Lords Sitting of 9 August 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Local Authorities Loans* (276); Remission of Penalties* (275); Sheriff Substitute (Scotland)* (281).
Second Reading—National School Teachers (Ireland) (258); Unseaworthy (Ships* (265); Public Works Loans* (266); National School Teachers Residences (Ireland)* (274).
Committee—Report—Sanitary Law (Dublin) Amendment* (259).
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act Amendment* (252); Expiring Laws Continuance* (260); East India Home Government (Appointments)* (261); Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (262); Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment* (236), and passed.

REFORMATORIES.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved for a—
  "Return of the number of committals to Reformatories during the last two years by justices in petty sessions; stating the ages of the children, the nature of the offences, and the duration of the sentences."
  The noble Earl said, he moved for this table in consequence of the proceedings at Spalding, which excited so much attention, and of proceedings subsequent to those. He alluded to a case at Alcester last week, in which the bench of magistrates sentenced a little girl to a month's imprisonment and five years in a reformatory for placing a pebble on the line. The little girl stated that she had done it for the pleasure of hearing it go "crunch." Such, at least, was the result as reported in the papers.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for Return of the number of committals to Reformatories during the last two years by justices in petty sessions; stating the ages of the children, the nature of the offences, and the duration of the sentences.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

FRENCH PROTESTANT SERVICE, CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYrose to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether any scheme has been prepared by the Charity Commissioners for diverting to other objects the funds at present available for
  726
  a French Protestant Service in Canterbury Cathedral? His Question divided itself into three branches. He wished to know whether there was any such scheme; whether the Charity Commissioners had the power, without control from any higher authority, to carry such a scheme into effect; and whether, if such a scheme was intended to be prepared, an opportunity would be given to those who felt an interest in the subject to make known their sentiments on the subject. Prom the time of the Reformation downwards there had been in the Canterbury Cathedral a service for French Protestants conducted in the French language, and it had continued up to the present time. This had been under the superintendence of the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral, and with the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. A large number of French Protestants sought refuge here during the reign of Edward VI., and subsequently in the reign of Elizabeth, when the Massacre of St. Bartholomew occurred. In the reign of the latter Monarch provision was made for the performance of a French Service in the crypt of the Cathedral. While he granted that the number of persons attending that service was now very small, and while he granted that the number of French Protestants residing at Canterbury had very much diminished since the service was founded, yet the service was an institution which kept up a connection between the French Protestant Church and the Church of England, and therefore it appeared to many persons to be very undesirable that the service should be unnecessarily interfered with. The numbers which attended the service were very few; but the same might be said in respect of the services in many of the churches of the City of London. Again, it might be urged that the clergyman did not reside in Canterbury, but came there to perform the service; but he did not know that the same objection might not be urged in the case of some parish churches. In these days, when there was a widespread desire to preserve any old building which was a link of connection between the past and the present, it did seem undesirable that there should be any unnecessary interference with the French Service in Canterbury Cathedral. He had said so much in explanation of the Question

  727
  which he begged to put to the noble Duke.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had to state that no scheme such as that referred to by the most rev. Prelate had been prepared, but one was under consideration; and he thought the most rev. Prelate would admit that the subject was one which did require to be inquired into. The Charity Commissioners had asked the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury to assist them in the matter, and he was sure they would pay every attention to any representation coming from the most rev. Prelate. The need of inquiry was shown by some facts elicited in 1872, when it appeared that the English afternoon service was read in French by an English layman, who received £40 a-year. The number of worshippers who attended was seven; of whom one spoke French, another spoke it imperfectly, and the remainder were entirely ignorant of that language. The French pastor attended once a month, when the congregation was larger. That reverend gentleman received £60 a-year. He thought after that the necessity of something being done would be admitted; but he could assure the most rev. Prelate that nothing would be proposed without full consideration.

  APPELLATE BUSINESS OF THIS HOUSE.—MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD REDESDALEmoved for—
  "A Return of Number of Causes effective for Hearing at the commencement of the present Session; number of Causes set down for Hearing from the commencement of the present Session up to the Whitsuntide Recess; total number of effective Causes before Whitsuntide; total number of Causes heard during the present Session, distinguishing the number of such Causes as were brought into the House during the present Session; and the number of Causes set down for Hearing subsequently to the Whitsuntide Recess."
  The noble Lord said, that having given some attention to the subject, he thought he could state that the number of causes effective for hearing in their Lordships' House at the commencement of the present Session was 23, the number set down for hearing from the commencement of the present Session up to the Whitsuntide Recess 24, making the total number of effective causes before Whitsuntide 47. The total number of causes
  728
  heard during the present Session was 47. Of these 47 causes, 7 were brought into the House during the present Session, and the number of causes set down for hearing subsequently to the Whitsuntide Recess was 14.

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 258.)
(The Lord President.)
NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 258.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was unnecessary for him at this time of day to occupy their Lordships with remarks on the subject of the advantages of education. These might now be taken for granted, and he thought there was quite as general a concurrence of opinion as to the necessity of having good teachers if you wanted satisfactory results to follow from a system of national education. The Bill now before their Lordships had immediate reference to teachers, and it came up from the other House of Parliament under circumstances rather peculiar in the case of any Bill, but more especially so in the case of one applying solely to Ireland. A complete unanimity prevailed in respect of the Bill in the other House of Parliament. He was convinced that if the Irish Members had not felt satisfied that the measure was one which would be of advantage to Ireland, it would not have passed through that other House without some—not to say considerable—opposition. He was afraid, however, that the unanimity which prevailed in "another place" with reference to this Bill did not extend itself to their Lordships' House, for his noble Friend be-hind him (the Earl of Donoughmore) had given Notice of his intention to move its rejection. He thought the principle that there should be local assistance in aid of Imperial grants for the purposes of national education was one which could not be controverted. That from the first this had been intended in Ireland was clear from the letter of the late Lord Derby, issued at the time of the foundation of the Irish national system, because in that letter it was pointed out that the schoolmaster should be paid mainly by the district, the State adding a gratuity. The fact, however, was that

  729
  85 per cent of the cost of national education in Ireland was now paid by the State, only 15 per cent of that cost being raised by local efforts. That was a very much larger State contribution than anything we had a notion of in reference to national education in England, and he really did not see why the principle of helping those who helped themselves should not be applied to Ireland as well as to this country in the matter of education. In 1868 a Royal Commission recommended that attention should be given to the subject of local contributions to education in Ireland, and he could not help thinking that that would be legislation in the right and proper direction. He was at a loss to know what objections could be urged against this measure If it was objected that it was a question which ought to have been dealt with earlier in the Session, he would only point out that some Bills must give precedence to others, and that it would be impossible to fix a period in the Session after which no legislation should take place. He had, however, to remind their Lordships that so early as the month of March his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant gave utterance clearly and unmistakably in "another place" to the views which were embodied in the Bill now before their Lordships' House. It might be said that the Bill could have been discussed in Ireland if it had been brought forward earlier; but his answer to that was that the way in which to obtain a full and fair discussion for the Bill in Ireland was to pass it. When it became law it would be at once the duty of the Local Government Board in Ireland to write to every Board of Guardians in Ireland to point out to them what they could do under this Bill, and thus the whole subject would be taken up and discussed. He understood that another objection to the Bill was founded on the allegation that the incidence of taxation which it proposed was not the right one—namely, that the levy for the purposes of education ought to be in the county cess, and not in the poor rate as proposed by the Bill. He believed, however, that the proposition in the Bill was the right one, because when levied in the poor rate the sums raised for educational purposes would fall one-half on the owner and one-half on the occupier, while if they were levied in the county
  730
  cess they would fall entirely on the occupier. The Bill had one peculiarity which ought to commend itself to their Lordships—namely, that it was entirely permissive in its character. The Boards of Guardians might avail themselves of it or not. If the Guardians resolved that they would contribute out of the poor rates one-third of the full amount to the payment of the teachers in national schools, they would do so in the manner provided by one of the clauses in the Bill; and if, after a certain time, they declined to go on, they could give notice to rescind the resolution which they had previously come to. There was a clause at the end of the Bill which dealt with teachers of Poor Law Union national schools, and which would be the means of bringing them within its purview. He felt that this was a step in the right direction, and therefore hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I have not the excuse of having previously come forward on any matter connected with the National Board for presenting myself now, but hope for a few moment's indulgence on the ground of great interest; I might say, in the belief that some of your Lordships, who hold bygone days in remembrance, will allow the claim—an hereditary interest in the main question of primary education in Ireland. And although my observations on the proposal before the House will not be in its favour, or in accordance with the views of the promoters of this Bill, still I can confidently state that they do not contain solely my own opinion in the matter. From opportunities I have had of consulting those who are interested in this question, I am happy to find the objections which I feel it my duty to bring forward to-night very generally entertained. My noble Friend the noble Duke is quite right in supposing that many consider—and that is an opinion in which I fully concur—that a measure of such vital importance which requires such delicate handling, and in dealing with which any mistake would lead to such serious consequences, should not have been introduced into your Lordships' House at this period of the Session,

