Lords Sitting of 7 July 1887

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Saye and Sele, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lloyd's Signal Station * (158); Legitimacy Declaration Act (1858) Amendment * (159).
Committee—Quarries (83–160).
Committee—Report—National Debt and Local Loans * (141).
Report—Incumbents' Resignation Act (1871) Amendment * (144); Land Transfer (105–161); Municipal Corporations Acts (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2) (143–162).
Third Reading—Tithe Rent-Charge (115), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Gas * (123).
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries * (136); Metropolis (Cable Street, Shadwell) * (134); Metropolis (Shelton Street, St. Giles) * (135); Local Government (No. 4) * (125); Tramways (No. 2) * (133), and passed.

CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE ROYAL REVIEW AT ALDERSHOT— THE VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTER, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether Volunteer corps have been invited to parade at the Review to be held on the 9th instant, at Aldershot; and, if so, whether her Majesty's Government will recommend that the whole, or any part, of the cost of such attendance shall be defrayed by the country, or whether it shall be a personal charge on the commanding officers, and on those who attend under arms? said, that all who saw the Volunteers on Saturday last march past Her Majesty must have been surprised at the military aspect of the regiments, and at the manner in which they discharged their respective duties. He was informed that on the 19th of May an intimation was sent to

  3
  the various Volunteer corps that their presence would be acceptable on the occasion of the Royal Review at Aldershot on Saturday next; but there had been great apprehension which had deterred several Volunteer corps from joining. There was a fear that each man would be put to an expense which many of them were not able to bear, and that they would not be conveyed free to the scene of action; he understood also that they were to be called upon to pay their own expenses for the day. Many of the men would have to start at 2 o'clock in the morning, and they would be lucky indeed if they got home within 24 hours. The plea of economy could hardly be received since the whole cost of the Volunteers attending from the Metropolis would not involve an outlay of more than £1,000. He thought it was for the credit of the country, and would be a testimonial to the work performed by the Volunteers, that some efforts should be made to secure that the men should not at any rate be out of pocket by attending a long and arduous day at Aldershot.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): In the encomiums passed by the noble Lord upon the Volunteers who marched past Her Majesty on Saturday last, I most cordially concur. With regard to the noble Lord's Question, a Memorandum was issued on April 22nd, inviting such Volunteer corps desirous of attending the Review to notify their wish to the Adjutant General. It stated that an allowance, as in the case of Windsor Review of 1881, of 2s. per head for corps whose head quarters were over 50 miles from Aldershot, and 1s. for those under 50 miles would be granted, and that all other expenses of attending the Review would have to be met by the corps. All the corps accepting under the provisions of that Memorandum have been authorized to attend.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.—(No. 115.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.—(No. 115.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD BRABOURNE, in rising to move, as an Amendment—
  "That no measure with regard to tithe rent-charge will he satisfactory to the country which does not provide for the re-valuation and re-adjustment of the said charge,"
  said, he thanked the noble Marquess at the head of the Government for having postponed the third reading until a day when he (Lord Brabourne) could be present to enter one last word of protest and warning against the shape in which it was proposed to send the Bill down to the other House. He would say that the Bill dealt with a great subject in a manner which unsettled everything and settled nothing. The measure had been introduced by the Government, because there had been certain disturbances connected with the levying of tithe, and the remedy the Government proposed was to abolish the Law of Distraint. But no complaint had been made against the mode of enforcing the collection of the rent-charge; the complaint was against the impost itself, its amount, and its inequality; and the effect of the Bill would be in no way to lessen the grievance. There were two classes who paid tithes—those who occupied their own lands, and those who occupied lands which were not their own. With respect to the latter, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that they were made responsible for a debt which was not their own, but this was scarcely a correct statement, because they had deliberately taken the debt upon themselves in taking their farms and agreeing to the rent. At present the occupiers of land paid tithes, because they had contracted with their landlords to do so, and if the Bill passed the only result would be that landlords would stipulate that their tenants should pay the equivalent to the tithe rent-charge in their rent settlement, instead of paying the actual rent-charge to the owner as at present. His (Lord Brabourne's) noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) had, on a previous occasion, twitted him with ignorance upon this point, saying that the tithe rent-charge was entirely an owner's question. His noble and learned Friend spoke without practical knowledge of the subject. It might seem that if an occupier paid £150 per annum, it mattered not to him whether he paid it all to one person, or £100 to one and £50 to the other. But an occupier knew

