Lords Sitting of 31 May 1883

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Lonsdale, after the death of his brother.
SELECT COMMITTEE—House of Lords (Construction and Accommodation), The Viscount Enfield added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* (67); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders* (68); Criminal Law Amendment (69).
Second Reading—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders * (60); Poor Law Conferences * (65).
Third Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Broughty Ferry Paving) * (45); Local Government Provisional Orders * (54), and passed.
Withdrawn—Tithe Rentcharge (22).
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [46 Vict. c. 10]; Isle of Man Harbours [46 Vict. c. 9]; Glebe Loans (Ireland) Acts Amendment [46 Vict. c. 8]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation [46 Vict. c. x.].

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE, in rising to move—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred that the Railway Company shall not be empowered to appropriate a larger portion of the Parochial Burial Ground of St. James' than is proved to be absolutely required for the neeessary convenience of the travelling public, by means of the enlargement of the railway station and of the substitution of a new street in lieu of the existing street which is to be absorbed in the process of the enlargement of the station."
  said, the question he desired to raise was one of policy and principle, and therefore it ought to be raised in the House. Committees often considered it their duty to restrict their attention to a decision on the conflicting claims of parties pecuniarily interested, and not to enter upon public policy. The Bill was an Omnibus Bill, containing many provisions to which there was no objection, and therefore he did not move its rejection; but he asked the House to express its opinion on the two clauses relating to the burial ground. An open space in London ought not to be sacrificed unnecessarily; and the Metropolitan Board of Works desired to take charge of this burial ground, and to maintain it as a place of public recreation, as they had done in the case of seven or eight other burial grounds. The Railway Company sought to take two portions, and one of them they did not require, for their counsel admitted that one acre given to them by this Bill was not necessary for the enlargement of the station; and they proposed to utilize it for stabling and the storage of omnibuses, and for the parcel post, and this space might be taken from private property instead of from the recreation of the public. It would be necessary for the Company to cart away 17,000 remains, and many of the relatives of those interred had petitioned their Lordships, praying that desecration might not be permitted. There would be no desecration of any part handed over to the Metropolitan Board, as there had been
  1266
  no desecration in any of the other burial grounds handed over to them. The trustees sought to escape from their statutory obligation to maintain this open space for ever. The House would disregard its duty if it sanctioned this breach of trust. As a matter of policy, he contended that their Lordships ought not to allow any of these parochial burial grounds to be desecrated without proof of the clearest necessity. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Instruction.
  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDsaid, his noble Friend entirely misapprehended the wishes of the London and North-Western Railway Company on this point. No one was more desirous to increase the lung power of the Metropolis than they were. In the present case, however, there were other considerations besides that of open spaces. That part of London which was situate near Euston was not badly off for open spaces. Regent's Park was only half-a-mile away. Primrose Hill was under a mile, and there was a churchyard which might be easily converted into an open space. There were several other open spaces all round the neighbourhood. Therefore, he did not think his noble Friend's remarks were quite appropriate to this particular graveyard. They all knew what an inconvenience it was for railway stations to be overcrowded. This proposed change would give ample space for increasing the accommodation of the station; and, now that the Government intended to introduce a new system of Parcels Post, it was most necessary and desirable that there should be more space. At present the limited space was not only an inconvenience, but also a great source of danger. It was a curious fact that nobody ever thought of converting this old graveyard into an open space until the Railway Company obtained a slice of it. The Company only wished to take about two acres and a-half, leaving two acres and a-half which would be available for garden ground, and most useful for the Temperance Hospital that was close to the place. He hoped their Lordships would vote for the Bill on its merits. An hon. Friend of his, when asked why he had voted against the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, said—"Because the London and North-Western Company have behaved very badly to me,"

  1267
  Asked further in what way they had behaved badly to him, he replied—"They weighed my luggage." That showed him how reasonable much of the opposition to the Bill was. He trusted that their Lordships would, on consideration, view the matter in the same light as he (the Duke of Sutherland) did, and commit the Bill as it stood; for surely five Peers could be found to do justice on all sides without any Instruction from their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he agreed with the noble Duke in hoping that the House would vote on the merits of the question, but was unable to concur with his view of the case. Why was the Company asking for land which they did not originally require? At first they only asked for a very small portion of the burial ground. The Trustees of St. James's Parish, seeing their way to make a good thing out of the space, insisted on the Company taking two-thirds and paying the sum of £15,000 for it, which would be devoted to ecclesiastical purposes in the Parish of St. James's. On the showing of the Railway Company themselves, the quantity of land proposed to be given to them was unnecessary for the station. This was pre-eminently a question for the consideration of their Lordships' House, as this populous and very poor neighbourhood was practically voiceless in regard to it. In the division which took place in the House of Commons there were no fewer than 50 Railway Directors in the majority, and only four in the minority. It was only natural that Railway Directors should be somewhat prejudiced in favour of Railway Companies, and should exaggerate the advantages conferred by them on the public. He hoped the House would reverse the decision of the Select Committee of the House of Commons.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he objected to the question being referred to a Parliamentary Committee, as it was one of principle, which could be discussed more satisfactorily by their Lordships than by a Committee. Besides, there was great danger that interests adverse to the Railway Company would not be adequately presented to the Committee by counsel. The Company would have the best counsel on their side, while the poor population, whose welfare was in danger of being sacrificed, would pro-
  1268
  bably be unrepresented. Many years ago he had served on a Committee of the House of Commons, which inquired into the conduct of its Private Business; and the evidence then showed conclusively that, though Parliamentary Committees generally decided justly between the contending parties, the public interest in different places, if there were no rich persons sufficiently affected by the proposed Bill to make it worth their while to pay counsel, was apt to suffer in consequence.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he hoped the House would agree to the Motion of the noble Lord. A certain question of public policy was involved. He objected to giving the Company any portion of the land at all, and would have supported still more cordially a proposal that none of the land should be acquired by the Railway, but that the Railway should buy even at a higher price whatever land they needed. He should certainly vote for a proposal which should give the Company exactly the quantity of land required for their undertaking and no more. He supported the Motion, first, because the London and North - Western Railway Company did not want the whole of the land; and, secondly, because the Parish of St. James's had no local interest in the matter, and the parish affected was a poor and crowded one which greatly needed open spaces. He thought, too, there was something in the argument of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Fortescue).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsupported the Motion. It was doubtful whether the vicar and churchwardens of St. James's had the power of selling the land. They had buried 15,000 persons in the churchyard, and the burial fees had been paid. Thus it was not clear to whom the land belonged, as many of those whose relatives were buried in it might have bought the fee simple of the graves. He hoped their Lordships would pay particular attention to the 13th clause.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSSsaid, he trusted that their Lordships would treat the measure as they were accustomed to treat similar measures coming before them, and send the Bill to a Committee of the House without any Instruction. It was hardly complimentary to their Lordships to give such

