Lords Sitting of 21 June 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Public Works Loans* (188).
Second Reading—Married Women (Maintenance in Case of Desertion)* (164); Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment (162); Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment (163), negatived; Public Health Acts (Improvement Expenses) (143); Jurors' Detention (142), negatived; Land Tax Commissioners' Names* (165); Returning Officers' Charges (Scotland)* (173); Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption (174); Customs* (175); Revising Barristers' Appointment* (179); Revising Barristers (Ireland)* (180); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (181); Public Works Loans (Tramways Ireland)* (182); Westminster Abbey Restoration*
2
(183); Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment (184); Shop Hours Regulation* (186); County Courts Consolidation (151).
Committee—Medical Acts Amendment (155–187).
Committee—Report—Losses by Riot (Compensation)* (156); Terms of Removal (Scotland)* (157); Poor Law Loans and Relief (Scotland)* (158); Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries* (159); Coal Mines* (160).
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Turnpike Roads (South Wales)* (161), and passed.
Report—Third Reading—Tramways Order in Council (Ireland)* (132), and passed.
Third Reading—International and Colonial Copyright (144), and passed.
Withdrawn—Lunacy (13).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (Gas)* (189); Local Government (No. 6)* (190); Pier and Harbour* (191); Tramways (No 1.)* (192).
Committee—Report—Police and Improvement (Scotland) (Leith)* (150).
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Water* (137); Gas (No. 1)* (154), and passed.

CENTRAL ASIA—COLONEL LOCK- HART'S EXPEDITION.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Lord ELLENBOROUGH,
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY) said: Colonel Lockhart, after visiting Gilgit and Chitral, on a journey of exploration, has passed into Lower Badakshan on his return to India by the country of the Hindoo Khush. There is no truth in a recent report that Colonel Lockhart and his party have been seized and imprisoned in Badakshan.

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Resolved, That the promoters of every Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill which shall have been introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which shall have passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, or which shall be pending in this House, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session; and that all fees due thereon, up to that period, be paid:
  That an alphabetical list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed:
  That such Bills shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed in the case of a Private Bill by the agent, and in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill by an officer of the department by which the Orders to be confirmed by such Bill are made, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings, thereon in this House in the present Session, and where any sum of money has been deposited, as required by Standing Order No. 57, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact, from the proper officer of the court in which such money was deposited:
  That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages:
  That as regards all Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills which shall have been brought from the House of Commons in the present Session such Bills shall be allowed to proceed to the same stage at which they shall have arrived in the present Session, on the same conditions as those set forth in the preceding Orders in respect of Bills originating in this House; the declaration to be signed as aforesaid, stating that the Bill is in every
  4
  respect the same as when brought to this House in this Session:
  That if any such Bill shall have been amended in this House in the present Session, the same Amendments shall be inserted by the Committee on the Bill:
  That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill which shall have originated in this House or been brought up from the House of Commons in the present Session, in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed:
  That all Petitions presented in this Session relating to any Private Bill shall, if necessary, be referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session:
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session, unless that time shall not have expired before it closes, in which case, in order to be heard, their petition shall be presented not later than the fourth day on which the House shall sit in the next Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.—MOTION.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY),in rising to move to discharge the Orders of the 11th and 16th of March last respecting the Select Committee on the operation of the Act for the better Government of India (1858) and certain other Acts relating to India, said, he wished to explain why the Committee appointed by the Lords to act with a Committee to be appointed by the Commons had never acted. When the Committee was first proposed in that House the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) and the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) at once met the proposal in the most friendly manner, and offered every facility for its appointment. The Committee was accordingly appointed, and a Message was sent to the other House, inviting them to appoint a similar Committee to act in conjunction with the Committee of their Lordships in conducting the inquiry. But in the other House an opposition arose, and certainly from a most unexpected quarter—namely, from the noble Lord his Predecessor in his present Office (Lord Randolph Churchill). He had been unable to gather the precise reason for the opposition, as, owing to the course which was taken, the question never came to be discussed in the other House; but he understood that

5
the noble Lord, although he had stated that the question of the Government of India was one into which he thought there must be a real inquiry, objected to the number of Members of which it was proposed that the Committee should consist, and blocked the Motion of the Government. It was proposed that it should consist of 15 Members from each House, or 30 in all. Now, all the Indian Committees had been largo; in 1830–2 the Committee of their Lordships which inquired into the Charter of the East India Company consisted of 22 Members, and that of the other House of 35 Members; and again in 1852 the Committees of the two Houses were somewhat larger, consisting, as they did, of 30 in the Lords and 31 in the Commons. He had been told—but he could scarcely believe it—that some objection had been taken because the Committee consisted of persons not altogether official. He entirely appreciated the importance of a Committee consisting of Members of large official experience; but for an inquiry of the kind proposed it was absolutely necessary to have some persons not connected with Office, who might come to the consideration of the matter from a broader point of view. He was surprised at the position taken up by the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India, because that noble Lord had taken a prominent part in supporting the idea of an inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not understand the statements of the noble Earl to rest on any formal basis. He is referring to what has not been said in the other House. Has he any evidence?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that his evidence was that the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India had opposed the appointment of the Committee, and he had reason to believe that the noble Lord's objections were that there were too many poisons proposed, and that he desired that the Committee should consist of 15 or 16 persons, nearly the whole of whom should be connected with Office in this country, or in India. The noble Lord had made a speech in June last year recommending a large and comprehensive Parliamentary inquiry into the whole operation of the Government of India; and he (the Earl of Kimberley) thought, whatever the ground
6
of his Lordship's objections might be, it was extremely unfortunate that the late Secretary of State for India, after having given rise by his course of conduct to the great expectations that had been undoubtedly formed in India upon the matter, should have felt it necessary to obstruct and prevent the inquiry proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The Government much regretted that the inquiry had not taken place. The affairs of India were not a matter about which any pranks could be played by any statesman desiring to be taken seriously. He had said this to show that it was not the fault of the Government, nor yet of noble Lords opposite, but of a single man, that the inquiry had not taken place. But for that opposition the inquiry might have made some progress, and great disappointment was felt in India on account of its postponement. He was, however, glad to be able to take the opportunity of saying that he thought it probable that the Government might arrange for the appointment of a Commission by the Viceroy of India for the purpose of examining important questions in connection with the admission of Natives to the Civil Service in India, although he was not yet in a position to announce it authoritatively. If such an inquiry should take place in India, it would facilitate the dealing hereafter, by Parliamentary legislation, with the subject, and might tend to allay the disappointment, or, at all events, go to show that this country was not indifferent to the wants of India. He would make the Motion of which he had given Notice.
Moved, "That the Orders of the 11th and 16th of March last be discharged."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The course taken by the noble Earl is, I think, somewhat inconvenient and unusual. The excellent speech which we have just heard should have been delivered by the Under Secretary of State for India in the other House. If objection is taken in the House to anything done by my noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) he is quite competent to defend himself. I should have thought the simpler plan would have been for the Under Secretary of State for India to have moved the appoint