  731
  at a time when it is impossible for many who might be desirous of stating their views to come forward and do so. There is not, I should hope, a single Member of your Lordships' House who would not testify to the extreme difficulty of dealing with any matter connected with education in Ireland, and any hasty or ill-judged step must inevitably lead to present dissatisfaction, and largely increased difficulty in the future. Those of your Lordships who have studied this Bill will have perceived that its object is to enable Boards of Guardians to put their unions under voluntary contribution to results fees in the proportion of one-third of the sum granted annually by Government by way of results fees to such union. Now, I would ask your Lordships to turn your attention to this matter from two points of view—first, as to what probability there is of Boards of Guardians availing themselves of these facilities; second, as to what the effect would be in the event of their doing so. With regard to the first point, my Lords, I confess I am no believer in the likelihood of these provisions being made use of by Boards of Guardians. An honorary member and attendant of two Boards myself, I hear so many disputes about high rates—such discussions on adding to the salary of the master, the doctor, or the matron—such anxious enquiries about the lowest tender when any new building or necessary alteration is projected, that I despair of Guardians voluntarily subjecting their unions to further imposition. Moreover, I have gone so far as to avail myself of such local opinion as could be procured in a very limited time, and hold in my hand a letter from the clerk of one of my neighbouring unions, from which, as it describes fairly the feeling on the subject, I will take the liberty of quoting. He says that the clogheen Board, in common with the other unions of Ireland, will oppose the measure. And I am further confirmed by this letter, in what I previously heard was the case, that the Cork Guardians had passed a protest against the scheme, which was being circulated among other Boards with a view to its adoption. My Lords, I believe our poor teachers would get very little benefit from this Bill, that for the purpose intended it is almost useless, and in a case like this, where a large and impressionable population is
  732
  interested, and is eagerly watching the action of the Government, ready to judge whether it is decided or halfhearted, vigorous or lukewarm. I would submit that no measure at all would have been preferable to one which must fail in its results, and must remain, to all intents and purposes, a dead letter. But I would now ask your Lordships to turn your attention to the second point to which I alluded—what would be the effect in the event of Boards of Guardians consenting to accept the provisions of this measure? It is in this that what I believe to be the fatal fault of the Bill lies, both as regards present consequences, and with reference to its influence on the course of future legislation in Irish educational matters. I would earnestly ask your Lordships to look back upon the history of the National Board from its foundation to the present time, and to note the constant disputes upon subjects relating to religious education which arose even in the earlier days. Your Lordships are aware that since the year 1858 the Roman Catholic priesthood have forbidden candidates of that denomination to avail themselves of the system of training teachers offered in Dublin, and I need only refer your Lordships to the Report of the Commission of 1870 for further confirmation as to this religious difficulty. In spite of all this, my Lords, this system of education has grown until it has become recognizable as a national system—an imperfect one, perhaps—but still one that affords facilities to 1,000,000 of Irish children. Consequently, any revival of the old disputes, especially one brought about by means authorized by the Legislature, would be far more dangerous, more fatal to the cause of Irish education than any difference that might have arisen in the earlier times. But what does this Bill do, my Lords? It converts every contributory Board of Guardians meeting into an arena for sectarian disputes, and those of a most virulent character, if we are to judge by discussions within our own experience, on topics far less calculated to excite ill-feeling. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in a speech the other night upon the Irish Education Vote, said, this argument might carry some weight if the rate proposed had been a compulsory one; but I should have thought that the very fact of the process being voluntary would give rise

  733
  to more discussion than were it otherwise, for everyone-would deem himself at liberty to advance his opinion on the advisability of the step or the contrary. In the other case, the very compulsion takes away the incentive to discussion on matters of detail. I believe, therefore, my Lords, that the present consequences of this Bill will be dispute and dissatisfaction—that in the future insurmountable difficulty. Every well-wisher of the cause—and I trust they are not a few—must look forward to the time when the entire question of Irish education will be dealt with, not in the spirit of party, not in the heat of religious acrimony or sectarian impulse, but on the broad ground of mutual concession and conciliation. Our national system has attained such dimensions as to give us some hope in looking forward to this end. But throw down this bone of contention—raise up, revivify, and localize these old disputes, and you not only create present heart-burnings, but retard the process for years. It is for this, my Lords, that I protest against this hasty legislation—this mockery of dealing with a great issue. I shall say no more upon the subject, but will leave the issue in your Lordships' hands. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that considerable differences of opinion prevailed amongst the Members of that House connected with Ireland on this subject, and it was generally believed amongst them that the Bill would not be proceeded with this Session. It was true that the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the House of Commons shadowed forth in March last what might be the provisions of some such measure; but it was felt that the Bill would share the fate of others that had been announced early in the Session. On the 9th of August, 1869, on a Motion to consider on the following day the Commons' Amendments to the Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, in moving an Amendment to that Motion, used these words—
  734
  "The practice of proceeding with important measures at a period when the larger number of the Members of the House had conceived that their duties were over, and that they might retire to the country, was a practice that required to he checked if the House wished to preserve its privileges.… Their Lordships were aware that he had always attended to this matter not at all as a party question, but with the view of watching the privileges of the House and securing fair deliberation. At one time, indeed, he induced their Lordships to take the course referred to by Mr. Gladstone in the speech he had quoted—namely, to resolve that after a certain day no Bill should be read a second time; and though in deference to a feeling of jealousy on the part of the Commons he gave up pressing for that Order, he did so on the understanding that the principle of it would he adhered to by the Governments of the day; "—[3 Hansard, cxcviii. 1473–4.]
  and on the Motion of the noble Lord their Lordships resolved, by a vote of 55 to 43, not to consider the Amendments to the Bill. Several noble Lords who had made themselves well acquainted with the system of national education in Ireland were now absent, and he submitted that the arguments he had just quoted from the speech of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had great force on this occasion. This question was of more importance than anyone would be induced to believe from the statement of the noble Duke in proposing the second reading of the Bill. It revived the whole question of national education in Ireland, and of the extent and proportions in which that system should be supported by Imperial, national, or local taxation. The Boards of Guardians were unfit bodies to decide from time to time whether an educational rate should be levied, as strong feelings existed in Ireland on the education question, and these would find utterance at every Board of Guardians when the provisions of this Bill came to be discussed by those Boards. The effects on the schoolmasters themselves would be very bad. In a contributory union one would receive an increase to his salary, while another, in perhaps an adjoining Union which was not contributory, would not receive such an increase. Then what became of the position of a school teacher in a contributory Union which afterwards, by the action of the Guardians, became non - contributory? What would be his feelings when he lost his increase of pay? Granting that the school teachers ought to get an increase of pay, still, he asserted, the

