Sitting of 17 April 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Malicious Injuries to Property Act Amendment; Fisheries (Ireland).
2° Common Lodging Houses (Ireland).
3° Adulteration of Food or Drink.

DESTITUTION IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps the Government propose to take respecting the great destitution prevailing amongst the peasantry and labouring classes in the West of Ireland.
MR. CARDWELLreplied, he was sorry to say that a considerable amount of destitution existed in the district to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, but he hoped that some of the statements made on the subject were overcharged. He had been informed that the union-house at Balmullet was capable of holding 600 persons, but that at present only 104 persons were in it, being an increase of about double of the number of inmates at the corresponding period of last year. In the other two unions of the district Castlebar and West-port, he believed there had been no very considerable increase in the number of inmates. He was in constant communication with those who superintended the administration of the poor law in Ireland, and he had every reason to hope that the ordinary administration of the poor law in those unions would suffice to meet the distress
1886
that existed. At present, at all events, he was not prepared to hold out any hope of special assistance from the Government.

THE INDIAN REVENUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India which of the following Financial Estimates of the deficiency of Income as against the Expenditure of the current year ending on the 30th of April is correct, namely, £10,250,000, as per the statement made by the Secretary of State for India on the 1st day of August last; £6,449,981, as per Financial Balance Sheet drawn up in Calcutta in September last; £9,290,129, as per Estimate submitted by Mr. Wilson on the 18th February last to the Legislative Council of Calcutta; and whether he can state the cause of these discrepancies?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had not the least doubt that the Estimate of Mr. Wilson, being the most recent, was the most correct of the three; but he could not state very satisfactorily the cause of the differences between the three statements. He (Sir C. Wood) estimated last summer that the revenue would be £35,850,000, the Government of India, in September, stated it at £37,567,000; and Mr. Wilson, in February, stated it at £37,707,000. There was very little difference, indeed, between the Estimate of the Government of India in September, and that of Mr. Wilson in February. There was a very satisfactory increase in the revenue upon the estimate which he (Sir C. Wood) stated to the House last summer. He spoke from information which left India in the spring. Mr. Wilson spoke, of course, from much later information, and he was happy to say that almost every source of revenue in India showed a very considerable increase in the course of the year. In the land revenue and the customs' revenue there had been an increase, and some portion of the new taxes which were not imposed when he spoke in August had been very productive. The result was, that the revenue exceeded his estimate by about £2,000,000. In August he stated the expenditure at £46,131,000. The Indian Government stated it in September at £44,067,000; and Mr. Wilson in February at £46,996,000. There was a difference of nearly £3,000 between the statement of the Indian Government in September and that of Mr. Wilson in February. That dif-

  1887
  ferenee, to the extent of about £1,000,000, was accounted for by an additional military expenditure of £600,000 in Madras and of £300,000 in Bombay. The Indian Government also omitted all reference to the interest on Indian railways to the extent of between £800,000 and £900,000. They also understated the amount of home charges to the extent of £700,000, and the rest of the difference between the two estimates might, he believed, be attributed to an additional expenditure on public works; but even Mr. Wilson's lucid and satisfactory statement did not render the matter entirely clear.

THE PEDESTAL IN PALL MALL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any person is about to place anything, and, if anything, what, upon the summit of a pedestal which has been standing for twelve months at the southern end of Waterloo Place, Pall Mall; and, if anything is to be placed there, when it may be expected to be done?
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was happy to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the pedestal would not be permanently vacant, and that it would receive a group of statues to commemorate the heroic conduct of the Guards in the Crimea. The management of the statues and pedestal was in the hands of a committee of subscribers, so that he could not say when the work would be completed. Mr. Bell was the sculptor, and he had no doubt that a work of art would be placed on the pedestal before any very long period had elapsed.