7
ment of the Committee in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We could not do so. The Motion was blocked by the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But that only means, that it could not come on after half-past 12 o'clock. The Government were perfectly competent to bring the subject on at an earlier hour, when there was somebody who was in a position to examine it. All my noble Friend did was to insist that the discussion should take place at a time of night when people could give attention to it, and when matters of such extreme importance as the government of India, and the controversial question as to the numbers and composition, of the Committee could be properly discussed and settled by those competent to do so. The Government, however, did not choose to give the time for this important subject, and they now fall foul of my noble Friend, because he insisted upon not going on after half-past 12, and they repeat a number of objections not stated publicly, and which, if they were to be discussed at all, should have been discussed across the floor of the other House of Parliament, in face of my noble Friend, and where a decision could have been come to. If the inquiry has failed, the responsibility for its failure rests with Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If Her Majesty' Government be in Office after the General Election they will again propose the appointment of the Indian Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Orders discharged.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 162.)
(The Lord President of the Council, Earl Spencer.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 162.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER), in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure was not originally a Government measure. It was introduced in "another place" by some Irish Members, and it had re-
  8
  ceived various changes since. The principle of the Bill, however, as it came up to their Lordships' House, was one which contained sufficient importance, in his judgment, to justify the Government in accepting it; and therefore it was that he had undertaken to move the second reading of the measure. In further corroboration of that statement, he had to point to the Bill of his noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland (the Earl of Dalhousie), who would move the second reading of the Bill relating to Scotland when the present one had been disposed of by their Lordships. That Bill was the same as this in its general principles. He need not enter into the history of the measure in "another place." Originally there were two Bills introduced dealing with this subject; one shortly after the other. One of the Bills, however, was withdrawn, and the Bill which was now before their Lordships received a second reading in the other House. As originally introduced in the House of Commons, it was a measure to enable the making of appeals to the Taxing Officer of a Higher Court, in matters relating to charges connected with the Returning Officer's expenses. That was a very important matter, especially with regard to Ireland. Subsequently, a clause was introduced reducing the maximum charges which a Returning Officer could make on various matters. This provision was thought necessary, as a great many changes had taken plane since the Act of 1875, when the costs of ballot boxes, &c. were first charged for. Those charges had now been considerably reduced, and a clause had, therefore, been introduced in the Schedule reducing the charges. Lastly, there was the introduction of a clause to throw the cost of these charges on the public rates.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the counties only.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, all those clauses had one important bearing on elections. They tended to the reduction of the cost of elections. He believed that to be a most important principle, and especially important now, when the recent changes in the representation had, to a considerable extent, enabled particular classes to have Members of their own class returned to Parliament. He attached great importance to that principle, and cordially supported it, for he thought it

  9
  was desirable that no unnecessary check should be placed by the expenditure of elections on the return of those Members. There would always be a considerable personal expense connected with elections, quite independent of the necessary and unavoidable expenses which were connected with Returning Officers' charges; and he thought it was important and good policy to make these latter expenses as moderate as possible. He also cordially approved of the principle of throwing the charges on the rates, and hoped that the provision would he passed into law, just as much as the other part of the Bill dealing with the reduction of the maximum charges. The principle was no new one. At the elections of various Municipal Bodies, such as Sanitary Boards, Municipal Councils, and at those of School Boards, the expenses of the Returning Officers were charged on the public rates. He did not see why, if the principle was right in the elections of Municipal Bodies, it should not be applied to Parliamentary Elections. He, therefore, thought it was equally just and desirable to maintain the principle in this case too. He trusted that their Lordships would see fit to affirm the principle of the Bill. In regard to the portion of the Bill reducing the maximum charges of the Returning Officers, there was very little difference of opinion, and it was not a Party question. Members of the Front Opposition Bench in the other House took part in the discussion, and the clauses were amended by general consent. There was, however, he must say, some difference of opinion as to the clause he had referred to which threw the Returning Officer's expenses on to the rates, and likewise to the Schedule reducing that officer's charges for printing. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had given Notice that he would move the rejection of the measure. He (Earl Spencer) did not know whether the noble Marquess was desirous of throwing out the whole measure, or whether he wished to take the opinion of their Lordships only on that part of the Bill which referred to the charges being thrown on the rates. He hoped, if their Lordships wished to express an opinion upon that matter only, they would do so, and not contest the whole subject-matter of the Bill. It seemed to him that their Lordships would be placed in a very false
  10
  position indeed if they showed themselves disposed to encourage unnecessary expenditure on the part of Returning Officers; for all expenditure of that sort must tend indirect to bribery and corruption at elections, as to which Parliament had, of late years, taken great pains to put down. He considered this measure to be one of very considerable importance, and one which excited very general interest in the country; and he should regret extremely if their Lordships put themselves in the false position of appearing to increase the expenditure of elections at the present time. Therefore, he sincerely trusted their Lordships would pass the Bill, the second reading of which he would now move.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President of the Council, Earl Spencer.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) had justly told the House that the Bill was not, in the other House, a Government measure. That was a very interesting statement, because it pointed out to them the extremely delicate and artificial character of the promises that were made by Her Majesty's Government. On Thursday, the 10th of this month, the Prime Minister announced that no contentious Business in the hands of any Member of the Government would be proceeded with; but he did not say that contentious Business not then in their hands, but which would be put into their hands a few days afterwards, would not be proceeded with; and, no doubt, that constituted in the mind of the Prime Minister an enormous distinction. What the Government had done was this—they had promised that the contentious Business in their own hands should be dropped, and this they had done; but other Business in other people's hands had not been dropped, and this they were now pushing on; and that was their idea of keeping a Parliamentary promise. The Bill consisted of three parts. As it was introduced, as it passed the second reading, as it was passed through, the Committee of the House of Commons, it was an unobjectionable Bill, seeing that it was a Bill for the purpose of providing an appeal for the more accurate taxation of costs of Returning Officers. If the