  735
  mode proposed in this Bill was not the proper mode of giving it to them. It was too late in the Session to raise the question or to consider in what proportion payment should be by results, and the other great questions affecting education in Ireland. Under this Bill the result fees would be unlimited, and the rate, which was a Union rate, would be unlimited. He submitted that their Lordships' House should not be committed by such a Bill, read a second time on the 9th of August, and in the absence of a great majority of the Irish Peers.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, he was unable to read private letters to their Lordships on this subject, and therefore could not give chapter and verse for the assertion, but he asked their Lordships to believe that he spoke on good grounds when he asserted that this Bill would not have passed unopposed in the House of Commons except for the belief that it would be dropped in the House of Lords. In his experience he found that Irish Poor Law Guardians were not inferior to English Guardians; but of one thing he felt quite certain, that the former were averse to responsibilities being cast upon them which were foreign to the purpose of the Poor Law. Not only would they have to levy rates for the payment of the registration of Parliamentary voters, for the return of jurors, for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, and also for carrying out sanitary regulations, which they did at present, but after this Bill became law they would also be obliged to tax the ratepayers with amounts for educational purposes before paying over anything for the relief of the poor. That was one of the most extraordinary features of the Bill. That the national school teachers themselves were not satisfied with the Bill was evident from a letter which had appeared in The Times. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment had expressed his belief that the Bill would be inoperative. He did not concur in that view. On the contrary, he feared that in one direction it would be too operative. At present a great number of the Irish national school teachers taught very curious and mischievous history, and took their own political information from revolutionary teachers. They taught their pupils that the Catholic aborigines of the island were
  736
  saints, and that the Protestant Saxons who came into the country were demons. Such histories did a great deal of mischief and induced disloyalty to Her Majesty; and he believed, if true histories were substituted for them, the people of Ireland would place their mouths in the dust, and would cry, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants—" Peccavi. I have sinned against thee, my brother." Well, the result of this Bill would be that in every electoral division of a Union there would be efforts to turn out respectable Guardians and put in their place persons whose sole mission would be to increase the salaries of the teachers. He was as anxious as anybody that the teachers should be paid properly; but he doubted whether it was wise to increase their salaries until we had further results from the national system. He hoped their Lordships would not allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, there was a great deal of good in the Bill and much harm, and he scarcely knew whether he should be pleased to see the Bill passed in its present shape or not. No one could doubt that the pay of the Irish national teachers was too small. He approved the principle of paying the teachers according to results. Indeed, he went further, and held that they ought not to acknowledge teachers at all except by shown results; and he was afraid that if a Government Inspector of schools went through Ireland applying the English standard the results would be found far from satisfactory. The fault in the machinery of this Bill was that it treated Irish Boards of Guardians as if they were composed like English Boards of Guardians; but that was an entire mistake. Speaking for a considerable district in Ireland with which he was connected, he could not help saying that the constitution of Boards of Guardians was by no means such as to render those bodies fit for exercising the powers given to them by this Bill. The Guardians were, generally speaking, small farmers, having had little education themselves, and very indifferent judges of what was good or bad in matters of that sort. He should be very sorry to see a bone of contention—for the power given under this Bill would be little else—thrown among them. If the schoolmaster was a Roman Catholic the vote would go one way; if

  737
  he was a Protestant it would go the other way. He thought that the National Education Board ought to have a veto; and they might also have the power of initiating an Educational Vote where the Guardians did not take the initiative themselves. He thought, upon the whole, that the Bill might fairly be postponed till next Session.
  LORD CARLINGFORDdid not, as an Irish landlord, feel that alarm with which some noble Lords looked to the operation of this Bill. He thought they had some reason to complain of the time when this Bill was brought up, and he was not able to say that he very much admired the particular plan of obtaining support to Irish national schools from local rates; but he did not apprehend the faction fights and party religious feuds in Irish Boards of Guardians which they seemed to expect. He thought it much more likely that in most cases the Bill would be a dead letter. He had not much apprehension as to the discovery and patronage of Fenian teachers by Boards of Guardians. It would not be in the power of Boards of Guardians to patronize an inefficient teacher, because he had taken the means of ingratiating himself with them, because the payments to be made were for results, and it would be only efficient teachers who would have any chance of obtaining a contribution from the rates. Feeling strongly what a scandal it was that the amount of local contributions under any form towards Irish popular education had been so small, he could not make up his mind to oppose a Bill, however imperfect it might be in other respects, which made a step in the way of experiment towards curing that great evil. It was lamentable that Irish landlords, speaking generally, should not think it their duty to give pecuniary support and otherwise to schools in which the children of their tenants might be taught as was thought necessary in this country. But such was the fact, and the result of that state of things was that out of the whole cost of Irish popular education only 15 per cent was produced by school fees and subscriptions together. Thus the position of Irish national education was in a most unsatisfactory state. Along with this Bill the Government had persuaded the House of Commons to grant a fresh boon from the Imperial purse; an additional sum of
  738
  £60,000 a-year was to be given as a bonus irrespective of results to the Irish national school teachers. He was bound to say he regarded that bonus simply as a sop to the Irish national school teachers. Considering the many disadvantages under which they laboured it was wonderful how well they did their duty. They were an active and influential body, especially as regarded the Irish Members; but this Bill did not solve any of the real difficulties of national education in Ireland. It did not carry further that system of results which, so far as it had been tried, had worked admirably. Above all it left the training of Irish teachers, to the importance of which he had alluded on a former occasion, untouched; it left Irish national education in a lamentable state of deficiency, and this he held to be a great cause of discontent in that country. If they were to have at any future time a system of rating in Ireland for the support of schools, they must regard the wishes of the Irish people and establish good training schools.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, as the noble Lord (the Earl of Limerick) had appealed to an opinion of his with respect to passing Bills sent up at a late period of the Session, he wished to state that he had always held that it was wrong for their Lordships to agree to any measure of serious importance which they had not time to consider, and for which there was no urgent necessity. What had their Lordships heard on this occasion? Every Irishman who had spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord who had just sat down, had denounced the measure, and that noble Lord had said it was a very bad one. ["No!"] He understood the noble Lord to say that the Bill was not one which, on the whole, it was desirable to adopt; but because it was a step towards doing something favourable to the teachers of Ireland, he would not oppose it.
  LORD CARLINGFORDexplained that what he said was, that as this was a mode of trying the experiment of obtaining local aid for the Irish schools he would support it, though it was not the mode he would have chosen.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, as the Bill was one for giving something to Irish teachers, the noble Lord would vote for it; but he did not approve of the manner

  739
  in which this was to be done. Their Lordships ought not to be hasty in passing such a measure, but ought to consider it fairly on its merits, and in the last week of the Session that could not be done. He hoped that what had been said would induce Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble Friend who had moved the rejection of this measure had taken a very strong and unusual course. This Bill dealt mainly with a question of taxation—of local taxation, no doubt—but still of taxation, and on such matters, in the first instance, at all events, the action must commence with the other House of Parliament. It should be remembered also that this Bill had not been brought hurriedly before the House of Commons; it had been announced deliberately in that House early in the Session; and Members from Ireland, who were not always of one mind, showed in this question an absolute unanimity. There was no division on the Bill, no alteration made in it, and not a word said against it that he had heard of. That was a circumstance which distinguished this Bill from those to which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had referred. He quite subscribed to the opinion that Bills—brought up at a late period of the Session, should be treated with great caution by their Lordships; but, in this case, there were two considerations on the other side which should be taken into account. One was, that the Bill was one of which ample notice had been given; the other, that it was not a measure involving many details. The Bill, as he had said, had been announced in the other House of Parliament a considerable time since; it had been made the basis of the financial arrangements of the Irish Education Vote—or, at all events, the supplement or complement of those arrangements. Then this was not a question of detail, for the Bill was one which must be accepted or rejected at once. Further, it might be judged from the attendance of noble Lords connected with Ireland that there was no lack of interest in the Bill, as there was no lack of opportunity of objecting to it. There was no doubt that the position of the teachers in the national schools of Ireland interfered seriously with the efficient working of the national system of education in that
  740
  country. With the inadequate pay which they received we could not command the services of teachers in whose hands we should be content to leave the education of Ireland. Was not the matter, therefore, urgent? The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was of opinion that there was nothing urgent in the matter. He (the Lord Chancellor,) on the other hand, maintained that there was, because the matter had been left over for several years, and if the education given in the national schools of Ireland was unsatisfactory, that was because the remuneration of the teachers was inadequate. His noble Friend (Viscount Lifford) referred to a letter from the Secretary to the Committee of the National School Teachers in Ireland, according to which there ought to be no payment by results, but an absolute grant from the national purse for increasing the salaries of the teachers. But that, was not a plan which Parliament would be inclined to adopt. Then, the only alternative was either to adopt the proposal of the Bill, or to make the Bill compulsory. It was said the measure would aggravate disputes at the Boards of Guardians. But it was, he believed, impossible that that could be the effect of it. Any person who knew Ireland must know that the schools in every Union were either in the hands of one denomination, or of different denominations. Where they were in the hands of one denomination, what controversies could there be? The only question that could arise was as to the economical point, whether Poor Law Guardians would wish to increase the rates. On the other hand, in Unions where there were schools of different denominations, why should any altercations arise? It was not a measure for the benefit of one denomination at the expense of another. Schools of both denominations would be benefited in the same way. It was therefore, he thought, a chimera to say that disputes would arise under this Bill; and it would be much better that well-educated scholars should be secured by a measure of this kind, rather than that there should be—besides ignorant and ill-advised teachers—ignorant and ill-trained scholars. It had been said that all the Boards of Guardians were against this permissive Bill. If so, at any rate, the Bill could do no harm, But he doubted the accuracy