EAST INDIA TRANSPORT SHIPS.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, or for India, if the statement in the public journals relative to the mortality which had occurred on board of various vessels, which had arrived at Madras and Bombay with the wives and children of soldiers, be correct; and, if so, what department or officer may be regarded as responsible for any neglect of duo precautions, if such have been, in connection with this lamentable event?
SIR CHARLES WOODstated that the transmission of the soldiers' wives and children to India took place under the di-
1888
rection and superintendence of the Emigration Commissioners, and he could not do better than read a report which they had drawn up on the subject. The facts were these:—
"Thirteen ships were originally taken up for the conveyance of 5,410 souls. We have received intelligence of the arrival in India of nine of these ships, which carried 3,747 souls. In these the mortality was 377, equal to 10 per cent. But this mortality was almost exclusively of children under five years old. Of adults (that is all above 12) there died 11 out of 1,820=·60 per cent. Of children between 12 and 5 inclusive, 24 out of 866=2·77 per cent; making, out of all above four years of age, 35 out of 2,686=1·30 per cent. This is rather less than the whole mortality in Australian emigration (1·32 per cent.), and, considering the class of women, that the voyage occupied nearly four months, and passed twice through the tropics, it must be allowed to be very small. But among children under five the mortality amounted to 341 out of 1,061=32 per cent. With very few exceptions it was caused by measles and scarlet fever, which broke out in almost every ship shortly after sailing. These diseases were, no doubt, aggravated by the weakness of both children and mothers, caused by the unusually stormy weather which prevailed in October and November last, when the ships sailed. It is to be observed, moreover, that the children under five years of age in these nine ships amounted to nearly 29 per cent, the average in the population generally being 13·10. This disproportion necessarily assisted the spread of the disease and increased the mortality. That the sickness was not caused by any defect in the ships or the provisions is to be inferred from the absence of any disease of the character of scurvy or typhus as well as from the small mortality in children above four years of age. A more direct proof is afforded by the reports which we have received from Bombay and Madras. In each case an inquiry was, we believe, instituted, but only three reports have yet reached us—those on the Euxine, Statesman, and Lancashire Witch. They are annexed hereto, together with an extract of a private letter from Captain Wellesley, R.N., Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Navy. The mortality, as has been said, was attributable to the great number of very young children on board. In our emigration, this can be avoided, because our power of selection enables us to reject families containing many young children. But in sending out the soldiers' wives it was inevitable that their children should be sent with them, so that the number of young children became a necessary part of the arrangement. The question remains whether due care was taken to ascertain that there was no sickness among the children before they were put on board. In this respect the same plan was followed as has been followed for many years with complete success in regard to Australian ships. The surgeons of the ships were required to be at the depôts as soon as the first of the people came in, and to continue there till they embarked. This period varied from three to five days. It is the interest of these surgeons, no less than their duty, to see that no infectious disease is introduced into their ships, not only because the introduction of such diseases increases their labour and responsi-

1889
bility on the voyage, but because their remuneration at the close of it is reduced by every death that occurs. The surgeons had full authority and were bound to land any child whom they suspected to be suffering from infectious disease, and to delay the sailing of the ship so long as they had any doubt as to their sanitary condition. But every one's experience must satisfy them that no medical skill is sufficient to detect measles or scarlet fever in a latent form; and to have delayed the ships until time had been given for any latent disease to develope itself would have postponed their departure from this country till the cold and wet of winter had set in, and their arrival in India till the season had passed during which they could have been sent up the country. Moreover, if they had been detained in depôts on shore, it would have been impossible to prevent their going into the towns and being exposed to whatever infection was there prevailing. If they had been detained on board ship the cold and damp of November, added to the weariness of inaction, would have produced such depression of mind as must of itself have caused disease."
This statement from the Emigration Commissioners had been put into his hands that afternoon. The India Office had nothing to do with the matter. Since they had entrusted that Board as being the most competent persons to undertake it, with the duty of providing transport for the wives and children of soldiers to India.

