Parliament, and which if not dealt with when it was attracting no public attention, would sooner or later require to be dealt with under less favourable circumstances. He was the more sensible of the importance of the subject, because every year more than one Act became necessary to set right some slip, mistake, or error arising from the state of the marriage law in one portion or other of the United Kingdom. In England and Ireland the faults of the marriage law lay in an opposite direction from those of the marriage law of Scotland, turning as they did on sectarian differences or formal observances. In Scotland, on the other hand, there was absolutely nothing to insure certainty as to the fact, or to preclude the most uncomfortable questions from subsequently occurring. What were called irregular marriages in Scotland, were however, rare exceptions; and the peculiarities of the Scotch marriage law, which rendered such marriages possible, could be easily got rid of without any hardship or inconvenience to the well-conducted portion of the community. The Commissioners recommended a system of registration which would tend to insure the facility and certainty of marriage, and, at the same time, to check improvident and hasty marriages. Their endeavour was to reconcile, as far as might be, the great and fundamental doctrine that matrimony was a civil contract, with the general belief that it was a contract which ought to receive, as far as might be, a religious sanction. With that view the Commissioners proposed that every authorized minister of religion ordinarily officiating in any place of public worship throughout the kingdom
  1702
  might solemnize marriages for civil purposes. At the same time, marriages might be solemnized by civil registry alone if the parties desired it. This scheme was by no means a complicated one. It would be of uniform application throughout the three kingdoms, and it would put an end to the cases of uncertainty with which Scotland had furnished us with frequent examples, while, at the same time, it would get rid of every remnant of the sectarian system by which the validity of marriage could be affected. These proposals dealt equally with all churches and denominations, and he trusted they would one day be embodied in a law. Without pledging the Government in any way, if it should be his good fortune at some future time to be instrumental in submitting such a law to the House, it would not be the least of the services which he desired to be able to render to the country.

  INDIA—THE BANDA AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the subjects referred to in the Question he had placed on the Paper were familiarly known to the noble Duke (the Secretary of State for India), and indeed to all persons who of late years had taken any part in connection with Indian affairs. The claims had remained unsettled for 14 or 15 years, and in the course of that time they had given rise to a great deal of correspondence and discussion. He had been asked by parties who were interested in the settlement of these claims to put to the noble Duke the Question which stood in his name on the Paper, and under the circumstances, considering the lateness of the hour, he would do so without any further remarks. He would ask the noble Duke, Whether the complete accounts of the Banda and Kirwee Booty can be presented to Parliament in this Session; and, whether Her Majesty will be advised under the Act 3rd & 4th Vict. chap. 65. sect. 22. to refer for judicial decision the claim of the troops, which in 1871 was confirmed by the Secretary of State for India, to interest on a million and a half of old rupees taken at Kirwee, or other claims for valuable booty which are supported by the legal opinions of Her Majesty's Attorney General and other very eminent counsel?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the final accounts of the Banda and Kirwee booty had not yet been received from India. They were extremely complicated, but as soon as they arrived from India they should be presented to Parliament. With regard to the second Question, he did not know whether his noble Friend was aware that the same Question was put to him last year by the noble Lord opposite, on which occasion he made an elaborate statement to the House of the whole circumstances of the case. He then stated that the claims were finally settled, and declined to refer the matter to a judicial tribunal. The only remaining question, even among the officers themselves, was whether interest ought to be allowed on a large quantity of bullion, old rupees, and jewels which were held by the Government for a certain period unrealized. He explained to the House the important principles which were involved in this question. The claim was made on the supposition that the Government were in the position of a prize agent, and were bound to make the best possible use of all the property which came into their possession. The whole of the money and the proceeds from the jewels had been given to the Army, with interest from the moment when the Government became the profitable owners of them, but for a part of the time during which they were in the hands of the Government they could not be turned to profitable use, and the Government could not admit the claim that they were bound to allow interest upon them during the period which they were not profitable. As to the jewels, they had been valued by native jewellers at a price which exceeded the sum realized by the sale, and some of the officers put forward a preposterous claim for the amount at which the jewels were valued. The Government had certainly not acted in a niggardly manner, for they had calculated the interest on the bullion from the time it was captured, and the interest on the jewels, &c., from the time they were actually sold. He repeated that the Government could not consent to bring the claims before a legal tribunal, as they deemed the question to be finally settled.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYregretted that no more satisfactory explanation could be given, and stated that much
  1704
  dissatisfaction prevailed in consequence of the manner in which the whole transaction had been dealt with.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the question referred to the decision of Dr. Lushington was as follows:—The Crown having granted particular booty to be distributed among the troops, what troops were entitled to take the benefit of that grant? The legal foundation for the judgment was the actual grant by the Crown of certain things to certain troops, and the decisions given in former cases enabled the Judge to solve that rather difficult question. It was quite a mistake, however, to suppose that there was any legal principle on which the Judge could be asked to try the question whether the Crown ought to pay interest on the booty, or whether the Crown should let the troops have property not taken in the actual operations of the field. These were matters for the Crown and the Government to exercise their discretion upon, and, in his opinion, they ought not to be referred to the decision of a judicial tribunal. To do so would be to call in a judicial tribunal to arbitrate on the question, whether the Crown ought to give something which it had not given in fact, and which it was under no obligation to give.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.