  741
  of general statements of this kind. One of the first principles of representative institutions was, that for ascertaining the opinions of the represented we should look at the opinions of the representatives. Now, the Representatives of Ireland were surely the best judges of the opinions of Boards of Guardians there, and the Representatives of Ireland had concurred in supporting the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 17: Majority 21.
  Resolved in the Affirmative:—Bill read 2* accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bagot, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Richmond, D.

  Somerset, D.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  de Eos, L.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Forester, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Derby, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Granville, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Selborne, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Exmouth, V.

  Vernon, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Hood, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bath, M.

  Denman, L.

  Dunsany, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Lime-rich.) [Teller.]

  Lucan, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  de Vesci, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Redesdale, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)

  Lifford, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Colchester, L.

UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.—(No. 263.)
(The lord President.)
UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.—(No. 263.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: Her Majesty's Government feel strongly the necessity of dealing with this subject. They have so felt for some period, believing that few subjects which come under the attention of Parliament require more careful consideration. I do not pretend that Her Majesty's Government monopolizes the feeling of interest which, undoubtedly, prevails on this subject. On the contrary, I am satisfied there is no Member of your Lordships' House who will not desire to carry out, as far as possible, by restrictive powers, the object contemplated by the Bill—namely, to maintain and preserve our ships in a seaworthy condition, and also to give confidence to the crews of our Merchant Shipping. Before going further, let me call attention to what has been done in the past, so that the public may not imagine that only now, for the first time, has the attention of Parliament been directed to this important subject. So long ago as 1855, after the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, the opinion of the Law Officers of the day was taken as to whether a seaman, being called upon to sail in an unseaworthy ship, could plead this as a reasonable cause for not being compelled to form part of the crew. As might be expected, the Law Officers answered in the affirmative, and their opinion was made as public as possible by the Board of Trade at that period. Some years afterwards a Circular was issued by Sir George Grey, who invited the magistrates of seaport towns to call in the surveyors of the Board of Trade in all cases where complaints were made by seamen against the unseaworthiness of ships. More recently Bills have been prepared by various Governments. When I was at the Board of Trade I had a measure under consideration, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) afterwards had a measure under his consideration, but these Bills were not passed. The subject was next taken up in 1871, when a measure was introduced and passed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford). I merely mention these facts to show that stringent Acts of Parliament have been adopted with a view to better the condition of seamen, and that the idea is not now a sudden one. Among other provisions which the Act of 1871 contained

  743
  in the interest of seamen were three of great importance. First, one-fourth of the seamen charged with desertion might call upon the Court to have the ship surveyed by the Board of Trade surveyor. Secondly, the Board of Trade were empowered to detain un-seaworthy ships. Thirdly, the Act made it a misdemeanour to send ships to sea in an unseaworthy state; it required a record of the draught of water both on the stem and stern of the ship, and it gave power to the Board of Trade to require that records of these facts should be made known. In 1872 the attention of the magistrates was called to the provisions of the Act in a very distinct manner in a Circular issued by the Home Secretary (Lord Aberdare). In the winter of 1872–3 there appeared a remarkable book which was written by Mr. Plimsoll, a Member of the other House. This book attracted considerable attention, the result being that Her Majesty, on the recommendation of then President of the Board of Trade, the noble Lord who sits opposite (Lord Carling-ford), issued a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject. The Government of the day were so anxious to deal with the matter that they did not follow the usual course of waiting till the Royal Commission had reported; but in the year 1873, while the Commission was sitting, an Act of Parliament was passed which gave the Board of Trade very much more stringent powers than had been conferred by the Act of 1871. I will describe very shortly some of the provisions of the Act of 1873, because they show that the great desire of Parliament has always been as much as possible to protect our seamen in this way. By the 12th section of 36 & 37 of the Queen, where the Board of Trade have received a complaint or have reason to believe that any British vessel is unfit to proceed to sea, they may, if they think fit, appoint some competent person to survey such ship and the machinery and cargo thereof, and to report thereon to the Board. Another section provides that the Board may, if they think fit, order any ship to be detained for the purpose of being surveyed. Then, on the receipt of the report of the person making such survey, the Board, if in their opinion the ship cannot proceed to sea without serious danger to human life, may make a further order for the
  744
  detention of the ship. Another important section of the Act says that when a ship has been detained she shall not be released by reason of her British register having been closed. There was also in the 9th section of the Act of 1873 a very important provision by which, if a sailor who is charged with desertion proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the ship is unseaworthy, the owner is bound to compensate him for the loss he has sustained by his detention. This is a step very much for the benefit of the sailor. With regard to the loss of life which has been so frequently-referred to in the debates and discussions on this subject, and which we all so deeply deplore, I may remark that nothing can be more fallacious and illusory than the returns of the number of the number of persons who perish by the losses of ships at sea. The reason of this is that you cannot get at a proper average of deaths. You cannot show that the number of deaths has been in any way caused by the unseaworthiness of the ships, because a lamentable loss of life is caused by the going down of large vessels which are not unseaworthy, and which, moreover, had been surveyed before they proceeded on their voyages. I need only refer to the instances of the Vicksburg, which struck on an iceberg, of the Schiller, which went upon the rocks near the Scilly Islands, and of the burning of the Cospatrick. I think it is but fair, in the interests of the officials of the Board of Trade, who carry into effect the provisions of the law, that I should bring these facts under your Lordships' notice, because there is a considerable feeling in the country that Parliament should do everything that it possibly can in this matter. One remarkable fact, showing the manner in which those officials put in force the provisions of the law, is to be found in a Parliamentary Return, granted in the present year, of the vessels ordered to be surveyed by the Board of Trade. I find that out of 550 ships surveyed between the 5th of August, 1873, and the 30th of June, 1875, no fewer than 505 were surveyed in consequence of reports made by Government officers, leaving, therefore, only 45 ships which were reported by other persons. Having thus endeavoured to show the interest which has been taken in this matter by former Governments, I come to the Bill introduced