  5
  perfectly well that if he paid the whole to one landlord, he had a much better chance of reduction than if he paid £100 to the landlord and £50 to the tithe owner. Moreover, on hiring a farm, the tenant knew that there was this £50 per annum charged upon it, for which the landlord was liable, and which was, therefore, the basis of the rent he must demand, and that rents would be lower in proportion if the charge did not exist. But the great difficulties of tithe collection did not arise from occupiers, for the very reason that the owners were ultimately responsible. It arose with the small owners, a very numerous class, whose number it was sought to increase by their legislation. His noble and learned Friend had committed himself to the declaration that this class would be under no greater liability than at present under this Bill. But they were to be brought to the County Court, disobedience to whose orders wag punishable by 14 days' imprisonment, and it seemed to him strange to say that there was no increase of liability when a man was to be made liable to imprisonment to which he was not liable under the present law. Throughout the country the amount of tithe was very much complained of, its commutation having been attended with gross inequalities. Great complaint was also made of the manner in which the averages were taken, tail wheat and wheat of an inferior quality not being taken into account, and the average being thereby forced up beyond what was gain. Moreover, a great deal of land now laid down in grass paid arable tithe, which was considerably higher than pasture tithe. He (Lord Brabourne) wished again to enter his earnest and emphatic protest against the doctrine laid down by the noble Marquess, that tithe was the gross produce of the laud, irrespective of cost. That doctrine was all very well in the earlier history of the world, when a virgin soil required little or no cost to cultivate; but now, when £5 or £6 per acre had to be expended in order to obtain the crop estimated at £7, the doctrine could not and would not be accepted by the people of this country. A Bill passed in the belief that such was the true doctrine with regard to tithe would not remove friction between the clergy and their parishioners, and would not add to the popularity of the clergy. Nor would this be the result
  6
  of that part of the Bill which provided that if the orders of the County Court were not satisfied, the clergy might be put in possession of the farms of these small owners. This would never be endured. The question of tithe was of great importance to the small owners of land throughout the country, and ought to be dealt with in a large and comprehensive spirit. If this was not done, and, with regard to kindred questions also, the Government would find that they would have other Spalding elections, and they would not retain the confidence of the agricultural community now suffering under such grievous depression. In order to give their Lordships an opportunity of expressing their views upon the subject, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved.
  To leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("no measure with regard to tithe rentcharge will be satisfactory to the country which does not provide for the re-valuation and re-adjustment of the said charge").—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that there was nothing which had been said by his noble Friend which differed from what their Lordships had heard upon several previous occasions. Therefore, he was not going to take up the time of the House by going over the arguments again. The Bill undoubtedly did not effect to deal with the larger parts of the question, those of re-valuation and of re-adjustment, but it was a simple effort to alter the machinery by which the tithes were now collected, and it had been introduced because it was believed that hardships to the occupier had occurred in practice; that the machinery occasionally operated with harshness, and tended to mislead the occupier as to the real incidence and burden of the tax, which was indeed imposed upon the land—though as between the owner and occupier it had by private agreement been paid by the latter. The Government, indeed, believed that the tithe was essentially in the nature of a tax upon land, and as such ought to fall upon the landowner, and not upon the occupier. They also believed that if the effect of the Act of 1836, in throwing the payment of the tax upon the occupier, were

  7
  removed much misapprehension of the nature and incidence of the tax, which was the source of some popular agitation, would disappear. There was, therefore, ground for asking their Lordships to deal with this small part of the subject, rather than to enter upon the extensive field on which his noble Friend had invited them to enter. He would earnestly impress upon the House the consideration that whatever loss this Bill inflicted on the landowners, or on the owners of tithes, it could not inflict any hardship upon the occupiers. It certainly changed the situation for the owner; but as far as it changed it in respect of the occupier, it changed it for his advantage, for, as had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne), it would be better for the occupier to pay £150 a-year to one man, the landowner, than to pay £100 to the landowner and £50 to the tithe-owner. In dealing with one man instead of two, he would be in a far better position. In his opinion, it was as dangerous to make the allegation that the owners objected to the obligation of tithes, and that therefore they ought to be free from that obligation, as to make the suggestion that mortgages ought to be put an end to, because the mortgagees did not wish to discharge their legal obligations in respect to them, and were sufficient in number to make the matter a political question. His noble Friend had protested against the doctrine that tithe had to be paid without references to the cost incurred in producing it. Well, in answer to that, all he (the Marquess of Salisbury) could say was, that he was sorry for it, but the practice now followed was that which had prevailed for 1,000 years, and that the Act of 1836 did not in any way interfere with it The Act of 1836 was simply a contrivance for the payment of a charge which, before that time, had always been of a varying and indefinite character, and putting it in a definite form; but it made no change in the right of titheowners to the payment of one-tenth of the gross profits, and they might just as well take the nine-tenths from the landlord and give it to the titheowner as to take the one-tenth from the titheowner and give it to the landlord. The rights of the landowner and of the titheowner might come under consideration at some future period, but their Lordships might de-
  8
  pend upon it that any scheme of reform which involved the plundering of the titheowner would not, in the long run, be of any advantage to the landowner. Such considerations as his noble Friend had urged were not usually very powerful in that House, and he was sure that their Lordships would not be induced by such considerations as to the wider question to reject the modest reform which Her Majesty's Government now submitted to the House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, though not opposed to the principle of the Bill, he most decidedly demurred to the rather stringent doctrines which the noble Marquess had just laid down on the subject. On his side of the House they were far from objecting to the Bill, so far as it went; but he objected to the doctrine as to the basis upon which the tithe rent-charge rested. No doubt, there was no more reason why they should take away the property of the titheowner than of the landowner; but, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that the conditions upon which the tithe rested were of comparatively recent date, and they must well consider what was going on around them. There could be a re-examination without plundering anyone. But he thought it was essential for the interests of all, and especially of the Church, that their rights of property should be enforced in such a manner as to secure general acquiescence. He was quite sure that they would not get out of these difficulties without a full examination of the tithe rent-charge in all its bearings, and making some re-adjustment of it. He did not, however, see why this Bill should not be passed, because there were other matters which must be considered thereafter; and as he agreed with the noble Marquess that it was not necessary to wait for any general re-adjustment of the law before they passed it, he should give it his general support.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?"
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly.
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
  On the Motion of The Earl of POWIS, the following Amendments made:—In

  9
  Clause 8, page 7, line 27, at end of clause insert—
  "Provided that any redemption money paid in respect of tithe rentcharge—

  "(a.) If payable to any professor in the University of Oxford or Cambridge, may, at the option of the professor, be paid and applied in manner provided with respect to the purchase money of land sold under the Universities and College Estates Act, 1858; and