  11
  Bill had remained in that form, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not suppose that a single noble Lord would have raised any objection to it, or any discussion about it. That part of the Bill was, to his mind, purely unobjectionable; and if Her Majesty's Government were willing—as he judged from some words of the noble Earl—to accept the proposal to reduce the Bill to its original dimensions as it left the first Committee in the House of Commons, and were willing to make it their own in that sense, he would willingly withdraw all opposition to the Bill. But subsequently to that stage additions had been made to the Bill. It was re-committed, and there were two additions made to it. The first was the addition of the Schedule reducing the prices to which the Returning Officers were entitled—and which had been settled after much consultation—by the Act of 1875, to charge for certain duties which they did at the election. He thought that the Act of 1875 was introduced by Sir Henry James. It was carefully considered, and he believed it was thought satisfactory. He was not at all saying that that Act was incapable of revision, and it was possible that the prices charged might be examined with advantage. But they had not been examined. There was no Committee appointed to consider them; there was no evidence before their Lordships to show the grounds on which the arbitrary figures now inserted in the Schedule were substituted for those existing at present by law. The operation had been performed at the beginning of June of putting the Schedule into the Bill, and naturally the Returning Officers—especially imagining it to be an Irish Bill—the English Returning Officers did not bestir themselves very much about it till the discussions had taken place recently, and then they awoke to what was going on. He had received a large number of representations from Returning Officers in every part of the country, complaining that this new Schedule of prices had been inserted in the Bill apparently without any examination or evidence as to their justness, and that some of them were utterly absurd. He would give some instances of the objections which they took. In the first place, the deposit which had to be made by candidates was very largely reduced. Now, their Lordships would
  12
  see that these deposits were a very important matter; because they did not always know that when a candidate had passed through his election he was a person from whom they might get anything. They might or they might not; and, therefore, it was only reasonable that some land of security should be given to the Returning Officer that he should be enabled to recover those charges, and so that he should not be put to the difficult processes of law in order to recover. Under the present law, the deposit required in a county of average size was from £550 to £700. Under the law as it was to be, the deposit was reduced to £200. The fall was, therefore, very great. If the fall was too great, the loss fell entirely on the Returning Officer—that was to say, on the Sheriffs. It was but reasonable, therefore, that they should take precautions to ascertain, before they allowed this great change, that it had not been made unjustly. Then, again, by the law as it stood at present, £7 7s. were allowed to the Returning Officer for fitting up a polling booth; the Bill reduced the sum to £2. There were other matters of much smaller degree; for instance, the charge for a ballot box was to be 10 s., whereas, under the law as it at present stood, it was £1 1s.; 10 s. was allowed for a stamping instrument under the Act of 1875, but it was now proposed to reduce that sum to 2s. 6d.; and he was informed that no good stamping instrument could be bought for less than 7s. 6d. The result of all this was hard, indeed, on the Returning Officers. He had communications from Returning Officers in Essex, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Middlesex, some Irish Returning Officers, and from the Town Clerk of Flint, who acted as Returning Officer in neighbouring Welsh counties, and they all stated that these reductions had been made without any facts to base them on, and would be eminently unjust. A Returning Officer for the county of Middlesex said that, under the Bill as it now stood, it was perfectly clear that the next Election would cost the Sheriffs and Under Sheriffs a considerable sum under the present scale, and that the present Bill would be properly called "A Bill for fining the Sheriffs £500 a-piece." He did not think anyone would desire that those expenses should be greater than they need be; but they ought to pause