  745
  by Her Majesty's present Government in the early part of this year. I may say that Bill was based mainly, if not altogether, upon the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission. It was framed with the view, as we hoped and expected of meeting all the necessities of the case, and I think I am justified in saying that the failure to pass that measure is not wholly attributable to any fault or laches on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The failure is to be attributed more to the magnitude of the subject. A measure of such a kind which was to be of a permanent character naturally suggested a large number of Amendments to Members of the other House, many of whom were thoroughly competent to propose Amendments, which, from the very nature of the case, would require and deserve considerable discussion before they could be put into such a satisfactory shape as to warrant their addition to the Bill. Therefore, when I say that the failure of the measure is mainly attributable to the great number of Amendments, I wish wholly to absolve myself from the charge of blaming those who placed those Amendments on the Paper, for from the very nature of the case it was necessary that they should be put down. Accordingly, when the 22nd of July arrived, Her Majesty's Government found on the Paper no fewer than 170 Amendments, of which 136 were suggested by hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House. Having stated this, I do not think I shall be contradicted if I say it would have been almost, if not quite, impossible to bring this measure to a satisfactory termination in anything like the time ordinarily devoted to the transaction of the Business of the country by this and the other House of Parliament. With the most unfeigned regret, therefore, we felt ourselves obliged to withdraw that measure. But at that time we did consider whether by conferring additional powers, like those given under the Act of 1873, it would be possible to mitigate some of the evils which may be expected during the coming winter, and whether it would not be possible by increased restrictions to deal with the subject. We did not believe we could do that in a very satisfactory manner, and circumstances arose to which I need not further allude at this moment. We believed that it was possible and necessary to bring in a
  746
  short Bill which should be temporary in its character, and which would meet some of those evils and some of those disasters to which it is our hope and desire to put a stop. Therefore, we brought in the Bill to which I shall presently ask your Lordships to give a second reading. I wish, however, to say a few words on the allegation that it was unfair for the Government to proceed with a Bill which dealt with compensation to tenants, while they put aside a Bill for preventing loss of life by sea. If we had abandoned the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill for the purpose of proceeding with the Merchant Shipping Bill, the result would have been that neither of those Bills would have been passed this Session. This Bill will give power to an officer appointed by the Board of Trade to delay a ship until he has reason to believe that it is in a satisfactory condition. Under the existing law an officer appointed by the Board of Trade cannot act in that respect until he is directed to do so by the Board of Trade. This Bill also enables one-fourth of the seamen belonging to a ship, if they apprehend that it is unseaworthy, to require an inspection of it by an officer appointed by the Board of Trade, and then an officer appointed by the Board of Trade must take proper steps to ascertain whether the ship ought to be detained. That provision, undoubtedly, will greatly increase the power of a Board of Trade officer. There were four other points that were suggested during the passage of the Bill in the other House of Parliament—namely, first, deck cargo; second, grain cargo; third, load line; and fourth, survey. As to the first, the proposal to deal with the question of deck cargo was rejected on a division in the other House. The question of survey was dropped. The other two points—namely, grain cargo and load line—are dealt with by this Bill. As to grain cargoes, this Bill provides that not more than one-third of the cargo of a British ship shall consist of grain, unless such cargo shall be carried in bags, sacks, or barrels, or be secured from shifting by boards, bulkheads, or otherwise; and that for an offence against that provision a penalty not exceeding £200 may be inflicted. The load line is to be marked on the side of the ship, and is to be entered by the master in the agreement made with his crow. The 9th clause gives to seamen a remedy for any loss

  747
  they may sustain from a ship having been sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition. The last clause provides that this Bill shall be in force until the 1st of October, 1876. That provision indicates that this Bill is to be regarded as a purely temporary measure, and it is an earnest of what Her Majesty's Government intend to do during the Recess—namely, to take the whole subject into their consideration, and, if possible, bring forward a measure which may be of a permanent character, and which will deal with this very important subject in a satisfactory manner.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that he would not discuss the question whether the Government were justified in abandoning their original Bill. That question had been amply discussed in the House of Commons; but the noble Duke, by way of excuse, pointed to the number of Amendments on the Paper, a large number of which came from the Opposition. That remark implied that those Amendments had been placed in the way of the Bill as a matter of Opposition policy; but nothing of the kind took place.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDexplained that he did not in any way complain of the Amendments which were placed on the Paper. He said that it was obvious that in such a subject there must be great difference of opinion, and that he by no means deprecated or complained of any Amendment that was proposed.
  LORD CARLINGFORDaccepted the explanation; but still the remark that the large majority of the Amendments came from the Opposition meant something. This fact could be easily explained. Almost every shipowner sat on the Opposition side of the House, and they, as shipowners, proposed a great number of Amendments. Mr. Plimsoll was also a Member of the Opposition, and he naturally was the organ of a great number of Amendments. The object of the hon. Member for Derby was to convert the Government Bill into a very different measure, and upon the occasion of that memorable scene in the House of Commons he denounced it as a miserable sham, but said that he had every expectation of converting it into a satisfactory Bill. In his (Lord Carling-ford's) view of the matter the course
  748
  that should have been taken by the Government with regard to the original measure was obvious. The Bill contained proposals which would have effected a complete alteration and reform in the laws relating to Merchant Shipping, in addition to provisions which dealt solely with the question of saving life at sea. Instead of abandoning the Bill as a whole, the Government would have done well, when they found it impossible to carry the whole Bill, to abandon for the present Session all the clauses except those which dealt with the question of saving life. The history of the Bill now before the House was a short and stormy one, and an amount of myth and fable had gathered about it which was worthy of a long and remote period of existence. It had reached them in a more rational and respectable form than might have been expected from the circumstances of its origin, and its advent was therefore to be welcomed, although it came late in the Session. This Bill proceeded, like other recent Acts on the same subject, on the policy of endeavouring to exercise such a police over the shipping as would prevent unseaworthy ships from going to sea, and would bring such stress to bear on the small minority of shipowners who would send ships of that kind to sea as would deter them from continuing those practices, and would gradually weed out and break up dangerous ships. On the general question, he could not help thinking that Mr. Plimsoll was to blame for not having either justified, qualified, or retracted the sweeping charges which he had brought against certain shipowners and against the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. He could say from his own experience that these officers devoted themselves ably to the fulfilment of duties imposed upon them by Parliament. The present Bill proceeded entirely upon the lines of 1871 and 1873. It had been said that the power which the 1st clause gave to detain unseaworthy ships was an alarming innovation; but it really did nothing more than place additional machinery in the hands of the Board of Trade. Under that clause the surveyor of the Board of Trade would have the power of stopping vessels on the same ground only as the Board of Trade could stop them now—the ground—namely, that they could not proceed to sea without serious danger to life. As supplementary

  749
  to the Acts of 1871 and 1873, he believed the present Bill would be found very useful. It contained no violent proposition, and he saw no reason why a great part of it should not occupy a permanent place in the Statute Book. At the same time, he hoped it would not be understood that, because Mr. Plimsoll had called public attention to an existing evil his proposals for checking that evil, were to be taken as a guide or as an authority in future legislation. Insurance still remained to be dealt with, and there was no doubt that the question whether an owner should be allowed to make a profit out of the wreck of his ship, or should merely receive an indemnity for his actual loss, deserved consideration. It was the opinion of the Royal Commissioners that great benefit might result from placing the inquiries into wrecks on a sounder basis than they were at present. To the importance of that subject the Government were evidently alive, and he had no doubt they would consider it before next year. On the whole, he thought their Lordships might congratulate themselves that a rational measure had come out of the recent confusion and excitement, and that a whole year had been gained in the passing of provisions which were calculated to diminish the loss of life at sea.
  LORD HAMPTONwas sorry that the Government had been obliged to abandon their larger measure on this subject, but glad that, under the circumstances, they had introduced the present Bill. In 1870, he brought before the House of Commons a great number of painful cases of unseaworthy ships that had been lost, and moved for a Royal Commission of Inquiry on the subject. At that time the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bright), was unable to attend to the duties of the office, and he got no answer from the Government. In the following year, however, they brought in a Bill dealing with the Mercantile Marine of this country. In 1873, Mr. Plimsoll moved for a Royal Commission, and he most cordially seconded the Motion. That Royal Commission was presided over by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset), and in a manner which excited the universal approbation of every one who took an interest in this very important subject. There were points in this Bill, short and temporary as it was, which, to his
  750
  mind, were of extreme importance. There was one subject, however, which he was sorry had not been dealt with—the Bill contained no provision with regard to deck loading. The argument used in its favour was that it applied only to timber loading brought from Canada, and that to prevent it would seriously injure that trade. He did not believe that, nor was he of opinion that it applied exclusively to the timber trade. Many painful cases had occurred where the only cause that could reasonably be assigned for shipwreck and loss of life was the deck loads which had been carried. Two provisions in this Bill he regarded with the greatest satisfaction—he alluded to the provisions for limiting the loading of grain in bulk and for establishing a load line. Whether this last provision was quite satisfactory in its nature he would not say; very likely it might be necessary to re-consider it in a future Session. He had been for many years the President of the Society of Naval Architects, which consisted of a great number of eminent naval men, and they had all been of opinion that they saw no reason why deck loading should not have been long since prohibited and a loading line adopted in the Mercantile Marine. He was convinced that, on the whole, the Bill was one which would give great satisfaction to the country. He thought the part which Mr. Plimsoll had taken on this important matter entitled him to the gratitude and respect of the country. The noble Lord who last addressed the House had spoken with some severity as to part of Mr. Plimsoll's conduct. He did not stand there to defend everything he had said or done; but this he would say—Mr. Plimsoll had shown a zeal and energy which did him great honour, and he was glad to see that his exertions had been crowned with success.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, having been Chairman of the Royal Commission which had been referred to, wished to say a few words to their Lordships, and they should be very few. He was sorry this subject had been brought forward in the last days of the Session, and especially that it had been brought forward in a somewhat sensational manner; for he must confess it was sensational, when the measure was the result partly of meetings out-of-doors, and partly of the hysterical screams of a Member of the House of Commons. He thought