  1269
  an Instruction to a Committee. It was said that the Company were buying more land than was actually required. But it should be borne in mind that since the contract was entered into new obligations had been imposed on Railway Companies. The Parcels Post system would come into operation in August next, and a large and important service would have then to be discharged by the Company. He hoped the Bill would not be met in the spirit in which a Member of the House of Commons had approached it. A noble Lord, a Member of the House of Commons, related at a railway charity dinner the other day that he met a Member in the Lobby who said he was going to vote against "Forbes and his blowholes." He was then informed that the Bill did not relate to the Metropolitan or District Railway at all. But the hon. Member replied that he should vote against it "because Railway Companies wanted sitting upon." He hoped the House would treat the Bill in the ordinary manner in which such Bills were treated. The Open Spaces Committee never contemplated putting this ground in a condition for the use of the public; whereas the Railway Company had, by the promotion of this Bill, brought about an open space which would be utilized for the public benefit.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the Trustees of St. James's had no wish to disturb the dead, and were not desirous of selling the burial ground; but the Railway Company were promoting this Bill to enable them to purchase it; and, if so, the parish to which it belonged would seem to have the first right to profit by the proceeding. The ground in question seemed to be one of the last places which ought to be chosen for a playground. It was damp, and the Trustees never could drain it properly. On all sides was a larger number of open places, squares, and crescents than can be found in most parts of London. On the other hand, the Parish of St. James's, Westminster, to which the ground belonged, which was considered a rich parish by those who only moved in Western and Southern boundaries—St. James's, Pall Mall, and part of Regent Street—had, East of Regent Street, a population as poor as any in the East End of London. It
  1270
  contained 18,000 working men and their families. Each of these families, instead of occupying small houses or flats, were compelled to crowd together in one room, eight or ten such families occupying each house. These houses were erected in the time of Charles II. and Queen Anne. It was proposed to use the money to be paid for the ground in question for the purpose of building new houses for the working classes; and he was of opinion that in applying the money for that purpose the parish would be doing more to promote the temporal comfort of the poor of London than by securing another open space for their recreation, where it was much less needed.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he thought that every argument which had been urged against the Bill was a strong one in favour of sending it before a Select Committee, who could inquire into the validity of the objections which had been raised to the proposal.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he would point out to the noble Earl that while before a Select Committee the Railway Company and Trustees would be represented by counsel, it would be nobody's business to support the objections to the Bill on behalf of the public.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said, he thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works would be able to defend the public interests before the Committee.
  EARL CAIRNSpointed out that the Vestry of St. Pancras intended, as was understood, to oppose the Bill in Committee.
  THE EARL OF CORKsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not be prepared to take any unusual step in this matter, but would allow the Bill to be read a second time, with the object of its being sent before a Select Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed.
  Moved," That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred, that the Railway Company shall not be empowered to appropriate a larger portion of the Parochial Burial Ground of St. James' than is proved to be absolutely required for the necessary convenience of the travelling public, by means of the enlargement of the railway station and of the substitution of a new street in lieu of the existing street which is to be absorbed in the process of the enlargement of the station."—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  EARL CAIRNSasked their Lordships to consider whether there was any precedent for an Instruction of this nature. The object of an Instruction to a Committee was to enlarge the power of a Committee, and to enable them to do that which otherwise they could not do. There was no precedent for an Instruction to limit the power of a Committee, and to require them to discharge their duty in a particular way.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought that the principle which had just been laid down by the noble and learned Earl was a very unreasonable and dangerous one. A great number of things might be proposed by these Private Bills in which public interests were incidentally concerned; and if that House was never to be at liberty to express an opinion by way of Instruction that something ought not to be done which was proposed to be done by such Private Bills, but was to be bound to leave the remedy to the technical rules of locus standi which prevailed in respect of these Committees, the result would, in his opinion, be the increase of that encroachment, which he had observed to be continually tending to increase, of Private Bills upon the province of public legislation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he felt bound to say, as regarded the practice of Parliament, that he remembered as distinctly as possible that it was ruled again and again that Instructions could not be moved upon matters which were within the competency of a Committee. The object of an Instruction was to enlarge the powers which a Committee possessed. Of course, if the House desired to take some course different from that which was recommended by the Committee, its course was obvious. It could either re-commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, or move for an alteration upon Report or third reading. But, for the sake of the order of their proceedings, he hoped this Instruction would not be accepted.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 89: Majority 40.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  York, L. Archp.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bath, M.

  1272

  Amherst, E.

  Emly, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Derby, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Granville, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Mount - Temple, L. [Teller.]

  Ravensworth, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) [Teller.]

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Alcester, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Braye, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Dorchester, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Somerset, D.

  London, L. Bp.

  Sutherland, D. [Teller.]

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Auckland, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Brabourne, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Cairns, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Coventry, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Devon, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E Carysfort.)

  Ducie, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Feversham, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Clinton, L.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Jersey, E.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Denman, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Digby, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Milltown, E.

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Sondes, E.

  Harris, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E Hopetoun.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hothfield, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

  St. Vincent, V.

  Leconfield, L.

  1273

  Lovat, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Norton, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Suffield, T.

  Thurlow, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Truro, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Ventry, L.