  13
  before they passed a scale on such an utter want of evidence as had been displayed in regard to this. Then, as to the part which dealt with the transfer of these charges to the rates. On the 11th of June, the day after the Prime Minister had announced that no more contentious Business would be taken, at 3 o'clock in the morning, in a thin House, Mr. Labouchere moved the recommittal of the Bill with respect to this clause, and carried by, he believed, a majority of 93 to 67, a clause throwing the expenses of the Returning Officer on the rates in counties only. Why counties only had been selected solely for that privilege he could not conceive, but so it was. Let their Lordships observe the peculiarities of this piece of legislation. In the first place, at the time the Motion was brought forward in the House of Commons the securities given by the half-past 12 Rule were evaded by recommitment, a stage later than that to which the half-past 12 Rule applied. Therefore, there was no security for the attendance of Members. But not only was that the case, but it was brought on at a time when the House was paralyzed by the announcement of a Dissolution, for, with no disrespect to the House of Commons, he might say that he had always found that it was not at such times in possession of all its Constitutional faculties. Half the Members or more were away in the country looking after their seats, all Governmental discipline was relaxed, and probably more than one Member of the Government was stumping in one part or another of the country. There was no sufficient supervision of any kind. He did not think, at any time, a measure of this kind should be passed on the responsibility of a private Member, for it ought to be on the sole responsibility of the Government; but it seemed to him that to pass, at 3 o'clock in the morning, at a stage of the Bill when further reconsideration was almost impossible, and to pass it in spite of the promise of the Government that no contentious Business should be taken, a measure which would save the Members of the House of Commons who might take a part in the coming Election an expenditure of some £200 or £300 savoured somewhat of self-interest, and was not a proceeding which their Lordships ought to approve. He did not wish it to be supposed that such a
  14
  motive was present to their minds—such a contention would be absurd; but when the House of Commons sought to put such charges on the public purse there ought to be some amount of decorum observed in such proceedings, and they had the right to ask that they should be taken only when they could be fully considered and discussed. He did not wish to go into the policy of this proposal; but he was afraid the danger of this sort of legislation would, of course, be the encouragement of vexatious contests. If they removed from the candidates the absolutely obligatory expenses of the Returning Officer, a man might eater into a contest with practically no fear of a monetary penalty to himself, and yet he might put his opponent to £1,200 or £1,500 costs. It must be obvious that such a measure as that would not only not diminish the cost of elections, but, on the contrary, largely increase them. He must say also a word for the poor ratepayer. Why was this charge to be put upon him? Why not the taxpayer? Why should not the expense be paid out of the taxes, for surely, if anything, it was an Imperial, not a local, concern? The noble Earl had told them that that was no new principle, since the cost of electing School Boards, Sanitary Boards, and Municipal Bodies was placed upon the rates. But those were all local Bodies levying local rates. But why should this charge go upon the rates; why was it to fall upon real property alone? He could conceive of no reason why that should be so. But the proposal was objectionable on another ground. Mr. Labouchere could not, by the Rules of the House of Commons, have made this fall on the taxation of the country, because of the Rule which provided that a Minister of the Crown alone could move for fresh taxation; and that alone made it objectionable. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not venture to forecast whether that proposal, in its substance, would ever be accepted by Parliament, because, if it was, he said with all confidence that the money ought to be provided on the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown, and voted in the face of the country. He did not suppose their Lordships in that case would interfere; but, if they did, it would submit the matter to the judgment of the country, and, at any rate, the burden would be put on the proper

  15
  persons. That piece of legislation was exceedingly unhappy. He believed the precedent would, be an exceedingly bad one, and he felt that they ought to insist on a full consideration of such measures; and though he was perfectly willing to accept an arrangement by which they would return to the original Bill as it passed through the Committee in the House of Commons, if the Government would not accept that arrangement he must ask their Lordships to pronounce whether the Bill should be read a second time or not.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he wished to point out to noble Lords opposite that it was an error of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the Bill was not limited to counties. In the second Schedule it would be found that in the case of boroughs the borough rate was to bear the expense. He was, however, convinced by the arguments of the noble Marquess that the matters of detail of the expenses of Returning Officers might require more consideration than they seemed to have received, while the very important question of the payment of the expenses out of the rates ought not to have been introduced in the manner which had been stated into a Bill for a different purpose, and on the eve of a Dissolution.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, he was of opinion that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the principle of payment of expenses from the rates. There were, however, objection, which he was not able entirely to remove, seeing that the noble Marquess did not rest his objection to the Bill chiefly on policy, but rather on the manner in which the Bill had been brought before their Lordships. He (the Earl of Kimberley) wished the noble Marquess had said a little more with regard to the policy of the Bill. He (the Earl of Kimberley) defended that policy, having always considered it a hardship that comparatively poor men should have to pay a heavy fine for the privilege of entering Parliament and serving the public. He was quite cer-
  16
  tain that was not the best way to secure good candidates. With regard to the observations of the noble Marquess as to a Bill of this character being forced through Parliament on the eve of a Dissolution, if precedents were needed they had been furnished by noble Lords opposite themselves. Notwithstanding the strong protests of himself and other noble Lords on that side of the House, in 1880, a Bill with regard to election law, the conveyance of voters to the poll in boroughs, was actually brought into the House and forced through in the last few days before a Dissolution, and after that Dissolution had been announced. If, therefore, they relied on precedents, noble Lords opposite had themselves set one in favour of the manner in which this Bill was presented. He urged their Lordships not to reject the Bill on the ground that the matter was one which specially concerned the other House of Parliament, and did not specially affect this House; and as to the Commons not having given sufficient discussion to it, that was clearly a matter of which the Commons were the best judges. He was, however, informed, on the contrary, that a great deal of consideration was given to it. However, Her Majesty's Government would not press the Bill in its present shape. They were willing to omit that part of the Bill which threw the cost of elections on the ratepayers; and he trusted, on that understanding, the noble Marquess would withdraw his opposition. He hoped that the noble Marquess would make some concession, and would not press his opposition to that part of the Schedule which related to the Returning Officers' charges. [The Marquess of SALISBURY dissented.] The noble Marquess shook his head; but he did not see why noble Lords should be so exceedingly anxious to protect the pockets of the Sheriff. Still, he thought the House should not reject a Bill which effected a very necessary reform, merely because noble Lords opposite would not accept the proposals of the measure on those two points. Although he should be extremely glad if the noble Marquess would not press his opposition to the Returning Officers' charges, still, if he insisted, he would rather the Bill should pass without the provisions in that behalf than be lost altogether.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought the noble Earl had mot them in a very handsome spirit; but he wished to know whether the other House would accept this arrangement, because he did not want the question to be fought out again within two hours of the Prorogation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could only speak for themselves—he could not answer for the other House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not expect that; but what he wanted to understand was, that if the Bill came back with these clauses reinserted their Lordships would reject them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that after the engagement entered into the Government would certainly resist the clauses.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 163.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Rending read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Earl of DALHOUSIE), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a highly technical one, which he believed had the general approval of the Legal Bodies of Edinburgh, with the exception of the Society of Writers to the Signet, from whom he had received a telegram, only half an hour ago, intimating their disapproval. The Bill was proposed with the view of amending the Act of 1874. The 1st clause—and to the rest, he thought, no exception would be taken—was intended to limit the right of the superior in the form in which it was limited prior to 1874. According to the law of Scotland, among the casualties or incidental rights attaching to the ownership of land, or, as it was called, an estate of superiority, was first relief, which was a year's feu duty (in addition to the ordinary feu duty), payable to a superior by the heir of a vassal on his succession to lands held in feu. The heir relieved the lands out of the supe-
  18
  rior's hands into which they were held to fall by the vassal's death. Secondly, there was composition, the entry money or fine payable by a stranger or purchaser. Sometimes this was a matter of special agreement, otherwise it amounted to one year's rent. From the earliest times down to 1874 a conveyance or sale by a vassal did not entitle his superior to require the disponee or purchaser to obtain an entry from the superior, and to pay the year's rent which was exigible therefor upon the death of the vassal and the feu becoming vacant, if the purchaser could show that the heir—that was, the heir of the last entered vassal—was willing so to enter. Accordingly, where the heir was willing so to enter, the superior's right to exact a casualty was limited to a duplicand of the feu duty. The right to exact a composition was always regarded as a severe penalty; and it had this drawback—that it tended to prevent improvements, for the more the owner added to the value of his property the greater the penalty became. Prior to 1874 the completion of a title by entry with the superior, in cases alike of succession and of sale, necessitated the execution of a great number of deeds and instruments of different kinds. The main object of the Act of that year was to remove the necessity for those deeds, and, apparently, to leave the pecuniary relations of superior and vassal as to casualties to stand as they would have done if the deeds had actually been executed. It provided that a proprietor with a duly completed title should be held, as at the date of registration, to be "duly entered with his superior." It also provided that such implied entry should not entitle any superior to demand any casualty sooner than he could, either by the law prior to that Act or by the conditions of the feu right, have required the vassal to enter, or to pay such casualty irrespective of his entering. Those words negatived the view which was taken in some quarters, that the superior was intended to reap any pecuniary advantage from the change in the law made by the Act of 1874. The practical effect of the "implied entry" introduced in 1874 had been largely to increase the rights of superiors. It had been judicially held that a singular successor was not now entitled any longer to put forward the heir of the last entered