  751
  that such a measure should be dealt with in the calmest and most judicial spirit. The Act of 1873 did undoubtedly give great powers to the Board of Trade, and, though brought forward like this Bill late in the Session, it had worked very well for the country. No doubt, it gave the means of stopping unseaworthy ships, and the officers of the Board of Trade told the Royal Commission that they had no difficulty in stopping such vessels, telegraphing to the Board that they did so. That looked like an arbitrary power, for it seemed as if gentlemen sent round the coast had an absolute power of stopping ships, only reporting the fact to the Board of Trade. That was a great power, and when they considered what the tonnage of our Mercantile Marine was—that it was larger than the tonnage of all other mercantile nations—it was of the greatest importance that such powers should be used with caution. The interests of the shipowner must be carefully considered on the one hand, and the interests of the seamen on the other. It must not be supposed that the shipowner was the only party that was blameworthy and that the seaman was never in any way to be blamed. The fact, in many cases, was very different. However anxious parties might be to increase the seaworthiness of vessels, a seaman could very seldom be induced to walk 100 yards to look at the ship he was going in—he did not care a pin about it. When they joined a ship they were often drunk, being literally carried on board by their lodging-house keepers—the vessels in the Mersey and the Thames serving as hospitals in which they might recover from their crapulous imbecility. When collisions occurred whose fault was it? In great measure the fault of the seamen, who would not keep a look-out; and they could not be punished for not keeping a look-out. What he wanted was, while they proposed to punish the shipowner for the unseaworthiness of his ship, that means should be given for enforcing discipline on board our Mercantile Marine as in the Navy. Why were the ships in our Navy safe? Because they were better built, better manned, better disciplined, and because a better look-out was kept. They had introduced the examination of masters and mates to make them able to manage their ships; they had made regulations as to the crew to make them comfortable
  752
  on board; they had prescribed a scale of food so that the seamen should be well fed; and they had given notes of allotment by which seamen might provide for their wives and families. These allotment notes, by the way, were mistaken by some persons for advance notes. With regard to the latter, he urged their abolition, because of the evil use made of them by crimps. Merchants, shipowners, and others who had looked into the subject had said that until you got rid of these advance notes, you would never get rid of the slavery to which the sailor was subjected. He hoped when the Government brought in the Bill of next year it would be seen that they had paid special attention to this subject. People talked about free contract between the seaman and the shipowner. But how could there be free contract when one of the parties was unfortunately often in such a state that he had to be carried on board? Then there was another point, as to the ships themselves. It was a mistaken opinion that all the ships which were lost were old, rotten, wooden vessels. The great danger now was from new iron-built ships. Those who had looked into the subject were well aware of that. The new iron ships were often of very great length. They had all sorts of contrivances, which worked very comfortably while the weather was fine, but which were very dangerous in rough weather and squalls. Those large vessels should have machinery in proportion; but in that point they were often very weak. Lloyd's surveyed ships, it was true; but they did not survey their machinery. Vessels of this kind were liable to be overwhelmed when they got into the trough of the sea when a squall was on. With regard to insurance, he hoped that question would not be taken up in the same Bill which dealt with unseaworthy ships, or the discipline of the men. The subject of insurance was one which would require to be treated with great care and consideration, and if all these questions were to be dealt with in one Bill he feared the same fate would await it as had overtaken the Bill of this year—they would never get it through the House of Commons. Merchants and persons conversant with the subject must and would discuss it, and therefore if they had one great Bill the Government would not be able to carry it through the House. He also hoped they would

  753
  be able to repeal a great many of the provisions which we now had. Could anything be more absurd than the provision that boats should be carried in proportion to the tonnage and not to the men? Then there was a regulation that ships should carry coloured lights, so that they might be seen at a certain distance. Shipowners were very much puzzled, and bought lanterns after lanterns, but they could not be seen. Then they went to the Board of Trade, and said—" We will get any lights you like, but we cannot get lanterns to suit." The Board of Trade, however, answered—"Oh! we cannot help you. That is the Act." He feared that the Board of Trade would be too much taken up in carrying out this Bill and in watching railways during the coming autumn, and would not have time to prepare a now Bill. He hoped the Government would strengthen the Department, so that they might have assistance in preparing the measure of next year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Duke had stated that something should be done to make seamen more careful. He was bound to say, according to his experience, derived from cases in which he had been engaged, that the want of look-out was seldom attributable to the sailors, but much more frequently to the master or the mate, or, in other words, to the skilled navigators of; the ship. The noble Duke had said that sailors were a very careless race—that they would not take the trouble to walk 100 yards to see whether the ship was unseaworthy or not, and that they were often carried on board drunk. There could hardly be a better proof of the necessity of legislation. If sailors were careful and vigilant, legislation would not be required. It was because sailors were negligent and often taken on board drunk that it was necessary to enforce against the shipowner what, after all, was only the shipowner's duty. With regard to the advance note system, it was fraught with evils of every kind. Sailors for a debauch on shore would anticipate their earnings, and not only would they not receive the full amount they were entitled to, but the notes were discounted at an exorbitant rate, and a very small portion of the money was enjoyed by the sailor. But the noble Duke ought to remember that this matter had been canvassed very fully "elsewhere," and that there was a
  754
  strong opinion against interfering with freedom of contract. The noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) had examined the Bill in a manner which was extremely candid and fair, and had avoided reference to many subjects upon which he might easily have dwelt. Nothing could have been more useful than his examination of the measure and the history he had given of the Act on which it was founded. The noble Lord had said that this measure proceeded upon the lines of the Act passed under his own auspices when he was at the head of the Board of Trade. It was of some importance to refer to the exact difference. As the law now existed, the Board of Trade must act at the outports through an officer who would make his examination and report the result by telegraph or letter. The difficulty of the case was that delay occurred first in the officer sending his report, then in the Board of Trade's considering it and conveying its decision to the officer. As their Lordships would see, the opinion of the officer must mainly guide the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade detained a ship improperly, it was liable for damages. But under this Bill the officer must act on his own discretion in the first instance, and the Board of Trade would be responsible for his action. As to insurance, he could say that the subject would be most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. The more it was looked into, the more the question would be asked why, if in the case of life and fire insurance the insurer would not be allowed to receive more than would compensate him for the loss sustained, the insurer of a vessel might contract beforehand that there should be no examination into the amount of damage, but that a gross, absolute sum should be paid over, no matter how much that gross sum might exceed the loss. This was a grave subject for consideration, and the more it was considered the more closely it would be found connected with the subject now before their Lordships. However, this was a matter which required ample time for its discussion.
  LORD DENMANquoted the opinion of an experienced officer of the Navy who had also sailed in merchant vessels, and who said that the load line ought to be fixed by the owner, with the approval of the Board of Trade officials; but the great difficulty would be to find