  Stewart of Gtarlies, L. (B. Galloway.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Resolved in the negative.
  The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

TITHE RENTCHARGE BILL.—(No. 22.)
(The Earl Stanhope.)
TITHE RENTCHARGE BILL.—(No. 22.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL STANHOPE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, before entering into the proposals contained in the Bill which I have the honour to submit to the House, I trust that I may be allowed to explain how tithes are at present calculated, and how collected and paid. There are two sorts of tithes—ordinary tithe, and extraordinary tithe—the first calculated on the price of grain; the second on hops and fruit. Very frequently land is subject to both these kinds of tithe; but I am not going to allude to extraordinary, only to ordinary tithe. I will not enter into the history of tithes, or do more than touch on the Acts which regulate their payment. Certain Acts in the Reign of Henry VIII. enforced the punctual payment of tithes to the Church; but it was not until the year 1836 that tithes were commuted into a tithe rent charge, representing £100, and calculated on the average price of grain seven years previous to the year 1835. The standard prices of grain were fixed as follows:—One bushel of wheat at 7s. 0¼d.; one bushel of barley at 3s. 11½d.; one bushel of oats at 2s. 9d. Thus the yearly rent charge is so much higher or be much lower than the sum fixed by the award, according as the authorized averages are higher or lower than the standard prices given in the Commutation Acts. By a later Act in 1864, the average prices of wheat, barley, and oats are taken in 149 boroughs in Eng-
  1274
  land and Wales, and the average market price is given weekly in The London Gazette. In January, the seven years average of tithe rent charge is announced. The House is well aware that tithe rent charge is apportioned to each field, and a tithe map kept in every parish. Tithe rent charge is now recoverable by means of distress on the land, and it can rarely happen that there is neither crops or stock on the land which cannot be seized to pay off tithe. If nothing can be recovered, application can be made to the High Court to recover tithes by means of taking possession of the land, and farming it by the tithe owner. My Lords, it is clear that, by the 80th section of the Tithe Commutation Act, landlords were required to pay tithes. I think there is no doubt on this point. But at present, though in the North of England they pay the tithes, it is the usual custom in other parts of the country for the tenant to pay tithes, and on that account paying a smaller amount of rent for his land to the landlord. As to the objections to tenants paying tithes instead of landowners, I think they may be generally stated to rest partly on the altered conditions and prospects of agricultural pursuits, and partly on the disinclination which exists among tenants to pay tithes, taxes, and rates, at other times than at rent days—that is, half-yearly. It is now the usual custom for large land surveyors and valuers to value land tithe free, and then the landlord makes his agreement with the tenant. In consequence of a succession of bad seasons and. agricultural distress which has prevailed during the past six years, much arable land has been laid down to grass, yet, though the farmer receives less profit, he has still to pay the same amount of tithe, as it is all separately apportioned on his land. I have already said that tenant farmers are disinclined to pay tithes at odd times, and prefer only to make their half-yearly payment of rent, considering tithes a landlord's charge. I may be allowed to remind the House that in Scotland, tithes or "teinds" are, and have been for many years, paid by the landlord, and no trouble or friction exists in the collection of these teinds. I now come to the seven years' average system of calculating tithe rent charge, and I think it will be seen at once how unfairly the average

  1275
  system now works. For instance, when agricultural seasons are the worst, and the farmer is making the least profit, he has to pay the highest tithe. In 1875,which was not a good season, tithes stood at £112 15 s.; and in 1878, which was a disastrous year, tithes stood at £112 7s. It is with the hope of removing these objections that I have ventured to bring this Bill before the House; but I should have deemed it a presumption on my part, had I, on my own responsibility, brought forward this proposal. This recommendation, however, originates from the Report of the Royal Agricultural Commission, of which the noble Duke below me (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) was the Chairman. What did the Royal Agricultural Commission say? They recommended that the tithe rent charge
  "Should be a fixed sum, that it should be paid by the landlord, and that every facility should be given for its redemption."
  This proposal is signed by 18 Royal Commissioners—indeed, all of those who were present. Among many witnesses who gave evidence in favour of this recommendation, I will only quote the words of one whose opinion will carry great weight, I mean Sir James Caird. Sir James Caird was asked—
  "Would you see an advantage, or a disadvantage, in compelling the landlord to pay the tithe in all cases?"
  He replied—
  "It was the spirit, undoubtedly, of the Tithe Commutation Acts that it should be so, and it is so enacted."
  Sir James was also asked—
  "Would you like to see an Act passed by which it should be made imperative upon the landlord to pay the tithe?"
  The answer he gave was—
  "I think it would be an advantage both to the landlord and the tenant."
  He was further asked—
  "Would you like to see the tithe a fluctuating sum, as at present, or a fixed sum, as has been suggested to us, of £100?"
  And he replied—
  "I would rather have it a fixed sum."
  The Commissioners also give the various reasons in favour of such a change. They say—
  "A very general complaint is made by witnesses of the way in which tithe rent charge is calculated. The grounds of objection are thus
  1276
  briefly put by one witness. The big measures have never been reduced to standard Imperial measures fixed at a given weight. A very small number of towns have been selected from which to get the prices of the corn returns, in order to arrive at an average. The large quantity of seconds and tail corn has never been taken into consideration in the calculation. The merchant's profits have often been added to the prices that the growers receive as the basis upon which to make the Return. These causes together have operated to create a higher average for the tithe than should fairly be the case."
  Well, as regards the want of uniformity in the Imperial measures, the Corn Average Act of last Session had, to a great extent, remedied the evil. As to fixing tithe at £100, now was the time to do it, because the average stood this year at par, or nearly so, being £100 4s. 9¾d., and next year it would probably fall to £98. It was urged that as tithes were falling the tithe-payer should have the advantage, and pay less than £100; but I venture to think that this is a somewhat narrow and short-sighted policy. It was originally intended that tithes should be commuted to £100; and, looking forward for some years, it was not unlikely that tithes would average above £100, as they had in past years. Since the Commutation Act tithes had averaged, during a period of 47 years, £103 2s. 0½d., even though, between 1850 and 1858, they had fallen considerably below £100. Then, again, it was obvious that it was more probable that tithes would be redeemed if they stood at a fixed sum. No one would readily redeem a fluctuating average. It might seem, at first sight, as if gold would fall in value, and the produce of land would improve in value. But this is contrary to the opinion of those who have studied the subject, and who are the greatest authorities on currency questions. Monsieur de Laveleye, in a pamphlet published in 1881, maintains that gold is gradually increasing in its purchasing power; and Mr. Goschen, in an able lecture recently delivered, fully corroborates this view. Mr. Goschen shows that because Germany, Italy, Holland, and the United States have adopted a gold currency, there is annually an enormous demand for gold, and that they absorb about £200,000,000 in 10 years. He goes on to show that the supply of gold is falling off, and that, whereas in 1852 the amount of gold produced was £36,000,000, it is now only about £20,000,000 per annum. From this it follows that unless fresh discoveries of