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of State for War when the Army Estimates will be proceeded with, and also when the Return of the Effectives on the British and Indian Establishments will be ready.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that the Army Estimates could not be proceeded with until after the second reading of the Reform Bill; but he would lay on the table during the week, the Returns of the Effectives of the British and Indian Establishments which had been moved for.

FIGHT BETWEEN HEENAN AND SAYERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for the Home Department, Whether he had heard of the contest said to have taken place that morning, and which he would not attempt to characterize. He also desired to know whether it is true that the Police were present on the occasion, and offered no interference whatever? Whether any Report has been made to the Home Department, and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any measures for the
  1890
  punishment of the persons who have occasioned this breach of the peace?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, he was afraid he could not satisfy the curiosity of his hon. Friend. He had certainly heard that day that the fight, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, did take place in the county of Hampshire; but he had received no intimation of it but what was founded on mere hearsay statement; and he was not able to inform the hon. Gentleman whether the county police were present on the occasion or not; the Metropolitan Police, of course, had no jurisdiction there. As to whether any measures were to be adopted, he could not answer that question till he had received information of the facts.

LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN DAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Landlord and Tenant Bill for Ireland will be proceeded with?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he could not state the precise day, but he would take care that ample time should be given for the consideration of the measure.

COURSE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.—QUESTION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Viscount at the Head of the Government what is intended to be the course of the proceedings on Thursday? The Wine Licences Bill and the Church Rates Bill were down for that day. He wished to know whether the Wine Licences Bill will come on first. He desired, also, to know whether the Reform Bill, which stands for Monday next, will be proceeded with then?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought it would be necessary to proceed with the Naval Estimates on Thursday, as so little progress had been made in them on the previous evening. It was intended that the Reform Bill should come on next Monday.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYcomplained of the arrangement lately made, by which independent Members were deprived of the opportunity of bringing forward important questions on the Thursdays. The Government had left him to legislate on the subject of church rates; and yet, by an arrangement come to in his absence, they

1891
deprived him of the advantageous position he had held on the business paper for next Thursday. If the Government did not restore to him the advantage he had before possessed, he was not sure that he would not move that the Church-rates Abolition Bill be taken first on Thursday. To put himself in order, he would move the adjournment of the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that before the recess an order was made by the House that Government Orders of the Day should take precedence on Thursdays instead of Fridays; and in pursuance of that arrangement it was intended to take the Navy Estimates on Thursday next. Private Members would have the same opportunities on Friday that they used to have on Thursday.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had resisted the Motion of the Government which produced this change of business; but, as the House had agreed to it, the hon. Baronet would not be acting fairly in moving the third reading of the Church-rates Abolition Bill next Thursday. There had been a clear understanding that that Bill would not be proceeded with on Thursday, the leader of the House having announced that financial measures would be taken into consideration on that evening.
SIR GEORGE GREYremarked, that he did not understand that the hon. Baronet's Bill had ever stood first for consideration on Thursday. The hon. Baronet had had a chance of bringing it forward late at night, and he still had the same chance under the now arrangement.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to remind the House and the Government of the great public interest felt in the subject of church rates. Two hundred thousand persons had petitioned in favour of the Bill of the hon. Baronet, and he did hope that the Government would endeavour to comply with the wishes of his hon. Friend.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the hon. Baronet had obtained any precedence for his Church-rate Bill on Thursday next. Being an Order of the Day it stood behind all the Notices, and it would not have had a chance of coming on before twelve o'clock at night. He could still bring it on at that hour. Or if the hon. Baronet placed the Motion for Friday, it would be in the same position as if no change of days had taken place. The hon. Baronet had in no respect been placed in a less favorable position by the Government.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he did not understand that his hon. Friend blamed the Government for what had taken place; but as the Bill was a very important one, and was in the hands of a non-official Member; and as the House on both sides, it might be supposed, wished to send it on its journey to "another place"—the hon. Baronet appealed to the Government and to the House not to allow it to be placed in a worse position on Friday, than it would have been on Thursday, had the change in the order of business not been made. With respect to the change itself, be thought that if the House had determined to proceed on Fridays with the business of the day at six o'clock, and have left an hour and a half for other matters, it might not have been necessary. But being made, he presumed that the experiment must be tried. He hoped, however, that the Government would do all they could for the hon. Gentleman, who had a great responsibility on his hands with regard to this question.
MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the hon. Baronet had just the same reason to complain as other hon. Members, of the change that had been made. He (Mr. Newdegate) had expressed his opinion upon the subject; and he held that, if the business of the House was to be conducted, such changes in the Standing Orders must not be made. He ventured to bring this subject under the consideration of the Government, because the arrangement, under which the Government business would be taken on Thursdays, was only temporary in its character. He trusted, in the event of any extension of such arrangement beyond the time to which it was at present limited, or of any intention to make any other alteration in the order of business, that the House would insist upon receiving due notice of such a proposition, in order that hon. Members who had notices on the paper might be prepared for the contemplated change.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he wished to remind the House that he had given notice of his intention, upon the bringing up of the Report of Committee of Supply, to ask some questions of the Government in connection with our foreign relations. But as the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had made a communication to him upon the subject, and as it was intended to go into Committee of Supply on Thursday next, he would not press his questions upon the present occasion, but he would