  "(b.) If payable to a charity, may, at the option of the trustees or other persons administering the charity, be paid to the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales;"

  in Clause 16, page 13, line 28, at end of clause insert—
  "This Act shall apply, in the case of tithe rentcharge payable to any churchwardens, parish clerk, or other parish officer, in like manner as if such churchwardens, parish clerk, or other parish officer were an ecclesiastical corporation."
  On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of LONDON, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 9, page 8, line 7, after ("sums") insert ("charged on the fund and all expenses"); line 8, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act"); line 30, after ("thereupon") insert—
  ("And also upon the Land Commissioners in case of disagreement determining the amount of the annuity");
  and in page 9, line 15, leave out from ("Act") to end of section.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out ("or") and insert ("and"); Clause 8, page 6, line 41, leave out from ("section") to the end of line 42; page 7, line 2, leave out ("so paid") and insert ("paid as hereinafter mentioned"); after Amendment proposed by the Earl of Powis at Clause 8, page 8, line 6, insert—
  ("And (c.) if payable to any trustees of a settlement or tenant for life within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be paid to the trustees of the settlement and invested in like manner as if it were capital money arising under that Act");
  Clause 11, page 10, line 22, after ("pay") insert ("to the person redeeming the tithe rentcharge"); line 24, after ("rentcharge") insert—
  10
  ("Payable to any ecclesiastical corporation aggregate or sole, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners");
  Clause 12, page 11, at end of clause insert as a New Sub-section—
  "Where tithe rentcharge redeemed under this Act is subject to a mortgage, or to any charge annual or capital, the amount paid, whether as capital or by way of annuity for the redemption of such tithe rentcharge, shall he subject to the same mortgage or charge;"
  Clause 15, page 13, line 13, at end, insert as a New Sub-section—
  "Where on any redemption of tithe rent-charge under this Act any person is treated by the Land Commissioners or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as owner of any lands, and liable to pay any sum for the redemption, whether such sum is a capital sum or an annuity, and is the whole or part of the amount payable for such redemption, and such person is owner of any portion of the lands charged with the tithe rentcharge redeemed, such person shall be liable to pay the sum notwithstanding that he is not the owner of the whole of the lands in respect of which the same is payable, but he shall be entitled to recover from the owner of the rest of such lands a proper proportion of the sum paid by him;"
  Second Schedule, page 18, line 18, at end of line insert—
  "9 & 10 Vict. c. 73.
  "An Act further to amend the Acts for the commutation of tithes in England and Wales.
  "Section one and section five, so far as they relate to tithe rentcharge, to which this Act applies payable to an ecclesiastical corporation, sole or aggregate, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners;"
  line 31, after ("thirty") insert—
  "And sections thirty-one and thirty-two, so far as they relate to any tithe rentcharge to which this Act applies payable to an ecclesiastical corporation, sole or aggregate, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners");
  line 31, at end insert—
  "41 & 42 Vict. c. 42.
  "An Act to amend and further extend the Acts for the commutation of tithes in England and Wales.
  "The following portions, so far as they relate to tithe rentcharge to which this Act applies, that is to say—
  "In section one the words 'for a sum equal to twenty-five times the amount thereof,' and section four, and so much of sections three and five as relates to tithe rentcharge payable to an ecclesiastical corporation, sole or aggregate, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners;"
  after Clause 7 insert—
  (Provision in case of two rentcharges on the same land.)
  "Where by reason of a tithe rentcharge in respect of the great tithes being separate from

  11
  a tithe rentcharge in respect of the small tithes, or from any other cause, two tithe rent-charges are charged on the same lands, and the amount of any such tithe rentcharges for any twelve months exceeds the profit of the lands for those twelve months within the meaning of this Act, the said profit shall he divided between the persons entitled to such tithe rent-charges in proportion to the amount thereof fixed by the apportionment or any altered apportionment, and in any proceedings for the recovery of either of such tithe rentcharges, the court shall make such orders as may appear to the court necessary for giving effect to this enactment."
  Then the Queen's consent and the Duke of Cornwall's consent signified by The Marquess of SALISBURY; and Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

QUARRIES BILL.—(No. 83.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
QUARRIES BILL.—(No. 83.)

  COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Debate resumed accordingly.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that when this Bill was before the House on the last occasion he was afraid it was not sufficiently understood that this Bill had been fully considered by the other House, and as the Bill was passing through the other House, a large number of Amendments had been introduced by the Home Office, with a view to meet the objections which had been made against it. He was now able to state that most of the objections which had been raised during the previous debate had, he believed, been met, and that two small Amendments had been agreed to between the Lord Chancellor and the Promoters of the Bill, which, he thought, satisfied the objections raised by the noble and learned Lord on the last occasion. He trusted they would fulfil the desired purpose in a satisfactory manner, and that their Lordships would now consent to go into Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, although the whole of his objections had not been fully met by the Amendments which had been made, yet he would not any further oppose the Motion for going into Committee, though it was with some misgiving that he assented; because he believed the Bill went very much further
  12
  and had a much wider application than the necessity of the case demanded. He understood that there were a great many dangerous quarries in and about the Forest of Dean, and it was to meet such a state of things that the Bill was designed. But the width of the language of the Bill, as amended, appeared to him to be of a somewhat serious character. Many of their Lordships were acquainted with the slate quarries of Wales, and if the Bill were passed in its present shape the owners of those quarries would be obliged to withdraw the permission, now freely given to visitors, to see the picturesque parts of the mountains, for it was proposed in the Bill that places not now considered dangerous must be "reasonably fenced," whatever that might mean. The authors of the Bill could have hardly any idea of the extent to which the Bill went.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 and 2 severally agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Fencing of quarries).
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 11, after ("unenclosed land") to leave out ("or is").—(The Earl Brownlow.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that if the Bill simply provided that a pit, or quarry, or opening, which was so near the highway that it constituted a danger should be fenced, he should have no objection. But what he understood it to propose was, that a pit, or quarry, or opening, should be fenced although it was such a distance from the highway that a person must be a wilful trespasser if he came to any harm. This was a most unreasonable provision, which would put owners of pits and quarries to the expense of erecting thousands of miles of fencing, although no earthly injury could occur to any person who did not go trespassing.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he would remind their Lordships that Parliament had already passed legislation of this description. By the 41st section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, it was made in offence not to fence a disused coal pit, even though the pit might be on private land. That was a much stronger measure than the one now before their