  1277
  gold are made the value of gold will rise, and its purchasing power will increase. My Lords, the advantages to the tithe owner under this Bill will be that he will secure prompt payment of his tithes, all friction between himself and the tithe-payers will be avoided, and he will save largely in the cost of collection. As regards the cost of collection, it is usual to pay 5 per cent for collecting tithes; then there is a tithe audit dinner, and with delay in payment and bad debts the cost of collecting amounts to sometimes 8 and 9 per cent. In the Bill existing leases are exempted; but I cannot think that it will be any drawback to landlords in the South of England to be obliged to pay tithes, as is the case in Scotland and in Ireland. Yearly agreements may require endorsement; but no new 6d. stamps will be required. It is not intended by the Bill to give the tithe-owner power to levy tithes where before they could not be recovered; and, if there is any doubt on this point, it will be easy to introduce a clause to remove all such doubts. Her Majesty's Government do not object to the principle of the Bill; and I, therefore, urge the House to allow it a second reading, both in the interests of agricultural tenants, and for the purpose of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Agricultural Commission.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Stanhope.)
  LORD BRAMWELL, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that this was the second legislative effort this Session of the noble Earl. In his first Bill there was a Preamble which became inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill after their Lordships had directed certain Amendments; and he had recommended the noble Earl to get rid of the difficulty by omitting the Preamble. Although the noble Earl did not take his advice then, he had taken it as to the Bill before the House, and had omitted any Preamble. He should, however, very much liked to have seen how the noble Earl would have framed one. The only Preamble he (Lord Bramwell) could conceive would be—"Whereas it is desirable to meddle with the law and alter it." As there was no Preamble and no principle in the measure, he (Lord
  1278
  Bramwell) must deal with it as a collection of clauses. He had not heard at any time during the existence of the present law that there was any difficulty in the collection of tithe. He did not mean to say that persons who had to pay liked it; but solicitors of great practice had told him that the present means were amply sufficient. First, as to Clause 3. No doubt, the landowner was the person really affected by the tithes, and not the occupier; and the Tithes Commutation Act had contemplated that. The consequence was that in certain cases, no doubt, the landowner had paid the tithes; but he believed that in the majority of cases the landowner, for convenience sake, had stipulated that the tenant should pay the rent charge. The noble Earl's proposition was that, no matter how convenient it might be that the tenant should pay, and no matter how inconvenient it might be that the landowner should pay, if they made a bargain between themselves that bargain should be void. What was the good of this? Was it supposed that by that 3rd clause the burden could be shifted? Even if it were so, why should it be done?—unless, indeed, their Lordships were of opinion, as some people were, that landlords were the proper persons to be plundered. But it was manifest that if the clause were passed the consequence would be that the tenant would have to pay a higher rent, and the landlord would stipulate with the tenant to get him to pay the tithe for him, and the only effect of the 3rd clause would be that some slight alteration would be made in the phraseology of leases; and, therefore, the clause was positively ineffective. As to the 4th clause, there was very little in it, except that it said that if the tenant paid the rent charge he should be at liberty to sue his landlord for it, or to deduct it from the next payment of rent. He would now call attention to the 5th clause. It said that the tithe rent charge might be recovered from the owner by action as a simple contract debt. At first sight that seemed to be a benefit to the tithe-owner. But what was the consequence? Suppose the tithe-owner, if he were a clergyman—or, for the matter of that, if the tithe were in lay hands, but particularly in the case of a clergyman—went to the tenant for the tithe rent charge, the tenant would say—"Go

  1279
  to the landlord, who is the real debtor, and not trouble me." So that the clause, although it seemed to give a benefit to the tithe-owner, by giving him a right to sue the landowner, would, in fact, practically take away from him his power of distress against the tenant. The next clause was really most extraordinary. It was as follows:—
  "Any guardian, trustee, committee, husband, or attorney who, for the purpose of the Tithe Commutation Acts, represents any owner under disability of lands subject to tithe rent charge, shall represent such owner for the purposes of the Act, but not so as to incur any personal liability; and any goods of such owner which may be vested in or under the control of any such guardian, trustee, committee, husband, or attorney may be taken in execution of process under this Act."
  This word "attorney" was sensible in the Commutation Act, but was absolutely unnecessary in this Bill. Again, the consequence of that section might be that for a debt recovered from A B, the goods of C D might be seized; and the goods of the man himself would never be taken in execution unless they were vested in, or under the control of, any such guardian, trustee, committee, or attorney. Then, again, the owner was spoken of; but what did the noble Earl mean by the owner?
  EARL STANHOPE: The tithe-payer.
  LORD BRAMWELL: But they were told, by the 2nd section of the Bill, that the words used in this Bill were to have the same meaning as those in the Tithes Commutation Act. Now, the latter Act had excepted from its scope tenants for life or years holding under leases; and, therefore, the noble Earl would be obliged to leave out of his Bill such tenants, and so a very large portion of the landowners of the country would have to be left out. He would not occupy their Lordships attention any further on this clause; but there was one—the 7th—which he was much surprised to find in any Bill introduced into that House. Clause 7 provided that—
  "When the owner of land subject to tithe rent charge shall not himself be in occupation of such land, he shall, if such rent charge be paid within one month after the same shall be due and payable, be entitled to deduct a sum equal to three per cent of the same from such payment, or from any future payment of such rent charge."
  So that gentlemen in England were to be allowed a discount of 3 per cent for paying their debts properly. Why that
  1280
  benefit should be given to the owner in respect of a farm which he did not occupy, and not in respect of the next farm which he did occupy, it was difficult to see. He wondered whether the noble Earl had realized what 3 per cent meant to a man whoso tithe rent charge supplied him with food and clothing. It meant a week and a-half without anything at all. Besides, it was clear that clergymen could not sit at home to receive their rents; they would, no doubt, as they had hitherto done, employ a collector, and the only result would be that they would receive so much less money than they had been in the habit of getting, as the 8th clause declared that the rent charge was not to vary, if a sum could be agreed upon. It should be borne in mind, however, that the mode of fixing the rent charge was adopted to guard against a change in the value of money and its consequences. It might be that, notwithstanding this consideration, a fixed sum and a fair one would be preferable. There was, however, one clause—the 10th—which he entirely agreed with. The clause provided that the Act should not extend to Scot-laud or Ireland. He wished to go a step further and provide that it should not extend to England.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the only advantage of the Bill, would be getting rid of uncertainty and troublesome calculations by fixing tithes at par. There was no reason for restricting the discount the Bill proposed to owners who were not occupiers, since the greatest difficulties of collection were in the cases of small freeholders who were owners and occupiers. If the tithes were added to and merged in the rent, as the Bill took no precaution against it, farmers would be rated on their gross rent—that was, on the tithes which were not their property; and, on the other hand, owners would, if they did not take much care and trouble, pay Income Tax upon these tithes, which would be included in their rent. There was no advantage in the Bill equal to the trouble it would give.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was convinced that the noble Earl who