  19
  vassal, and so to delay the necessity for his own entering, and paying the year's rent during the lifetime of that heir. It did not appear that the right to tender an heir for entry was ever looked upon as a grievance, and, besides, there was nothing in the Statute of 1874 to show that this was in any way the theory of its powers. Clause 1 of the present Bill was intended to limit the right of the superior in the way in which it was limited prior to 1874. If an heir could be put forward, the singular successor was to be entitled to put him forward as he previously might have done; and the unforeseen effect of that statute, which had largely increased the superior's casualties, would now be removed, and he and the vassal be placed as regarded the payment of casualties on the footing on which they stood prior to that Act. It might be said that the singular successor had his own remedy under the Act of 1874, and might redeem or commute his casualties as provided for under that Act. But that was not an answer to the argument that the result of the action of the statute in other respects had been to enhance the value of superiorities. If a proprietor by building had increased the value of his laud by £2,000 or £3,000 per annum, the original feu duty being £40 or £50, he had now to pay the whole £2,000 or £3,000 as composition, where he would formerly have been able to put the heir of the last vassal forward, and to have satisfied the superior's legal claims by a payment of the £40 or £50. He thought that no exception was likely to be taken to the other clauses of the Bill, which he could assure their Lordships was a just and proper one, and one which he would ask them to read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in objecting to the Motion, said, that although the Bill had been described as involving a technical legal subject, he was afraid that it would be found to have a most serious practical effect. The real effect of the measure was very important, as it would deprive the lords of the manor of their just rights and dues over a large portion of their estates, and to hand over to the purchasers that which they had not purchased. The measure had passed very quietly through the House
  20
  of Commons; indeed, so quietly, that very few persons in Scotland knew anything about it; and it was only in the House of Lords that effectual resistance could now be offered to it. The Bill was opposed by the Royal burghs of Edinburgh and Dundee, who were, to a very large extent, superiors of land, and they had borrowed money upon the security of the revenues which they derived from such land, and they now objected to a measure which would materially affect those revenues. He denied that the legal authorities in Scotland approved of the Bill as drafted; and, although the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh had doubtless approved of the principle of the Bill, yet they had sent up such a number of Amendments to it, that it would take a Committee several days to consider them. Beyond that, the Writers to the Signet had, by a very large majority, condemned the Bill. He maintained that the Act of 1874 was an equitable settlement, and that it was unjust that it should be disturbed now. He therefore asked their Lordships not to pass such a measure as this in the last few days of the Session.
  LORD WATSONsaid, that he certainly was not prepared to approve of the measure in its present form. He ventured to think that that Bill was not calculated to attain the ends which the Government had in view; but if certain portions of it were recast, and worded in a more precise manner, he should not offer any very great objection to its passing. The matter was one requiring very great consideration; and if that consideration could now have been given to it, he should not have been inclined to throw out the Bill. He would admit, with regard to the Act of 1874, that it contained some defects which required amendment; but in regard to a measure of that kind, coming before their Lordships at that time of the Session, it appeared to him to be utterly impracticable either to acquire the information that was necessary for the purpose of such legislation, or to put the Bill into such a shape as would render it proper for their Lordships' House to pass it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that a measure had been introduced in the other House by a private Member for dealing with that subject, which was felt to be one on which some legislation was needed. That