  13
  Lordships, which had been dictated by considerations similar to those connected with the section of the Mines Regulation Act to which he had referred. Beside that, the question of human life was not to be lightly dealt with. The public were perfectly powerless in this matter, for they could not be expected to have dangerous quarries fenced up. When persons passed along a highway, if there was an open quarry in a dangerous proximity, it was but right that the public should have a short and simple remedy against the owner. That was all he contended for.
  LORD THRINGsaid, the Bill was a good Bill, and a well drawn Bill. It was monstrous that persons should be allowed to lay traps for their neighbours by leaving their quarries unfenced.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that the clause, as it was worded, would include chalk cliffs, and adjoining proprietors might be required under its provisions to fence the Coast of Kent. Such a provision, therefore, might be a very serious matter.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that whilst he could not complain of the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord, he must point out that the position was somewhat peculiar, and that not only had the Bill received the support of several Members of Her Majesty's Government, amongst others, a letter had been written on behalf of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cross) to say that he would be glad to assist in passing the Bill through that House. He hoped his noble Friend would now help to give him the warm support he had promised.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made in page 1, line 13, by substituting the word ("reasonably") for the word ("securely").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Interpretation).
  On the Motion of The Marquess o f SALISBURY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 20, add the words("but not any natural opening").
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he wanted to know what would happen if a quarry got tilled with water, and became a pond? It was quite as likely that a harmless trespasser would get into a pond as into a quarry.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clause agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 160.)

LAND TRANSFER BILL.—(No. 108.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
LAND TRANSFER BILL.—(No. 108.)

  REPORT.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the Report be now received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he rose to move—according to Notice—that the Report be received that day six months. The Bill before their Lordships included the Bill for the succession to real property, brought in from "another place" several years ago, but never revived till now. He believed that the compulsory division of land on intestacy would do more harm than good. He, in the year 1835, had met a family in France, consisting of five, and one of them said—"On our parents' death, I must by law have an equal share of their property." He had inquired for them lately, and had only just heard that three of them survived, and that a mill possessed by the parents had been sold, and was now desolate. He was sure that one of them could have carried it on. He would go and inquire into the facts. He did not think their Lordships wished to turn executors into heirs, with a sort of gavelkind to control them. His lamented Predecessor had written—in 1832, in a letter to Mr. Mervale—that by disturbing the largest properties, the smallest properties would be endangered, and an agrarian law, causing change every month, week, or day, would be introduced. He found that Lord Tennyson's poem, "Love thou thy Land!" had been recited at the Eton speeches, on 4th June. He had copied it out from memory, and could recite it to their Lordships, if they should wish it. He was sure if their Lordships acted on the advice contained in that poem that they would never err in legislation. He wished the Report could be delayed for three months; and he would give their Lordships the result of his inquiries. He tried to find a Teller, but failed.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): Will the noble Lord name a co-Teller?
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Report of Amendments received accordingly.
  Clause 2 (Registration required to carry legal estate).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he moved to leave out words rendering the trouble and expense of a second registration after purchase unnecessary. As the Bill was drawn, it rendered two registrations necessary after the law became compulsory. He apprehended that, that condition would in many cases prevent sales, and he failed to see that anything more could be necessary than to compel registration on the sale.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from ("specified") to the second ("the") in line 10).—(The Lord Herschell.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he did not know that he had anything to add to what he had already said on this point. The matter was in their Lordships' hands, and they had already decided against the proposal by a majority of 40 to 16. After carefully considering the question, he could not see any objection to that provision of the Bill as to complete registration. No additional burden was thrown on the owner of the land, and compliance with the Bill would simplify the present cumbrous system. The object of the measure was to compel registration in every way possible, and, consequently, it was provided that if a person only sold a part, he should register the whole.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was convinced that so far as this clause had operation it might inflict considerable hardship. If a landowner did not register the whole of his property at the time he disposed of a piece, that would necessitate double registration, double expense, and double trouble. It was
  16
  perfectly fair that when the land changed hands the registration should be compulsory; but he did think that they should be very careful not to put upon men who had no idea of disposing of their property the expense of registration merely for the sake of posterity.
  On Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 73; Not-Contents 67; Majority 6.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Succession to real estate on intestacy).
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he would move to omit the clause, which provided that on the death of any person intestate as to any real estate, that real estate should be divisible among the same persons as if it were personal estate, subject to certain provisoes giving right of survivorship to husbands and wives in each other's real estate. In Committee on this Bill he ventured to make some observations in opposition to this clause, and, considering the nature of the clause and the important Constitutional principle involved in it, he was not without some hope that the Government might have seen their way to withdraw it. A sense of duty, therefore, compelled him to explain, as shortly as he could, the reasons he had for moving the omission of it. This proposal was open to two very grave objections. The first was, that so far from having a beneficial effect upon the various classes affected by it, it would do no good but harm; the second was the great and important change it made upon the system of the devolution of landed estate, which brought it out of harmony and made it inconsistent with the Constitution. Now, with regard to the first objection, there had not been any demand for this measure from any body of the landed classes. The usual mode by which they gauged public opinion had not shown itself. Where were the Petitions in support of it; and was it right that they should make such a change in the law, unless they were satisfied that the landed interest was in favour of it? This proposal would affect three classes. The large landed proprietors, no doubt, would not, as long as the Laws of Settlement and Entail were maintained, be affected to the same extent; but no pro