  1281
  had introduced the Bill had done so from the most laudable motives, and had attempted to find a satisfactory solution of what was, no doubt, a question of no ordinary difficulty. After the criticism of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), it appeared that the clauses had the singular disadvantage of not being of a perfect kind. He hoped his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) would forgive him for saying that he was not personally enamoured of the provisions of the Bill; and, without going into details, he would appeal to his noble Friend if he would be satisfied with the discussion he had raised, leaving the Government to deal with the subject in a more ample manner on some future occasion?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was afraid he must join in the appeal of the noble Earl who had just sat down. The grave recommendations of the Royal Commission, however, certainly did invite Parliament to legislate on the subject. For his own part, he felt a strong sympathy with the object the noble Earl had in view in introducing the Bill. He could not entirely agree with the remark of the noble and learned Lord that there was no grievance or evil to remedy. No doubt, the noble and learned Lord spoke from a legal point of view, and perhaps in that view there was no difficulty; but, undoubtedly, it was very inconvenient for a tithe-owner to be obliged to enforce his remedy of distress. This was felt particularly in the case of clergymen, who were often unable to give time to tenants, as landlords usually could. They were compelled to distrain, thereby exposing to the world the position of their debtor, and bringing his other creditors upon him. He was unable to concur in the opinion that there was no evil to be remedied; but it was expedient that a remedy should be sought by a Bill less open to criticism and objection. He was not so sanguine as to believe that the noble Earl would be satisfied with the discussion; but he thought there were only two courses open to the noble Earl. One was to withdraw the Bill, in order that it might be re-introduced in a better form; and the other was to refer it to a Select Committee. Before he heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord he was in favour of the second alternative; but as it had been pointed out that there was so much ob-
  1282
  jection to so many of the clauses, on the whole, he thought the sounder proceeding would be to withdraw the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEwished to confirm what had fallen from the noble Marquess. There were practical difficulties in the way of collecting tithe, and it was not so easy and pleasant a matter as the noble and learned Lord implied. While he regretted the unsuccessful attempt made by the noble Earl to remedy the defects of the existing law, he was of opinion that the noble Earl was entitled to the thanks of the tithe-owners for his exertions.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwished to recognize the good intentions with which the Bill had been drawn; but he felt that the subject was one which it was not desirable to deal with in a piecemeal or imperfect way, and the Bill did not contain any provision with respect to extraordinary tithe, although it was affected by the 8th clause. The whole matter ought to be dealt with at the same time.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that the tithe was less than the rent, and if the tenant could not pay the tithe, he could not pay the rent, so that they would not improve the position of the tithe-owner by referring him to a pauper landlord, instead of a pauper tenant.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he regretted to find that the recommendations of the Royal Agricultural Commission were so little acceptable to their Lordships, and the more so as the present year was specially favourable for dealing with tithes. He felt confident that ultimately the principle of the Bill would be adopted, and that landlords would pay tithes in England as they did in Scotland; but, in compliance with the evident wish of their Lordships, he would withdraw the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, as President of the Royal Agricultural Commission, was not surprised at the reception the Bill had met with, because it did not carry out the views of the Commission, or respond to the evidence taken by them. He agreed with the strictures of the the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), and was glad that the Bill was to be withdrawn.
  Amendment, Original Motion, and Bill (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER—PETITION OF THE BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SCOTLAND.

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN, in calling attention to a Petition from the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland against legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister, said: My Lords, I have the honour to present several Petitions to your Lordships against the Bill for legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister; but there is one Petition, and only one, upon which I would ask to be allowed to say a few words, and in doing so I will abstain from offering any remarks on the Bill itself, which would be to anticipate a future debate upon it; but I will confine myself to the Petition I am about to present. That Petition emanates from a learned and venerable Body, and it comes from the whole of that Body. It is subscribed with the names of all the Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. My Lords, the Bishops in Scotland are not now represented in either House of Parliament; but they are the legitimate successors of Bishops who were Peers in the Parliaments of Scotland, some of whose Episcopal Sees were anterior to the Norman Conquest; and, although these Bishops are now reduced to half of their former number—namely, to seven—yet they fill the original Sees, some of which have become blended together. The present time is a memorable one in the history of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, and suggests some interesting reminiscences. Nearly two centuries ago—namely, in the year 1689—that Church was disestablished, and greatly it has suffered from its disestablishment. All the Bishops of Scotland were deprived of their secular rank, civil privileges, and temporal revenues for conscience sake, because they refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary as their Sovereigns de jure in place of King James II., although they were ready to affirm that they would submit to them as their Rulers de facto. My Lords, a good deal has been said lately as to the Oath of Allegiance being a mistake; but if the Oath of Allegiance is a mistake, the Disestablishment of the Episcopal Church of Scot
  1284
  land was a crime. But, to pass on to the year 1884. That will be a remarkable one in the history of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and of Christendom. Just 100 years will then have passed away since the disestablished, suffering, afflicted, and persecuted Episcopal Church in Scotland bestowed the gift of Episcopacy on America. It did this by the hands of three of its Bishops at Aberdeen, on November 14, 1784, in the consecration of Dr. Samuel Seabury, the first of a line of Bishops who now amount to no less a number than 60 in the United States of America alone, to say nothing of British America. The grain of mustard seed sown a century ago at Aberdeen has now become a great tree, and its branches overshadow the Western World. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack will remember he w a venerable and learned person—one of the most venerable and learned in the University of Oxford, whose life was extended to nearly 100 years—the President of the great and magnificent College of St. Mary Magdalene—of which the noble and learned Earl himself is so distinguished an ornament—I refer to Dr. Martin Joseph Routh, when he had gathered together the precious remains of primitive Christian antiquity, he inscribed that valuable collection and literary work, his Reliquiœ Sacrœ, to the Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and their Clergy, and showed his reverence for them in a respectful and laudatory dedication. My Lords, since that time the Episcopal Church in Scotland has distinguished itself in a manner which I believe no other Church has done in the last 50 37ears—namely, by building two noble Cathedrals—one at Inverness, and the other at Edinburgh; and it is a happy sign of the abatement of religious strife, and a fortunate augury of a future reign of peace in that country, that at the consecration of the Cathedral at Edinburgh the Bishop of that City and his Episcopal Brethren were honoured by the presence and cordial support of the Lord Provost of the capital of Scotland. My Lords, having been honoured by these right rev. Persons with the charge of their Petition, I have thought it my duty to request your Lordships' indulgence on this occasion in presenting it; and now that, happily, by the spirit of liberal and enlightened toleration which cha-