  21
  measure was objected to by the present Law Officers for Scotland and also by the Law Officers of the late Government, and it was thought to be perfectly unworkable. Nevertheless, the second reading was carried in the other House; and the Lord Advocate himself, therefore, introduced a measure on the subject, which was approved by the Scotch Law Officers of the late Government, and which passed through the House of Commons. He thought that it could not, under the circumstances, be justly alleged that the Bill had been brought in in breach of any understanding come to in 1874. Its object was to make the law what it was believed that Parliament had intended it should be. He said nothing now as to the difficulty of discussing its details at that period of the Session; but it seemed to him that that was a measure which had been quite fairly and properly introduced and passed through the House of Commons, there being a consensus of opinion that it wont in the direction of correcting an error which had crept into the legislation of 1874. It could not, therefore, be alleged, as had been the case, that it was an unjust Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbriefly replied.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he understood from the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Watson) that if Clause 1 was recast, and worded in a more precise manner, he should not take very great objection to the measure. He would admit that considerable opposition had been suddenly shown to the Bill by the Society of Writers to the Signet, and other important Bodies in Edinburgh, Dundee, and other places, at the last moment; but he felt so far supported by the noble and learned Lord opposite, that he was greatly tempted to ask the House to read the Bill a second time, undertaking to obviate the objection he had taken.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

INTERNATIONAL AND COLONIAL COPYRIGHT BILL.—(No. 144.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
INTERNATIONAL AND COLONIAL COPYRIGHT BILL.—(No. 144.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL), in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, that the Colonial Office had received the assent of all the Colonies to the measure, except Now South Wales. The answer of that Colony had not yet been received; but the Agent General had intimated that he would be satisfied if the Bill pasted in its present form, with the understanding that New South Wales should not be included, and that, if ultimately it should be so desired, legislation dealing with the point should be introduced as stated by him the other day.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord President of the Council, Earl Spencer.)
MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 155.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to, with an Amendment.
  Clause 7 (Members of General Council).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in moving an Amendment to provide that the University of Aberdeen and the University of St. Andrew's should each be represented on the Medical Council by one member, instead of collectively sending one member, as was proposed, said, he must confess he was very much astonished to find the Lord President of the Council treating the University of Aberdeen in the way he had done, by linking it with St. Andrew's in sending a representative to the Medical Council. This was the only case where the Universities were bracketed; while he found that the Bill proposed to give one member each to the University of Durham and Victoria University. It seemed to him somewhat odd that the Victoria University of Manchester, which received its Charter in 1878, should have separate representation, and be taken out of its union with Durham University. By bracketing St. Andrew's and Aberdeen Universities, the last-named founded in 1491, a slight was thrown upon this body which was undeserved. The Medi-

  23
  cal School of Manchester was still in embryo; but it was generally conceded that there was no better Medical School in the Kingdom than that which existed in the University of Aberdeen. Aberdeen was the only University in the whole United Kingdom which was proposed to be dealt with in this manner; and he thought the two English Universities should be bracketed in the matter of representation as originally proposed, rather than those of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's. He could not understand what could have induced the Lord President of the Council to cast such a slur on the University of Aberdeen, of which he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had the honour to be Chancellor. He would, therefore, ask their Lordships to accept his Amendment, and to insert in the clause the words "the University of Aberdeen and the University of St. Andrew's."
  Moved, in page 5, to leave out lines 3, 4, 5, and 6, and insert ("The University of Aberdeen." "The University of St. Andrew's.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he hoped that the House would not accept the Amendment moved by his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). Nothing could be further from the intentions of the framers of the Bill than to cast any slur upon the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's. The question of the number of representatives of each part of the United Kingdom had been discussed, and after great difficulty a compromise had been agreed upon by which England was to have eight, Scotland six, and Ireland five representatives. If the proposal of the noble Duke were carried it would entirely upset this arrangement. The Universities of England were to have five Members, those of Scotland three, and those of Ireland only two; but if the Amendment should be agreed to, he would propose that the University of Dublin should have two members, instead of one, on the Council.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in supporting the Amendment, said that, speaking on behalf of Scotland, he should not object to Ireland having any number of representatives on the Board, if she had as many Bodies qualified to examine as Scotland had. It was entirely a question of the number of University and
  24
  other Bodies in the United Kingdom capable of examining in medicine. Nationality had nothing to do with the question, and if Scotland had a large number of representatives it was only in consequence of the great number of Universities and Schools of Medicine that she possessed.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, that he was unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke, because his doing so would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction, and raise difficulties and objections which were now set at rest. The noble Duke opposite had charged him with showing want of respect for the University of Aberdeen. He had no desire whatever to do that; but if he had done so the noble Duke himself had done the same in former years, because in two Bills which the noble Duke proposed Aberdeen was linked with St. Andrew's. Aberdeen had never had distinct representation, but had always been linked with another University. The Amendment, if adopted, would not only destroy the balance between the three countries; it would also destroy the balance between the different Corporations and Universities, and cause great difficulty. Moreover, there was a section of the Bill which enabled the Privy Council at any future time to increase the direct representation, and, if it should think fit, to give any University distinct and separate representation. He trusted that the noble Duke would be content with that clause, and would withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSSEsaid, he was entirely opposed to the Amendment, contending that there was very great objection to making the alteration proposed.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he should go to a division.
  On Question, "That the lines proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 41; Not-Contents 44: Majority 3.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  Schedule agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 187.)