  17
  vision with regard to them had been made to meet the case of either lunatics or minors. The result would be, that if a lunatic or minor died who was last in entail, the property would be divided in accordance with this clause. Was it their Lordships' wish that honours, titles, and Peerages should be inherited, and all the property which had descended from generation to generation should be cut up and divided and sub-divided? Was such a proposal likely to be to the advantage of the landed interest of this country, or conduce to the honour and dignity of their Lordships' House? Would it be in accordance with the spirit of our mixed Constitution? Would it be of any practical benefit to anybody? The next class that this clause would affect disadvantageously was the small landed proprietor—the yeoman of the country. Take a proprietor living on his own farm and cultivating it. He and his family had inherited it for generations, he had been content to do without the assistance of a lawyer, and he had not made a will. This Bill passed, he died, and the property was cut up and divided into several portions. But there was only one house, there was only one homestead; therefore, unless the farm was worked as a whole, the value of the property would be seriously depreciated. The result would be that it would be sold to some larger proprietor, probably, and this ancient yeoman family, the backbone of the country, was obliterated. Or, if the attempt was made to cultivate the several portions by different persons, the inconvenience would be great, and the cause of agriculture, already only too suffering, would be further injured. Coming to the third class of proprietors, the small freeholders of the country, possessors of a cottage and garden, or in some cases of one or more acres of land, these were a class of people who did not make Mills as a rule; at all events, they had been satisfied with the law which did not require it. They preferred not to go to the expense of legal advice, and in their case they died intestate not unfrequently, and how was their property to be divided? It could not be divided. The house and the garden were scarcely large enough, and if they cut up their cow-keeping they depreciated their property, and it
  18
  came into the market and was bought up. And, again, this small freeholder's property, just as the landowner's or yeoman's was broken up. Was this desirable, was this politic, was this prudent? They were the backbone of the country. They were classes of men who were, in no Party sense, the true Conservative element of the Constitution, who would rally to their standard in time of war, who would be the foremost to maintain law and order in time of peace. The other great objection to this proposal was, that it would make the Law of Succession to real property out of harmony with the Constitutional system of this country. He was supported, in that view by very high authorities both in that and the other House of Parliament. He understood the noble Marquess the Prime Minister to say the other night that this proposal had been opposed by the Party of which he was the head as long as it formed a Party question, but that was not now the case. But he (the Earl of Feversham) would refer his noble Friend to the opinions of those sitting on both sides of the House who supported the view he took. He found that the late Lord Brougham, who had introduced a Bill upon the transfer of real estate, said—
  "Some persons were desirous of altering the laws relating to land by attacking the law of primogeniture; but he thought that law was sound in principle, and any alteration of it would inflict a fatal blow upon the British Constitution. That law was well suited both to give proprietors a power of dealing with their property and to support the aristocratic branch of our mixed Constitution by a power of entailing within certain not very large limits. He was not apt to be an alarmist, but holding our Constitution to be essentially a mixed one, whatever anyone might think of the possibility of getting a better system or purer Constitution, he was perfectly certain that the system, as it now stood, had worked well, and did still work well, to secure at once the liberties of the people and the stability of our institutions. Any interference with the law of primogeniture would inflict an injury on our mixed Constitution, which those who aided or permitted such an attempt would probably be the first to repent of having either helped or suffered."
  Sir George Cornewall Lewis said in the debate in the House of Commons in 1859—
  "It had been argued on both sides of the question as if this were a narrow and limited Bill, as if it did not affect the whole mass of real property; but would in its operations be