  1285
  racterizes your Lordships' proceedings, those penalties and disabilities have been removed which formerly pressed upon them, I feel confident I may assure them that the Petition which has been presented to your Lordships to-day will receive that consideration to which it is so fairly entitled from the character, learning, and offices of those who have signed it. I would, in conclusion, request the leave of your Lordships to read it, and I have to add that in presenting it I entirely agree in the substance and prayer of the Petition.
  Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE CONVENTION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT ST. VINCENT, in rising to inquire, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to retain our representative in the Transvaal; and, if so, whether they intend to modify or cancel any or all of the provisions of the Convention of 1881? said, that in view of the apparent intention of the Government to abandon the Natives', both within and without the boundary of the Transvaal, to their own devices—and of allowing the Boers to work out the policy of revenge that they appeared to have inaugurated since the signing of the Convention of 1881—he would ask whether the more honourable course for the Government to pursue, short of declaring their fixed determination to abide by the spirit, if not the letter, of this Convention, would not be to withdraw our Representative from the Transvaal, and to cancel a Convention the terms of which they appeared to be either unable or unwilling to carry out. Without wishing to revive any old contentions on this question, it seemed but just to observe that the possible consequences of a war with these Boers had not been previously sufficiently considered by the Government before they undertook that war; that the information received by them prior to the commencement of that war had been of a distinctly misleading character; and that, after the deplorable series of reverses suffered by our troops at Brunker's Spruit, Lang's Nek, the Ingogo River, and the Majuba Mountain, it became a question of our future operations having
  1286
  to be conducted, not only against the Transvaal Boers themselves, but also against the Boers of the Orange Free State, and possibly against a rising of the whole Dutch population of South Africa. Under these circumstances, in view of such a contingency, what wonder that our Government should be anxious to come to terms with these Dutch farmers at almost any sacrifice short of the entire sacrifice of national honour and tradition? Moreover, in order to lead the English people to believe in their philanthropic and disinterested motives in so doing, it became necessary that a Convention of some sort should be entered into, to grace our retirement from the country, and to smooth the ruffled feelings of the English nation. But was it by the Government for one moment believed, any more than it was by any single Colonist of any standing in Natal at the time, that the Boers would abide by one single Article of that Convention, if at any time it became their interest, as it most undoubtedly would become their interest, not to do so? Were they aware that the Boers themselves—and he had an opportunity of talking to a number of them soon after and before the signing of this Convention—openly and avowedly declared their disbelief in its terms being carried out, and, further, their intention of not abiding by them? These Dutch farmers knew, if the English people did not, the futility of any terms in such circumstances. They, moreover, knew that the English Government would scarcely be prepared to make any fresh sacrifices to retain a merely nominal authority in a country, the inhabitants of which were avowedly hostile to their rule. It did not matter to the Boers themselves that in following their traditional policy with regard to the Natives, both within and without their own boundary, they would ruin all that had hitherto been done in the interests of civilization in those parts. It did not matter to the Boers themselves that in that land-greed and love of annexation which appeared to be a part of the Boer nature they would trample under foot the interests of those Native races that might stand in their way towards the attainment of that object. Such being the case, the question must naturally arise, how did all this affect the English nation? Were we to pose

  1287
  as the champions of civilization in a country which would repudiate our Suzerainty, and owned to little or no controlling influence of ours? As to Suzerainty on these terms and in such circumstances, the country wanted none of it. The Colonists of Natal, the Boors of the Transvaal, even the Natives themselves, had learnt to say that they, too, wanted none of it. Whatever our future policy with regard to this country was to be, let it be no longer one of procrastination, hesitation, and delay; and, if needs be, let us accept the situation we had created, retiring whence we came, learning, from experience gathered in the past, lessons which might serve as a guide to our actions in the future. Or if it were decided in any way to control the actions of those outside our own boundary, then let them be taught to know clearly and intelligibly what they had to expect, and how far we meant to go in the protection of civilization and Native interests in that portion of the globe. We should thus, he ventured to predict, avoid those harassing complications which seemed so persistently to follow us in our dealings with these South African questions.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I fully understand the argument of the noble Viscount. This is my fault, however, and not his, as I was unable to hear all he said. But I understand his contention is this—that the Convention into which we entered two years ago with the Government of the Transvaal was now practically inoperative, and that, being inoperative, it had better be put an end to. That is a very fair matter for argument; but I do not think it would be possible to enter upon it on the present occasion. I have no objection to admit as much as this—that the Convention, as it now stands, does not give Her Majesty's Government any large amount of power, and that it is an arrangement which cannot be made to work satisfactorily unless it is carried into effect with the goodwill and sincere co-operation of both parties. Up to the present time, I have only received a general and unofficial statement of the wishes of the Transvaal Government. They have communicated with me, but not through an accredited agent. The next step to decide upon is whether we shall enter into formal and official negotiations with that Government with a view to consider
  1288
  the expediency of a revision of the Convention. That is a matter which is still under consideration. If the negotiations, as is probable, be continued, then, undoubtedly, the matter which is the subject of the noble Lord's Question—that of continuing or withdrawing the British Representative at Pretoria—will be one of the points which will have to be considered. I have no doubt, before the present Session closes, I shall be in a position to give more information to your Lordships than I am at the present moment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only wish to observe, on the somewhat important statement of the noble Earl, that this Convention differs from the case of a Convention entered into by two parties of their own full and free will for the purpose of carrying out an object in which both are equally interested. It was a Convention which was imposed, or supposed by Her Majesty's Government to be imposed, by us upon the Boers as a consideration for that relinquishment of our dominion over them which we had possessed before the outbreak with the Boers and before the disaster of Majuba Hill. I think if the nation had understood at the time that this Convention, which was to be a substitute and re-imbursement to us for all that was sacrificed then, and which we were told was to exercise so large an influence for the protection of the Native races to whose protection we were so especially bound, was to depend for the whole of its validity and value upon the hearty co-operation of those who were on the other side, it would have been received in a different spirit and in different language from that which actually met it.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—HYDE PARK CORNER—RE-ERECTION OF THE WELLINGTON STATUE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN, in rising to call attention to the strong public feeling in favour of the Wellington Statue being allowed to remain in its present position instead of being removed to the Horse Guards, said, the Duke of Wellington had rendered unparalleled services to this country, and had, in addition, earned the gratitude of nearly all the nations of Europe, who had con-