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES) BILL.—(No. 143.)
(The Earl of Jersey.)
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES) BILL.—(No. 143.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Pay for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enable the Sanitary Authorities to make certain improvements in private streets and to charge the cost to the owners. The measure contained provisions which would secure the protection of the private owners.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he thought that many of the provisions of the measure were objectionable, and that their Lordships would be taking a great responsibility upon themselves if they were to pass it at this period of the Session, when it was impossible that it could receive due consideration.
  LORD SUDELEY (for the Local Government Board)said, that Department had carefully considered the measure, and they were of opinion that it ought to be allowed to pass.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

JURORS' DETENTION BILL.—(No. 142.)
(The Lord FitzGerald.)
JURORS' DETENTION BILL.—(No. 142.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enable a Judge, if he should think fit, in the graver cases of felony lasting several days, to allow the jurors to separate and to go home.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Fitz Gerald.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he was unable to assent to the proposal contained in the Bill. Under the present rule, there
  26
  were very few cases in which jurors were locked up all night; and he thought it was undesirable that, in cases involving life and death, jurors should be allowed to separate and very likely be subjected to influences. It was said that this was merely a permissive measure; but it was undesirable to throw too great responsibility upon a Judge in such a matter.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he entirely concurred with what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor), and hoped that their Lordships would not agree to the second reading of that Bill.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

TITHE RENT - CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley.)
TITHE RENT - CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION BILL.

  (NO 174.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SUDELEY(for the Home Department), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the subject of Extraordinary Tithe had constantly been before Parliament, and in 1881 a Select Committee of the House of Commons went very fully into the whole subject. They reported in favour of the abolition of those charges; but up to this time it had been found impossible to pass any Bill. This year three Bills were introduced in the House of Commons, and were referred to a Select Committee. The result of that Committee was that they reported in favour of that Bill. It was agreed to as a fair compromise amid many difficult and complicated questions connected with it, and contained many of the good points in the other Bills. He believed that the Committee, which was a very strong one, and represented all the different interests in this matter, were almost unanimous in favour of that compromise. As the House was aware, great interest attached to the question, and the state of feeling which occasionally arose in the counties of Kent and Sussex made it most important that that settlement should not be delayed. The greatest possible friction existed, and riots had often occurred, and men had been sent to prison; while there prevailed a general feeling throughout

  27
  those two counties that it was an unfair burden which should be settled in a reasonable way. The Committee of 1881 said—
  "Most of the witnesses had agreed in the opinion that the imposition of extraordinary tithe is an impediment to agriculture, hampering new cultivation, and that it should be removed if possible. …. They were also in favour of redemption on equitable terms, but there was great difference of opinion as to the mode of such redemption and the terms on which it should be made compulsory."
  The Act containing the provisions respecting Extraordinary Tithe was imposed in 1836 as a compromise between the view taken by Lord John Russell and that taken by Mr. Hume. The result was tithe on hops, fruit, and vegetables was separated from the ordinary tithe, but was attached to the crop, so that when that particular cultivation ceased the Extraordinary Tithe ceased to be payable. Sir James Caird pointed out, in his evidence before a Select Committee in 1881, that the great difficulty in the question of redemption was due, in a great measure, to this vanishing quantity, since the tithepayer might discontinue the cultivation and cease to pay. The object of the present Bill was to commute the present Extraordinary Tithe into a fixed rent-charge, at what might be considered fair market value by the Land Commissioners on each farm. The mode of estimating that was carefully set out in Clause 3. Although hops could not be grown on one piece of land more than 10 or 12 years, another piece of land was generally substituted, and that was to be taken into consideration; while, on the other hand, the right of the cultivator to discontinue that special cultivation was to be considered. The object had been to state the case in a thoroughly fair manner, and it would be impossible to find a fairer tribunal than the Land Commissioners. Clause 4 fixed the interest at 4 per cent. There were powers of redemption and other matters of detail with which he would not trouble their Lordships. He was told that all the Members for Kent were in favour of the Bill, which he thought proved it was a fair compromise. Of this there could be no doubt—that it was greatly to the interest of all concerned, landlords, tenants, clergy, and the public at large, to have that much-vexed question settled. He was informed, at the last moment,
  28
  that the Commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty objected to the Bill being passed on the ground that they were seriously affected, and had not had an opportunity of giving evidence before the Select Committee. He hardly knew how that could be; but, at any rate, he trusted that no objection would be raised at that stage. As he had already said, that was practically the outcome of two Select Committees, and he asked their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading as a fair compromise to all concerned.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  LORD HARRISsaid, that the Bill would crystallize and make unalterable that which at present was possessed of elasticity. By this Act they were going to make compulsory a perpetual payment for the cultivation which might not exist in 10 years' time. They had also to remember that in this matter of hops they were likely to be subject to much foreign competition, and he should not be surprised to see in a few years a largely increased amount of foreign hops, whether from America or elsewhere, coming into competition with the product of this country. The result of this state of things must be a curtailment of the acreage of land growing hops; and, in view of this contingency, they were about to fix a perpetual charge on land which might not, in the course of a few years, be able to compete with land not in cultivation. As a tithepayer, he was glad that the Bill had been introduced, if only to put an end to those unfortunate scenes of violence and riot which had taken place in certain portions of our Southern counties. He did not blame those persons who resisted the tithes so much as those other persons who, possessing education and intelligence, were guilty of inciting them. The Bill was based on agitation; but still he trusted that its results would be beneficial.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he did not object to the second reading of the Bill on the same grounds as his noble Friend who had just spoken. It was said that the Bill was a compromise; but he should like to know who were the parties to the compromise? The persons really interested in this question were the clergy. He had but recently received communications from clergy-