  755
  competent men at the low rate offered by the Board of Trade, to see these regulations strictly carried out. This officer added that, having brought home several cargoes of grain in bulk from Odessa, he regarded such cargoes as most dangerous, owing to their tendency to shift, notwithstanding the use of boards; and, as many claims were usually made for damage done to the grain in transitu, he suggested that if the money thus paid were laid out in bags, it would be better for both parties. He hoped time would be given for the proposal of Amendments in Committee, and believed that limiting the weight of grain, instead of permitting the carrying of any quantity, with a proportion only of it loose, would be an improvement in the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not propose to prolong this discussion, particularly after the speeches of his noble Friends (Lord Carlingford and the Duke of Somerset)—speeches which, he could not help thinking the Government would find of great use when they were engaged in preparing the permanent and more extensive measure which they proposed to submit next year. Without entering into the story of the Bill—a story which might be told in different ways—he expressed his satisfaction that the Government had been able to introduce even this provisional measure which was likely soon to pass into law.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not propose to ask their Lordships to disagree with any of the Amendments made in the other House, except three or four which were purely of a verbal character, and he would move such an Amendment at the end of Clause 19.
  EARL GRANVILLEcould not allow the occasion to pass without some observations, though he promised to be merciful in the length of them. The Government were now in the unfortunate position in which he found himself during the five years when he
  756
  had the honour of conducting the Business of the late Government in this House. Long before this period of the Session he used then to hear strong complaints, many of which came from the leading Opposition Bench, and elaborate speeches against the introduction of Business so late in the Session. He could not help fancying that if he had made the present Motion during these five years, he should have heard the complaints renewed. The thin state of the House would have lent point to those complaints, and he would remind their Lordships that when they divided last week only 19 Peers were present, and by the aid of only two of these 19, the Government were able to sanction an irregularity strongly condemned by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. If during his five official years he had said on such an occasion as this that the Bill was not a new Bill, and had been once considered in this House, the answer would have been that nine pages of Amendments had been made in the Bill in "another place," containing changes not only in important details, but in what had been described as the central principle of the Bill, so that their Lordships had really to consider a new Bill. He believed, also, that if he had stated that the Bill was of an urgent and important character, he should have been told that, while some persons disliked the Bill, and while others liked it, because they thought it might lead to further legislation of which the great majority of their Lordships would not approve, the great mass of persons were very indifferent and, excepting his noble Friend opposite and the Prime Minister, nobody thought the Bill of great importance or great urgency. Now, he adhered to the principle which he laid down when in office. He thought the House ought not to refuse to consider Bills, merely because it might be personally inconvenient to them to remain in town so late in the Session; and, as to himself, he did not propose to obstruct the consideration of these Amendments. He thought it was right, however, that their Lordships should look at them a little more closely than seemed to be contemplated by the noble Duke. During the discussions in this House he was bound to say that the noble Duke—not only in his opinion, but in the opinion of others who could speak with much greater authority—conducted the measure

  757
  through Committee with great ability, great firmness, and great tact; and according to the view of the noble Duke the Bill left this House in a consistent and comprehensive shape. One clause, enabling landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Bill, was thought an awkward and invidious way of securing freedom of contract, and the Government in this House were so impressed with the force of the argument that they omitted the clause. It appeared, however, that the Government had, for the second time, re-considered this subject, for he found that a clause to the same effect had been re-introduced. He now came to a point of much greater importance. Objections were made in the course of the discussions here to the principle of the letting value, but it was described as being the essential principle of the Bill. In the other House, however, the Prime Minister—who seemed inclined to differ from his Colleagues, however able and devoted they might be—said the principle had been adopted mainly in the interest of the remainder-man, and ended by describing this principle, which their Lordships were told was the essential principle of the Bill, as one which was capricious and fallacious. It was, consequently, omitted from the Bill. He (Earl Granville) rejoiced that that had been done, for he thought that principle would have led to great uncertainty, risk, and fraud. He had now to call attention to the first class of improvements, and with regard to them he found that the tenants of limited owners were put in a perfectly different and an inferior position from the tenants of absolute owners. Both classes were to be compensated in the same way as regarded the original cost; but the former had a limitation imposed upon them that the sum should not exceed the addition made to the letting value of the land. A vicious principle was thus introduced into the measure, because by far the larger number of the tenant farmers of this country held their lands, he believed, under limited owners. He could not conceive anything more unjust than this clause, for why should a limited owner be in a worse position by law than an absolute owner of an estate? It was extremely unfair to the limited owner that he should be overweighted in this competition. Suppose a compensation case were tried before a land surveyor, who would be almost necessarily ignorant
  758
  of law, in what manner could he be satisfied whether the landlord was the absolute owner or whether he was only a limited owner? He foresaw that in some cases very great difficulties would arise on this particular point, and this would greatly multiply the number of persons who, he believed, had already determined not to come under the provisions of the Bill. He trusted that this part of the Bill as it now stood would be altered. He made these remarks in no hostile spirit, although he should not be surprised to find the noble Duke opposite equipping himself in adamantine armour in order to meet his attack. In conclusion, he would hazard no prophecy, but could not help feeling a little alarm at the benediction bestowed on the Bill by a Conservative Member of Parliament, an eminent solicitor in this great town, who said that, whatever other merits it might possess, it was certainly a measure that would be of infinite advantage to the profession to which he belonged.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Earl would himself endeavour to equip himself in adamantine armour whenever he expected to come in contact with what he called a hostile spirit. On the present occasion, however, it was unnecessary for him to seek the protection of any very strong adamantine armour; but he would simply reply to the comments of his noble Friend. There was no question that that part of the Bill which related to letting value had been altered in the other House; but it was retained for the purpose for which alone it was absolutely necessary— namely, the protection of the limited owner. It seemed to him to be in the nature of things that the absolute owner must be in a better position than a limited owner. As to the difficulty anticipated by his noble Friend with regard to the land surveyor's decision, he did not think it was at all likely to arise. On so large a subject as the present it was not unlikely nor unreasonable that in the House of Commons there should be various opinions. He believed some of the Amendments to be improvements on the original Bill, and he should therefore propose that they be agreed to.
  LORD CARLINGFORDobserved, that the Bill in the shape in which it left their Lordships' House was much more favourable to the tenant than it was now.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the observation of the noble Lord who had just spoken was an entirely just one. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the change which had been made in the Bill was made in a House in which there was a considerable number of Representatives, not merely of the owners of land, but also the occupiers of land; and he believed he should be correct in saying that no division was taken against the change in the other House. With regard to the observations of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), he (the Lord Chancellor) desired to say that this was the first measure of the kind with which he was acquainted which allowed the owner of land—that was to say, those who were interested in the possession of land—to enter into contracts with their tenants without either obtaining the consent of, or serving notice upon, the remainderman, and the experience of all of them had been that former legislation on this subject had failed, because tenants for life were required before they could take any steps to improve land, either to obtain the consent of the remainderman or to serve a notice upon him with reference to that subject. With regard to improvements of the second and third class, an owner, who was not an absolute owner, would be just as powerful as the most absolute owner. He might make any agreement with his tenant that he liked within the four corners of this Bill. With regard to improvements of the first class, as to which the noble Earl had spoken, the tenant could not make them without the consent of the landlord.
  LORD SELBORNEthought that the clause, as amended by the Commons, would be a fruitful source of litigation. The effect would be that whenever a tenant proposed to make an improvement, he would have to inquire into the title of his landlord; and whether he was a limited owner or not, he ventured to say that in 99 out of 100 cases he would simply go and ask whether he might make such and such improvements. There was no reason why a tenant for life should not give compensation on the same principle as an absolute owner. He did not think that the criticism, which had been made upon the Amendments were by any means satisfactorily answered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, speaking as a layman, and looking at the matter in a practical point of view, he wished to make one remark. He did not believe that the portion of the Bill which referred to first-class improvements would receive any extensive application, except in the case of those who were official limited owners. The vast majority of landlords made all these improvements themselves; but an official limited owner, like a Bishop or a clergyman, had not sufficient permanent interest in the estate to make such improvements. As far as other owners were concerned, he believed that in almost any market town the tenant farmers would be able to say which estates—taking in the whole country—were the property of limited owners and which were entailed. As to the objection that the Bill was permissive, the Government thought it absolutely essential to maintain freedom of contract, and the manner in which this object was to be attained they regarded as a mere matter of detail. The advantage of the provision on that subject was, that it would prevent a general issue of notices to quit. Most of their Lordships were now aware that the vast majority of tenants were satisfied with the existing state of things, and would see the adoption of the Bill with considerable reluctance—not because it would not be profitable to them, but because they did not like changes. The Bill had therefore to be framed to meet those cases. It was of great importance, indeed, that the provision in question should not be distasteful to either landlords or tenants, and it was difficult at first to ascertain in what direction their tastes would run. As the discussion went on, however, the Government were enlightened on that point, and he did not see that they had done wrong in accepting an alteration.
  LORD DENMAN, referring to the opinion of the Duke of Rutland and himself, as to the time of entry in Derbyshire, recommended six months as the term of notice, in order that tenants might be prevented from exhausting the land.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Amendments agreed to, with Amendments.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons Amendments considered, (according to Order).
  LORD SELBORNEcomplained that the Amendments were presented in an almost, if not wholly, unintelligible form, and pointed out that the existing practice of the House as to Bills of importance, returned with extensive amendments and alterations from the Commons, was highly inconvenient. Unless the alterations made, with their whole con-text were clearly indicated in a reprint, there was a danger of the House passing over slips and errors which would have to be amended subsequently. There were two points in these Amendments of critical importance, on which he deemed it an imperative duty to offer some observations. The first related to the repeal of that portion of the 15th section of the Act of 1873 which provided that no new appointment of Puisne Judges should be made to the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice till the number of Puisne Judges should be reduced to 12. The House of Commons had repealed that limitation on the number of the Puisne Judges. It was very much to be regretted that before the working of the new system could be tried, there should be any alteration in that respect. It tended more than he could wish to encourage and confirm an idea, which previous experience only gave too much colour to, that no reform of the law could be reconciled with public economy—that whenever there were increased establishments those augmentations must be made perpetual, and resistance would be offered to every attempt to effect further improvement with the least possible amount of cost to the public. To increase the number of Judges, unless it was really necessary, would not tend to increase the estimation in which they were held. It would not tend to greater expedition, energy, and efficiency in the disposal of business. In 1867 three new Judges were added to the existing number, expressly that they might do the business of the Election Petitions—business which only occupied a short period of their time, except in the year immediately after a General Election. The Act which added them was a temporary one, and was continued
  762
  from time to time till now. That having been done, in the Autumn of the same year the Judicature Commission was appointed to consider, among other subjects, the number of the Judges. The Commission recommended no increase; but they did recommend that three Judges should be taken annually from among the number of the Puisne Judges, and made for the year members of the Court of Appeal according to the constitution of that Court which they recommended. In 1869 the deliberate opinion of that Commission was that 12 Puisne Judges were adequate to discharge the business of the Courts of First Instance; and the scheme of the Act of 1873 was, in that respect, in perfect harmony with the Report of the Commission in 1869. That Report was signed—without any difference of opinion on this point—by all the eminent Judges, and other members of the Legal Profession, who sat upon the Commission. The operation of the Act of 1873, and also of the present Bill would relieve the Judges from attendance in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which usually involved the attendance of five or six Judges for four or five weeks in the year. It should also be observed that the change made by the Act of 1873 would not be sudden. At present there were 15 Judges; and, as the process of reduction to 12 would be gradual. Parliament would have an opportunity of interposing, if necessary, whenever there was any actual experience of any evil resulting from the reduction. He did not doubt that there was a considerable pressure and block of business at present; but he could not help looking at that in connection with some extraordinary and exceptional cases, such as the Tichborne Case, which, on the first trial, occupied one Judge for nearly a year, and on the second occupied three Judges for nearly another year. Again, it had been the general rule, subject, no doubt, to exceptions in cases of emergency, that the three Judges chosen in each particular year to try Election Petitions should not go Circuit; while they were not on Circuit they had the time at their own disposal, and he had been told that some of those Judges who would be the last to neglect their duty had found leisure, during those intervals, to visit remote parts of the world. It had been recommended by a Committee of the House