  1289
  ferred many honours upon him, for his aid in rescuing them from French military occupation and despotism. England had possessed great Generals, second to none in their bravery and knowledge of the art of war; but to none had the lot fallen to be so identified with the world's great events, and to take a part so distinguished and glorious, and so conducive to the independence of Europe as this—England's immortal Leader. This country had presented him with Apsley House, containing all the archives relating to his unrivalled career of victories, as well as the numerous and valuable gifts from the Sovereigns and nations whom he had liberated, and had erected in his honour a statue close to that house, which was inseparably connected with the name of the Duke of Wellington. The likeness of the statue to the Duke's features was so striking that no one from John of Groat's House to the Land's End could mistake it. And his attitude, one hand with a telescope pointing to a height to his right front, and his head turned to the left front, as if giving directions for some movement, was very true and characteristic. As regarded the horse, with the exception of his nostrils being too much distended—a fault which could easily be set right, his points—namely, sloping shoulder, good barrel, &c, were good; and he was said to be a good likeness of the portrait of the Duke of Wellington's charger, "Copenhagen," which was in the possession of a noble Friend of his. It was true that the proportions of the horse were disfigured from being three times the size of life, to suit the high arch on which it was placed. But to separate the statue from Apsley House, with which it was so connected, and by such recollections, and to hide it, as appeared to be the intention, on account of the fastidiousness of a few critics, and of these doubtful imperfections, though a good ensemble, in a retired corner of St. James's Park, near the milk and bun stalls, the resort of children and nurserymaids, appeared to him—he spoke with great deference—opposed to the object of the statue, and a disregard of the good intentions of his countrymen, who wished to append to Apsley House a lasting memorial in his honour.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE, as a Member of the Site Committee, said, their Lord-
  1290
  ships would agree with him in thinking that if five men entered a room for the purpose of considering any subject they would probably disagree; but upon this question the Committee, consisting of five men, were unanimous. They considered various sites. Chelsea Hospital and Primrose Hill were thought to be too far removed from the centre of London; and it was felt by those who were Members of the Committee that Apsley House would not be a suitable site for the statue, as its colossal proportions would dwarf the surrounding buildings. They next turned their attention to the site at the Horse Guards, and they came to the conclusion that it should be recommended to the Government, as the Horse Guards was a place which was closely connected with the noble Duke up to the last days of his life, it being where he had so frequently transacted business. The Committee thought it was an appropriate site; and the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), who was consulted, fully shared in their views. The Committee were also unanimously of opinion that the statue was not worthy the reputation of the artist. They were told that the Duke never sat to the artist, who modelled the statue from a lay figure. It was a question whether it would have been possible for Michael Angelo himself to have given an artistic appearance to a huge equestrian figure in a stiff cloak and a cocked hat; but, at all events, if it were to be erected opposite the Horse Guards in the enclosure of St. James's Park, its harsh outlines would be somewhat broken and softened by the foliage surrounding and behind it. The statue would be at a greater distance from the Horse Guards than from Apsley House, and therefore would not dwarf that building—it would be immediately in rear of the gatekeeper's lodge. The noble and gallant Lord had talked of the strong public feeling against removing it from its present site; but as no Questions had been asked in Parliament, nor had any letters been written in the newspapers, he was at a loss to know how he had gauged public opinion. The cost of removing the figure would be only £600 or £700, a sum which he did not think should weigh with the Government when they were selecting a new site for the statue.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEremarked that, in his opinion, the coun-

  1291
  try would not hesitate for a moment to expend the sum necessary for the re-erection of the statue of so great a man as the Duke of Wellington in a suitable position. The question, however, was, whether the site selected was the best that could be found. He did not pretend to be an artist; but he must confess that he could not see the artistic advantages of the Horse Guards' site. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the Horse Guards' Parade were to be entirely destroyed by the erection of this great statue in the middle of it. To place it in the enclosure, however, would be merely to hide it behind the trees; and was that the way to treat the statue of so great a man? He was no great admirer of the statue; but still, when it stood on its last site, everyone who came to London used to ask—"Who is that?" and was told—"Oh! that is the Duke of Wellington;" and they might depend upon it that, however inartistic the figure might be, it would be the artist and not the Duke of Wellington that would be found fault with. The noble Viscount had said that it was impossible to make a statue having a stiff cloak and a cocked hat look artistic. In that remark he entirely concurred. He trusted, however, that Her Majesty's Government would not come to any immediate decision on the question; because, now that the part of London near Hyde Park Corner had been so much improved, he saw no reason why this statue should not be altogether recast and made the centre of a group of fine statues which already existed in London.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he always regarded the statue with admiration as seen from the other side of Hyde Park. In this case distance did lend enchantment to the view. He trusted that the statue would be re-erected where it could be seen from the Marble Arch.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that, as the Government were aware of different opinions existing on the subject, a number of people thinking that the statue should remain in the locality where it was, they appointed a Committee, on which were some of the most distinguished members of the Profession of Art; and the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) was placed on it to represent the views of the family. That Committee, after due deliberation, had arrived at a most distinct opinion with
  1292
  regard to the matter. They unanimously resolved that—
  "It would be out of harmony with the surroundings if placed at Hyde Park Corner. They recommended that the statue should be placed upon a fitting pedestal on a site immediately within the present railings of St James's Park facing the Horse Guards, and on the central axis of the archway of that building."
  The Government, having regard to the eminent gentlemen composing that Committee, to whom they were much indebted, had given the subject very careful consideration, and had decided that it would be advisable, in the first instance, to erect at a small cost a full-sized wooden profile of the statue, showing exactly how it would be if placed in the position recommended by the Committee. When this was done the Committee would be asked to meet again, and probably the wooden profile would be moved up to Hyde Park Corner to be also seen in that position. Until this experiment was carried out no final decision in the matter could take place. As some misapprehension had arisen as to the cost for moving the statue from its present position, and as it had been rumoured that it would require some £5,000 to £6,000 to effect this object, he took the present opportunity of stating that it was estimated that the outside cost would not exceed £750, the risk of moving it being in this case also taken by the contractor. It was estimated that to erect it on a suitable granite pedestal, including foundations, about £4,000 would be required; but this would have to be incurred wherever the statue was placed. As the noble and gallant Lord who introduced this subject appeared to have a very strong opinion on the merits of the statue in an artistic point of view, it would, he thought, be interesting to their Lord-ships if he read a Report from a distinguished Academician to Lord Morpeth in 1847, the artist having been consulted on the merits of the statue—
  "My feeling is that the appearance and effect of the said bronze equestrian statue is as detestable as the design is. If such art is intended to remain anywhere, the top of the Oregon Mountain or the summit of the loftiest mountain the Straits of Magellan, where it could never be hoped to be seen again, would be the place; but as a national memento of the sovereign General of the living world and our progress in design and genius, in my humble opinion it will cause the whole people of our Em-