  29
  men, stating that the clergy, as a body, had not had an opportunity of examining the Bill, and how far their interests were affected by it. He deprecated attempts of this kind being made to hurriedly pass, at the close of a Parliament, a complicated measure of this character, especially when it had not received that attention to which it was entitled.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)said, he would refrain from entering into the merits of the Bill, or from discussing the principle of the compromise. He wished to draw attention to the fact that the Bill affected, to a very considerable extent, the income of the clergy. It dealt with charges which had been created by Parliament under the sanction of Parliament on the security of income arising from tithe rent-charges. Parliament had authorized the clergy to borrow, for certain purposes, on the incomes of their incumbencies. In doing so it also limited the amount which should be raised, fixing the amount at four years' income of the incumbency. A large number of mortgages now existed. Among the hop parishes he found that there were no fewer than 150 mortgages, towards the payment of which £5,000 was received last year from the incomes of the benefices. If the income of the clergy were reduced, if they received no adequate compensation for what they were about to give up, they would suffer great hardship for many years in the endeavour to pay off these charges. Had the Bill not been so hastily pressed forward, this question, it was hoped, would have received adequate consideration. The adoption of that course of procedure had also caused great inconvenience, for until the 15th instant the clergy could not obtain a copy of the Bill as amended in Committee, and up till Saturday they were not able to get a copy of the Bill as it passed the other House. He hoped the Bill would not be hurried forward until fair opportunity was given to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to state their case.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON)said, he quite agreed that the difficulties of the question were very great, and they had been greatly increased by the speed with which the present attempt to legislate on the subject had come before their Lordships,
  30
  and before the House of Commons also. The present arrangement with regard to that portion of tithe which was called "extra-ordinary" was introduced in 1836 in the interest, not of the clergy, but of the tithepayers, and at their own request; and if the tithepayers wished now that a change should be made, he might safely say, on the part of the clergy, that they had no objection, provided a just and equitable arrangement were made. The Bill did provide a tribunal to which none of the clergy objected. If the Land Commissioners were unable to say what the real value of the tithe was, and to carry out the arrangement with perfect equity, no tribunal could do so. Some good points had been introduced into the Bill, such, for instance, as the estimation of each parcel of land affected. Regard being had to its antiquity, it would be only right that priority should be distinctly assigned to that charge over all incumbrances; and if ordered to be paid by the landowner a great stumbling block would be removed out of the way of the clergy. He had consulted many authorities on the subject, and he was assured by them that this was as fair a compromise as could be expected under the circumstances. He had had no opportunity of consulting his clergy who were most interested, and he ought to have had an opportunity. But they all knew, and deeply felt, that the spiritual work of the Church was greatly hindered, not only in particular parishes, where the disgraceful scenes of disorder had occurred, but in other parishes, and in the whole Church. The sore had been kept open many years, and was likely to continue open, unless the compromise were agreed to. He was disposed, therefore, to think that this was such a compromise as it would be wise for the clergy, as well as the laity, to accept. He should consent to the second reading if they were assured that the Government would give a fair and candid consideration to the objections which were being urged by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. The payment of the mortgages was to them the key of the position, and if they received the pledge he had mentioned they would offer no opposition to the Bill; but he hoped a distinct assurance would be given on that point.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said,

  31
  he understood there would be a deputation from the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to-morrow at the Home Office, and the objections which they had to urge would be seriously weighed and considered. He could only hope that they would be able to arrive at such an understanding as would enable the Bill to become law in the present Session.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley.)
SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.

  (NO. 186.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SUDELEY(for the Home Department), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had been passed by the other House of Parliament on the recommendation of a Select Committee which had sat on the subject. It was intended to put a stop to the excessive length of time that young persons were sometimes employed in shop, in some cases 85 hours a-week, especially in districts frequented by the working classes. In wholesale warehouses it was also found that the packing and entering clerks were detained until very late at night. It had been found impossible to take any step towards compulsory closing at certain times; but all parties seemed agreed that this Bill went a long way in the right direction. The Bill had been before a Select Committee, and had been thoroughly considered. Under Clause 3, no young person could be employed longer than 74 hours in one week, including meal hours. Under Section 2, no person could be employed in a shop who had already been employed in a factory or workshop for the number of hours specified in the Act of 1875. The only objection that had been raised to the Bill had been that there was no way of insuring its being carried out. It had been found quite impossible to appoint Inspectors at present; but all parties were satisfied that the moral effect of the Bill would be very great.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that he did not intend to oppose the Bill, though he was not very sanguine that any good would result from it. Without Inspectors it was impossible to ascertain whether the Act was being complied with, or to take steps for enforcing it. As, however, it might possibly be of some benefit, he should not raise any opposition to its passing.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that he would reserve his opposition to the Bill till its next stage.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPgave Notice that in Committee he would move the omission of the Proviso applying the Bill to public-houses and houses of refreshment.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  SEA FISHING BOATS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons amendments considered (according to order); several agreed to; one disagreed to, and one agreed to with amendments: A Committee appointed to prepare a reason to be offered to the Commons for the said disagreement: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from the Committee of a reason prepared by them; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill with the reason and amendments.
COUNTY COURTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COUNTY COURTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

  (NO. 151.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he did not intend to proceed further with that Bill. It was a measure to consolidate into one Act the law relating to County Courts now contained in no less than 11 Acts of Parliament. He only wished to move the second reading for the purpose of calling attention to the Bill, for however carefully a Consolidation Bill might be drawn it was impossible to avoid slips and errors. He should be, therefore, obliged if those interested would favour him with criticisms on the measure.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.

LUNACY BILL.—(No. 13.)
(The Lord Chancellor).
LUNACY BILL.—(No. 13.)

  COMMITTEE. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that this was also a measure of consolidation, and he wished to repeat what he had said with regard to the previous Bill. He did not intend to proceed further with it, and he should be glad to receive criticisms with regard to it.
  Order discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.