1893
submit them upon the Motion for going into Supply on Thursday.
Question "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

LONDON CORPORATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to put a question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to one of the Orders of the Day. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that before the Adjournment for the Easter holidays he was asked whether he intended to bring on the London Corporation Bill upon the re-assembling of Parliament, and he then stated that it was not his intention to do so until the first week after Parliament had assembled. A number of hon. Gentlemen were not only astonished to find it amongst the Orders of the Day, but that the Government entertained some intention of bringing on the Bill, contrary to the distinct assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis). No doubt it was some mistake, which he hoped might be immediately rectified, and he (Mr. Ayrton) would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House that it was not his intention to proceed with the second reading of this Bill upon the present occasion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was under the impression that the question asked of him was, whether it was his intention to move the second reading of the London Corporation Bill on the first day of the meeting of the House after the Easter holidays, and that he answered that inquiry in the negative. He certainly was not aware that he had given any assurance that he should not bring on the question in the first week of the re-assembling of Parliament. If, however, the hon. Member was positive as to such an intimation having been conveyed by him, he (Sir George Lewis) would be unwilling to dispute the fact. He submitted, however, that the present time was most opportune for proceeding with the measure and for taking a discussion upon its provisions. He should, however, be sorry to take any course that might be represented as a breach of faith on his part, and should rather postpone the consideration of the measure to a future day.

CHURCH RATES BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavi-
1894
stock what course he intended to take in regard to his important measure regarding church rates
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he should stand to his guns, and take his chance of bringing on the third reading of his Bill upon the day for which he had originally fixed it.

MALICIOUS INJURIES TO PROPERTY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend an Act relative to malicious injuries to property. Recently, in Cornwall, some malicious persons applied a weight to a particular part of a mining engine, the consequence of which was that the engine did not act, and the water rose sixty feet in the mine in six hours. The circumstance of the mine itself being shallow, however, prevented the mischievous consequences which would have otherwise ensued, and by the exertions of the men employed at the time the water in a few hours was pumped out. An indictment against the offending parties was preferred at the next sessions. It was framed under the statute of Geo. IV., relating to malicious injuries. The 5th section of that Act related simply to injuries to mines. The 6th section however enacted that if any person should cause water to be conveyed into a mine he shall be guilty of a felony, and the 7th section enacted that if any person shall damage an engine so as to stop its working he shall he guilty of a felony. In the case he had referred to, however, on the removal of the weight which had been attached to the engine it was found that the engine had not been injured. The Judge ruled that the prisoners had not committed any offence under the Act, and he directed an acquittal, but added some strong observations on the defective state of the law, expressing his opinion that it was desirable that an Act of Parliament should be passed as soon as possible to meet such offences as that which had been committed. With that view, he (Mr. Paull) had framed the measure which he asked leave to introduce.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend an Act relative to Malicious Injuries to Property, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PAULL, and Mr. ROGERS.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.
  House adjourned at Half-past Five o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Income Tax Divorce Court; Oxford University; Municipal Corporation Mortgages, &c.