  1293
  pire to feel disgraced by it. My objection to the statue itself is a want of action. Such a hero, so active and so full of manly fire, can never be represented by a tame, lifeless position. The wind might have been allowed to blow out the mantle to give some spirit. The horse is merely sniffing the wind; and the action of his forelegs is utter weakness. The pastern joints are too bent, especially the off one, which straightens in being behind the near one in stepping, and vice versâ. The body of the horse is too short, which makes the legs too long. The horse has not received the conventional form of a charger. He felt sure the Duke would not mount such a neck-stretching animal on any account; and certainly not go to battle on it."
  Such was the opinion of the well-known Academician of that day, Mr. Reimagle; and, without divulging a secret, he thought he was not far wrong in saying that this was pretty nearly the opinion of the Royal Academicians of the present day.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he was very glad to hear what had fallen from the noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Government, especially in regard to the determination to follow the Continental system of erecting a wooden profile before coming to an all-important final decision on the question of site. He hoped this plan would be adopted in the case of other statues.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that, on the question of taste, the opinion of the intelligent foreigner might be of service; and to that end he might quote the opinion of M. Lemoinne, who said that the real Duke was not the one represented by the Achilles which had been subscribed for and erected near Apsley House in questionable taste; he was the man on the top of the Arch who, going at a foot's pace all his life, always arrived in time. As the Government were going to put up a profile at Hyde Park Corner as well as the Horse Guards, he ventured to commend M. Lemoinne's opinion.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)expressed his preference for the site at Hyde Park Corner; and he thought such a statue was all the more desirable now, on account of the improvements just effected there as a central object in the great space opened up.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he was not an admirer of the site opposite the Horse Guards. He defied anyone to say where the central point of the Horse Guards' Parade was; but
  1294
  he believed the site fixed upon was where there had recently been erected a magnificent mud mountain near a bun shop. He could not see any reason why the monument should not be retained on its present site.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he was glad the Government had not yet come to any decision on the question. He entirely agreed with the observations of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), and trusted his suggestion would be considered.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in presenting a Bill providing for the better protection of young girls, said, he had to call the attention of their Lordships to a subject of a very distasteful nature; but there was a popular feeling about the Bill he desired to submit to their Lordships which made him anxious to introduce the measure without delay. He should not then enter into a detailed statement of it, but would simply allude to the foundations on which the Bill rested. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that in 1881, in consequence of certain facts which were brought under public notice, it was deemed necessary to appoint a Select Committee of that House in reference to the protection of young girls, and that Committee was presided over by the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns). A great mass of evidence was taken, and it had been carefully analyzed; and the Secretary of State, in preparing this Bill, had followed as closely as possible the recommendations of the Committee. He had, in fact, embodied in the measure all the recommendations of the Committee, except the one which suggested that the limit of age for illegal forcible abduction should be raised from 16 to 21 years. After giving the matter full consideration, the Secretary of State had not seen his way to adopt that recommendation. Much regret had been expressed in the districts where the Contagious Diseases Acts had been in operation because it was alleged that the abolition of those Acts would relax the hold which the police had over young girls in deterring prostitution. But he wished to point out that if this Bill became law the local police of the districts

  1295
  referred to would in future be able to exercise all the powers in those respects that the Metropolitan Police had exercised under the Contagious Diseases Acts. He was aware that the Bill contained provisions of great and peculiar stringency; but their Lordships would have the opportunity of discussing and, if necessary, of modifying them; and he hoped they would recognize in it an honest attempt to carry out the recommendations of their own Select Committee.
  Bill to make further provision for the protection of women and girls, and for the suppression of brothels; and for other purposes—Presented (The Earl of ROSEBERY).
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he was quite sure the Bill was one that would be received with much interest and with very general satisfaction by the House and the public. He should reserve the remarks he had to make in reference to one or two clauses in the Bill until he knew more of the reasons which had led to their introduction, and should be glad, when the proper time came, to hear some detailed explanation why the Government had not adopted the recommendation of the Select Committee in regard to the maximum age in cases of abduction. It was the one point about which the Committee had the least doubt, and it was adopted on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), from his long and wide experience in the administration of the Criminal Law.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose, in order to continue the debate, when——
  EARL GRANVILLE, interposing, said, he must deprecate any discussion on the first reading of the Bill. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) had only made a statement in introducing the Bill; and there would be ample opportunity of discussing the Bill at a later stage.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had no intention of debating the Bill; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) went through the clauses of the proposed Bill; and he was, therefore, entitled to an explanation on one or two points. He would like to know if the term "procuring" was used in its technical sense; and, also, whether there was any power in the Bill for removing young
  1296
  children from the custody and care of their parents, or so-called parents, living in unwholesome and demoralized atmospheres?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, there was nothing in the Bill which would enable interference to be made between a mother and her daughter, even though she were living in a house of ill-fame; nor was there any power of interfering between parents and children. Certain stringent powers had been taken to remove children under the Industrial Schools Act; but they could only be enforced if the children were found wandering in the streets.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 69.)
  House adjourned at quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.