  19
  only confined to a small portion of that class of proprietors. As he understood the Bill, its effect would he to assimilate the law of descent of real property to that of personal property. The effect would be to extinguish that class of persons who were denominated as heirs. There would be no such thing as inheritance. No person hereafter would be heir to landed property. That he apprehended would clearly be the effect of the Bill. If this Bill became law the natural feeling would be entirely inverted; a person who made a marriage settlement according to the present system of marriage settlements would be robbing the younger children of the rights which the common law would give them. The House had to consider what would be not only the economical but the political effects in this country of distributing real property equally among all the children."
  On the same occasion Lord Palmerston said he objected to the Bill on every possible ground, declaring it to be at variance with the habits, customs, and feelings of the people of this country and incompatible with the maintenance of a Constitutional Monarchy. In the debate in 1866, Lord Selborne, then Attorney General, said—
  "If the policy of the law be wrong, injustice may be inflicted as much in cases of wills and family settlements as in the case of omission through accident to make a will. But really the question we have to consider is one of public policy, and in questions of public policy the burden of proof is on those who propose to alter a particular institution of the country. But I have no objection to examine the state of the law, and to contend that the law of primogeniture is not inexpedient. It is not arbitrary, because the greatest freedom of action over property is' allowed. I cannot help thinking that it would not be desirable that there should be a general system of division of estates. It seems to me that considerable benefits have always arisen and do arise in this country from keeping landed property together. By means of this system the duties of property are handed down and are better performed; there is more family and hereditary interest felt in the welfare of labourers and tenants, and improvements in land are made on a larger prospect, with a greater interest in their permanence. The class composed of the owners of landed property stand between the Crown and the lower orders, supporting the Throne and the higher institutions of the country, and at the same time maintaining excellent relations with those below them. The existing gradations of society in this country, including the hereditary peerage, are in harmony with this state of the law, and the maintenance of that graduated scale of society has been in times past of essential importance to public liberty."
  He thought that he might say he was fortified in the course he ventured to take, and, in the opinions he had expressed, by very high and distinguished authority. He might be told that cir
  20
  cumstances had changed since those opinions were uttered. How had they changed? We had admitted, no doubt, the working classes to the franchise, and had given them a large share in political power; but was that any reason why we were not to consider the position and interests of other classes? He maintained, notwithstanding what they had done, that this Constitution of ours was still a mixed Constitution, and that it would be an evil day for the country when the upper and middle classes lost their share of political power, and were unable to exercise their just and legitimate influence in the country. It was because he felt that this clause did, in principle and in operation, undermine the Constitutional system of this country—that limited and liberal Constitution which was the glory of England and the envy of the world—that he begged to move that the clause be omitted from the Bill.
  LORD ABINGER, in seconding the Motion, said, he thought that the Bill had been misnamed. Instead of being called a Land Transfer Bill, it should have been entitled a Bill for the destruction of Primogeniture and other Privileges. The subject of land transfer was of sufficient importance to be dealt with in a separate Bill; and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor would be acting wisely, at that period of the Session, if he abandoned the whole of the fourth part of the Bill as not being germane to the measure. If it were intended to abolish the principle of primogeniture, it should be done not by a technical clause in a so-called Land Transfer Bill, but by a measure introduced for the express purpose of abolishing the existing system. Should the noble and learned Lord decide on not adopting that course, he (the Earl of Feversham) was satisfied that it would meet with considerable opposition in the other House of Parliament. The whole law relating to wills also required modification; and he could not give a better example of the difficulties which those who attempted to make their own wills had to encounter than what had occurred to himself. One night, after the death of his father, he suddenly woke up at 3 o'clock in the morning, and remembered that he had not made his will, and he thereupon got out of bed and

  21
  drew up a will. The following morning he took the will to a lawyer, and asked whether it was properly drawn. The lawyer said that it would not effect its object at all. That was the way some people thought they were effecting a particular object, and they died in the odour of sanctity, and found that their object was not accomplished. There could be no doubt that their Lordships hold a very high position in the country, and why? Not because they were the descendants of persons who might have been distinguished, but because, socially, they held such a position that everyone in the land knew they could neither be intimidated nor corrupted. Their Lordships should be very careful how they acted, and should not interfere with laws which had lasted so many years, and had worked so well for the country generally. He hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Feversham) would press his Amendment to a Division.
  Moved, in page 19, line 29, to omit Clause 39.—(The Earl of Feversham.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if he were to pass a criticism on the speeches of his two noble Friends, it would only be to say that they were pitched in too high a key, and dealt with questions not in the least degree affected by the measure before the House. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) entirely agreed with the general principles laid down by his noble Friend (the Earl of Feversham), and he should be exceedingly sorry to see the practice of devolving the land on the eldest son discontinued, believing, as he did, that any contrary practice would have an injurious effect upon society. He thought, however, that it was most likely to continue. But the question was, How would this Bill bring upon us the dangers of which his noble Friends were afraid? There was one expression which dropped from his noble Friend who moved the omission of the clause, which threw a light upon the difference between his noble Friend and himself. His noble Friend said it was a great hardship for a man to make a will. Now he (the Marquess of Salisbury) took a different view.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, that the noble Marquess had quite misunderstood him.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that his opinion was very strong that it was the duty of everyone to make a will, and that those who did not deserved very little, or absolutely no consideration, at our hands. He could not agree with his noble Friend who had seconded the Amendment (Lord Abinger), that it was at all difficult to make a will. If a man tried to be a lawyer, and made use of legal expressions, he was likely to get into trouble; but if he expressed himself plainly, and as if he were speaking to a friend, he was not likely to experience any difficulty. Intestates very generally belonged to a comparatively poor class, and were not likely, as was the case with his noble Friend, to have property in Scotland and to live in London. His noble Friend had spoken of the difficulty he found in making the Law of Entail applicable to his own son. No doubt, there were great difficulties in the Law of Entail, and one of the objections to it was that the devolution might take effect in a different manner from what was intended. At the time when Lord Brougham deprecated any interference with intestates, that class was numerous, because the art of writing was then comparatively rare. Though there were a great many people who could write, there were a great many also who could not. But since then education had made great progress, and there were few now who would find any difficulty in making their wills from inability to write. The number of persons who were innocent intestates—he meant intestates not through their own fault—was becoming very small. The law did not make for them, at present, the kind of will which most people would be anxious to make; because very few would wish to leave the whole of their property to one son. There was that balance to be established. He quite admitted that the great authorities quoted by his noble Friend were right when they said that the inconveniences which would be produced by altering the law would be so great that the law ought not to be altered. But, with the progress of time and the increase of culture, the force of that argument vanished, and we had now arrived at a period when it was no longer necessary to have the same consideration for innocent or involuntary intestacy.