  763
  of Commons that two Judges should always sit together to try Election Petitions; but if Election Petitions were not very unlike other cases, there would be quite a luxurious waste of judicial power if this recommendation were adopted. If, however, the Committee considered this recommendation a reasonable one, they must also have considered that there could not be such a heavy pressure on the Common Law Judges. He would not object to have 18 Judges, or any number that might be required, if experience proved it necessary; but, until the Act of 1873 was in operation, there could be no such experience. The new arrangements and the extension of the Chancery practice of single Judges sitting—and if there was to be a permanent Court of Intermediate Appeal the reason why single Judges should sit would obtain additional force—would be found, in his opinion, to remove that pressure of business which was complained of. He came now to the second important point. Considerable changes had been made by the House of Commons in the constitution of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. From the ordinary channels of information, he had seen that, according to an Amendment proposed by the Attorney General, instead of three additional Judges, only one was to be nominated by the Crown, while one or more Judges might be borrowed from the Court of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer should it be necessary, to assist in the Court of Appeal. The Bill, as it left that House, proposed five ordinary and five ex officio Members of the Court of Appeal. He doubted at the time the sufficiency of such a tribunal; but now there were to be five ex officio and only three ordinary Judges. Judges of First Instance were to be borrowed from their respective Courts; and if they could be so borrowed as to be substantially available for the increase of the strength of the Court of Appeal, this circumstance strongly confirmed his impression that it was not clear that the present number of Judges in the Courts of First Instance was absolutely required for the discharge of the business there. For his part, he regretted greatly the increase in the Court of Appeal Judges taken from the Court of First Instance, there being only three permanent Judges; it looked exceedingly like a modification of the present Court
  764
  of Exchequer Chamber, the constitution of which was certainly not satisfactory. He could not help disapproving the changes made by the Bill; and the only satisfactory thing, to his mind, was that the measure was only to last for a single year, and that in another Session the whole subject might be dealt with in a manner unprejudiced by anything which was done now. As it was, the entire question affecting the Courts of Appeal was left in an imperfect and provisional state. He did not wish to see this question become the subject of legislation every year; but he did hope that next year the subject would be dealt with, not, as it had now been dealt with, under mixed political and professional influences, reflecting no mature or deliberate judgment either of the Government or of the Legislature, but with the sole aim of providing the best Appellate system for the administration of justice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the hour had been earlier and the audience more encouraging, he should have been glad to enter at length into some of the points mentioned by his noble and learned Friend. He entirely concurred with him in regretting the form in which the Bill came back to that House. The record of Amendments did not accurately represent the Amendments actually made in the other House, and such inaccuracies ought to be prevented for the future. By the omission of the word "not" the Lord Chancellor had been made one of the permanent Judges of the Court of Appeal. As to the length of the Amendments, deducting the clauses sent down in red ink, which came back as Amendments, but were only technically so, the real Amendments made in the other House might be comprised in a couple of pages. One material Amendment was that by which the present number of Puisne Judges was kept at 15, instead of being reduced to 12. He was bound to say that there was the strongest possible feeling against this reduction, not only on the part of the Judicial Bench and at the Bar, as represented in the House of Commons, but also among the Representatives of large communities like Lancashire. He believed the number of Judges might be reduced, as a matter of trial, to 12 Puisne Judges, if the Assizes were excluded; but he had satisfied himself that with only 12 Puisne Judges the Circuit work could not be done, even if only one

  765
  Judge were left to do the Chamber work in London. His noble and learned Friend had dwelt on the evil of any unnecessary multiplications of Judges. Now, he must express his belief that the number of Judges could not be reduced to the lowest point compatible with efficiency until we had broken up the system which prevailed in the Common Law Courts of having more Judges than one to sit as Judges of First Instance. That system, he thought, could not continue to exist. At present the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the most extravagantly paid Court in the country, for there were four paid Judges, costing the country £20,000 a-year, to dispose of only 100 cases in a year. With respect to the Appellate Court, the whole change consisted in this—that instead of the Crown appointing three extra Judges, each of the Divisions should be asked to appoint a Judge to assist the Court of Appeal, when necessary. He denied altogether that the Court of Appeal would be in any degree a weak one. He proposed to make some further Amendments, in order to correct some of the obvious mistakes left in the clauses, and also to vary the Amendment concerning costs, by giving a discretionary power to the Judge on good cause being shown.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he had from the first opposed this legislation, and he should be glad if this Bill could be postponed till next Session, because the Commons Amendments were referred to a copy of the Bill, which did not correspond with the pages and lines of the Bill, so that it was impossible for this House fairly to consider the alterations made. He did not think that the Bill would work well; and he was surprised at the speech of the Prime Minister at a recent dinner, in which he congratulated himself and the Government on passing it in a few days.
  Several Amendments agreed to, with Amendments; and some disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to the said amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from Committee of the reason prepared by them; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the reason.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Twelve o'clock.