  23
  There was nothing to induce us to continue a provision which occasionally caused inconvenience of a serious kind. He was unable to treat this matter as one of the great importance which his noble Friends attached to it. He did not think what was now proposed would affect the devolution of property in this country in the slightest degree. His noble Friend (The Earl of Foversham) talked of the presumption and sanction of the law influencing the testator, so that he would no longer settle his land upon his eldest son. He thought his noble Friend exaggerated very much the effect of a Parliamentary sanction. He did not know whether their Lordships had noticed the effect of the laws abolishing dower. That was one of the most remarkable instances in the history of the English law of the powerlessness of the law in affecting the feelings and action of the people. For the last three centuries he believed that the instances were exceedingly rare in which the presumption of the law in that respect had been allowed to operate. That law lay like a derelict upon the waters. Men always preferred some other provision for the wife than the law made for her. So all that was proposed by the Bill before the House was, that if men would not make wills with all the facilities afforded them, the law would make that disposition of their property which was most convenient to its machinery. Further, it was by no means irrelevant to introduce this provision in a Land Transfer Bill. The Bill would be imperfect and incomplete without it. He believed that in itself this was a matter of small importance, and that it would not produce the dispersion of large estates, or the abandonment of the practice of primogeniture. He did not believe that there was any danger that these things would happen. But still at the same time it was not desirable to make this change merely for a theoretical reason. Where, however, great practical convenience was presented, and it appeared to be a very important part in facilitating land transfer, it would be unfortunate if his noble Friend persuaded the House to reject the clause. He could not help saying, in conclusion, that he greatly doubted, if the noble Earl and his Friends succeeded, whe-
  24
  ther they could cling to their victory for any considerable number of years. That was a consideration on which he would not dwell; but they must watch the current of opinion outside. He did not say that they should slavishly bend to it; but they ought not to take an accidental opportunity of resisting it or delaying it, unless they were well satisfied that they could carry out that resistance to the end. He believed that the clause would be useful for the purpose of facilitating the operation of the Bill, and he should vote for it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that something might have been said for this clause if it had been simply a clause of pains and penalties against those who had failed to make their wills. The clause, however, went further, and contained a harsh and cruel provision for the division of estates in cases where no provision could have been made to meet the difficulties in a way which seemed to be attended with considerable danger. He believed that some advantage might, perhaps, be derived from substituting tenancy in fee simple for tenancy in tail, provided that the interests of infants and lunatics were safeguarded.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper which, he thought, would meet the objection of the noble Earl. The words which he proposed to insert would make the section read thus—
  "This section shall not apply to any real estate of a person being an infant or a lunatic at the passing of this Act, and thenceforward until his death, or being an infant at the passing of this Act and becoming before the age of twenty-one years and remaining thenceforward until his death a lunatic, if the infant or lunatic either was seized in fee simple in possession of the real estate at the passing of this Act, or is or becomes entitled to the real estate under a settlement executed before the passing of this Act."
  The noble Earl would see that, under this Amendment, all settlements executed before the passing of the Act were precluded; and anyone, after the passing of the Act, might make provision for the contingencies of lunacy and minority.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that what he wanted to secure was, that the provision which the noble and learned Lord admitted to be just in the case of infants and lunatics succeeding under

  25
  settlements existing at the time of the passing of the Act should be extended to those succeeding under settlements after the Act was passed.
  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 66; Not-Contents 55: Majority 11.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Castletown, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)

  Dormer, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Harris, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Hothfield, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Kensington, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

  Brownlow, E.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Manners, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Monk-Bretton, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Mar E.

  Minto, E.

  Northington, L, (L. Henley.)

  Nelson, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Cross, V.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Hereford, V.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Sudeley, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Thring, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Belper, L.

  Watson, L.

  Boston, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Bramwell, L.

  Braye, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Burton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Harewood, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Ilchester, E.

  Kilmorey, E. [Teller.]

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Manvers, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Milltown, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Annesley, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gough, V.

  Caledon, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hood, V.

  Denbigh, E.

  Feversham, E,

  Abinger, L. [Teller.]

  26

  Ardilaun, L.

  Herries, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Lamington, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Midleton, L.

  North, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Raglan, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Digby, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Wynford, L.

  Amendment disagreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON, in proposing, as an Amendment, to insert the following clause, after Clause 47:—
  "Part IV. of this Act, intituled Amendments of the law of real property, shall extend to Ireland.
  "In the application of the said part of this Act to Ireland, the Act of the Session of the fourth and fifth years of the Reign of King William IV., cap. 92, intituled, 'an Act for the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries, and for the substitution of more simple forms of Assurance in Ireland,' shall be substituted for the Act for the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries in England, therein referred to,"
  said, that the insertion of the clause was necessary to correct the grievances and hardships attending ownerships that were created under the Land Purchase Act.
  Moved, after Clause 47, page 23, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Application to Ireland.)
  "Part IV. of this Act, intituled Amendments of the Law of Real Property, shall extend to Ireland.
  "In the application of the said part of this Act to Ireland, the Act of the Session of the fourth and fifth years of the Reign of King William the Fourth, chapter ninety-two, intituled, 'An Act for the abolition of Fines and Recoveries, and for the substitution of more simple forms of Assurance in Ireland,' shall be substituted for the Act for the abolition of Fines and Recoveries in England, therein referred to."—(The Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he felt a little delicacy and difficulty in introducing into the Bill anything which might create additional Obstruction elsewhere. If, in "another place," it should be desired to extend the Bill to Ireland, he would make no objection.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance of the noble and learned Lord, and would withdraw the clause with a view to raising the question in "another place."
  Clause (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 161.)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRE LAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
(The Earl of Erne.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRE LAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 143.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  EARL SPENCER, in briefly referring to the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the Bill, said, that originally it was connected with the main drainage scheme for Belfast, when great opposition was offered; because it was proposed, at the same time, to extend the municipal franchise. Ultimately it was agreed to separate the question of the franchise from that of drainage, and the present Bill had been introduced, which, as it no w stood, would come into operation in November, 1888. It was, of course, desirable that the large drainage scheme which had been, sanctioned should be carried out, if it were possible, by a municipal council representing the enlarged municipal electorate; but it had been represented that that was impossible, and that the Bill could not possibly come into operation before next year. He had, however, caused inquiries to be made, which satisfied him that the thing was practicable, and that the Bill could be put into operation this year; and he would therefore move an Amendment, providing that the Act should take effect immediately after its being passed, so as to be effective next November.
  Moved, to leave out from ("borough") in page 1, line 8, to the end of the Clause.—(The Earl Spencer.)
  THE EARL OF ERNEsaid, he was reluctant to oppose the Amendment of the noble Earl, because he himself concurred with the object which had prompted its proposal—namely, that those invested with the municipal franchise should
  28
  enjoy the privilege at the earliest possible moment. It was, however, not so much a question of what was desirable as what was practicable, and his opinion, which had been derived from the best possible sources, was that it would be quite impossible that such a mass of voters could be brought in within the short period indicated by the noble Earl in his Amendment.
  LORD FITZGERALDsupported the Amendment.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 9: Majority 9.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he should like to throw out as a suggestion to the noble Earl that at least at the first election under the Bill the revising barrister should be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.
  THE EARL OF ERNE, in reply, said, that those for whom he was acting in the conduct of this measure had pointed out that as the ratepayers had to pay the revising barrister, it was only right that they should have a voice in his selection.
  LORD FITZGERALDasked, whether the noble Earl would consider the matter before the next stage was taken?
  THE EARL OF ERNEsaid he would.
  A further Amendment moved; objected to; and (by leave of the House) withdrawn; further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed us amended. (No. 162.)

THE REVIEW OF 2ND OF JULY—THE HONOURABLE ARTILLERY COMPANY AND THE ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEERS—PRECEDENCE AT REVIEWS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNin asking, Why the Royal Naval Volunteers were not drawn up on the right of the line at the Review held on Saturday, 2nd July, in accordance with invariable practice; and whether it is intended to make any change in the Regulation in this respect? said, that this question arose on a former occasion, at the Review in 1881, between the Honourable Artillery Company and the Naval Volunteers, when it was decided in favour of

  29
  the latter. In accordance with that precedent, the General in command on Saturday last ordered the Naval Volunteers to take the right of the line, but subsequently altered that arrangement, and ordered the right to be occupied by the Honourable Artillery Company. He wished also to ask whether the Honourable Artillery Company claimed this right in virtue of the fact that they are not under the direction of the War Office and are not Volunteers. He desired to know further, whether the Honourable Artillery Company were, or were not Volunteers; and, if not, by what right were they present on that occasion.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS), in reply, said, that as to the question whether the Honourable Artillery Company were Volunteers or not, a special exemption was made in favour of the Honourable Artillery Company by Section 52 of the Volunteer Act, which provided that "nothing in this Act shall apply to the Honourable Artillery Company "; but, in a subsequent Act, the term "Volunteer" did include that regiment. If a Volunteer meant a person who gave his services voluntarily, undoubtedly the members of the Honourable Artillery Company were Volunteers, seeing that the only assistance they had received from the Government had been in the shape of arms and harness. As to the late Review, he had to say that by a General Order of 1883, Her Majesty was pleased to grant the Honourable Artillery Company, in consideration of its antiquity, precedence immediately after the Regular Forces, and therefore, before the Militia and Yeomanry, who themselves took precedence of the Volunteers. While, therefore, the right of men of the Royal Navy to take the right of the line when in alignment with the Land Forces was not contested, nor that of the Royal Naval Volunteers to take precedence over other Volunteer Corps, the Honourable Artillery Company must be regarded as on a separate footing, with precedence over Volunteer Corps of every description.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he thought the answer of the noble Lord was very vague; either the Honourable Artillery Company were Volunteers, or they were not; and, whilst he understood, from what the noble Lord had said, that the Honourable Artillery Company took
  30
  precedence before the Militia and Yeomanry; but the point really was this—whether, in the absence of these two Corps, they took precedence thus of all other Volunteers. It seemed to him that if they were Volunteers they would rank only as such when none of the regular forces were present, and thus the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers would have their right precedence, and he hoped the noble Lord would have the matter properly looked into.
  LORD HARRISsaid, that the answer he had given was perfectly clear—namely, that a General Order of 1883 gave the Honourable Artillery Company precedence.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was aware that the Honourable Artillery Company had precedence over the Militia and the Yeomanry. That was by Order, and that might be a very good answer as regarded those corps. But that Order did not refer in any way to the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, and it did not appear that the Order giving the Honourable Artillery Company precedence over other Volunteers referred to them.
  LORD HARRISsaid, that the Militia and the Yeomanry had precedence over all Volunteers, and as the Honourable Artillery Company had precedence over the Militia and Yeomanry, they necessarily had precedence also over all Volunteers.

  LLOYD'S SIGNAL STATIONS BILL, [H.L.]
  A Bill to confer powers on Lloyd's to take lands for signal stations; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Lord President, for The Lord Stanley of Preston; read 1a. (No. 158.)
LEGITIMACY DECLARATION ACT (1858)

  AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858—Was presented by The Earl of Milltown; read 1a. (159.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.