TUSCANY.—THE YACHT "MEDINA."

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he wished to put a Question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs with reference to a great outrage committed in the port of Leghorn last year on the master and mate of the English yacht Medina. When he was himself at the Foreign Office a complaint was made to the Department on this subject, accompanied by a request that he would ask for redress from the Tuscan Government. The application was made, but very soon afterwards the revolution took place, and the Grand Duke was deposed. In consequence, he supposed, of the confusion which followed, the appointment of the Provisional Government and the events that occurred in Italy, the case had not been attended to; but he had been applied to again from Leghorn by an English gentleman high in the service of Her Majesty, who stated that great feeling had been excited on this matter. He therefore begged to ask the noble Lord opposite what Her Majesty's Government had done in the case of the Medina, and whether there was any chance of redress being afforded by the Sardinian Government, whose authority had now been established in Tuscany?
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, it was quite true, as the noble Earl had stated, that a great outrage had been committed by the police at the port of Leghorn on the master and mate of the Medina. Application had been made for compensation to the Tuscan Government, but the matter was suspended in consequence of the revolution. When Her Majesty's present Ministry came into office the application was renewed to the Provisional Government at Florence, who expressed their readiness to compensate the master and mate for the injuries they had sustained. The amount of that compensation was to be settled in this, country; and the master and mate, having been examined by two medical men, one of them appointed by Her Majesty's Government and the other by the Tuscan Consul, a report was sent to Florence. The compensation which would satisfy the parties was £1,000 for the master and £750 for the mate; and they had reason to believe that the Provisional Tuscan Government was willing to pay those sums. A further delay had, however, intervened, in consequence of the subsequent events which

  1871
  took place in Italy. After the annexation to Sardinia the matter was referred to the Sardinian Government with a view to complete and carry into effect the intention of the Provisional Government. He assured his noble Friend that in the very distressing circumstances of the case he regretted as much as anybody could the delay which had taken place, but there was every reason to believe that the claims would be shortly discharged by the Sardinian Government.

CASE OF M. TASSINARI.
LORD WODEHOUSE,referring to a debate in their Lordships' House on the 9th March, wished to take that opportunity of referring to a statement which he had previously made respecting M. Tassinari. That gentleman had written a letter to him, which he would take the liberty of reading. It was as follows:—
"Florence, March 21.
"My Lord,—It was with much pain and regret that I read in The Times, of the 10th inst., certain statements made by your Lordship, in reply to a speech from the Marquess of Normanby, reflecting upon my honour, and which I feel assured, from your Lordship's high character, you never would have made had your information been more correct upon the subject than it appears to have been. Your Lordship is reported to have stated that I, with eleven other persons, was arrested on a charge of being engaged in a plot, having for its object the destruction of one of the Ministers of the existing Government by the explosion of shells, and that I was examined upon that charge the following day, and ultimately tried. This, my Lord, is a very serious accusation, and ought not to have been lightly made, though, happily for me, it is wholly devoid of truth. No such charge was ever preferred against me in the only examination I underwent, which, however, did not take place until eleven days after my arrest. It is true that your Lordship partially corrected your speech in a note to The Times of the day following, but not in such a manner as to exonerate me. What I was, however, falsely charged with was having given 10 dols. (£2 4s.) to create a reactionary movement against the existing Government, and 20 dols. (£4 8s.) for the printing of circulars. This fact can be ascertained by referring to the sentence of the police-court, which condemned me, without trial, to six months' imprisonment in a fortress. I am unhappily now threatened with deprivation of sight, and could not, in consequence, during the period of my solitary confinement in the common gaol, relieve the irksome-ness of my imprisonment by any of those resources of which my fellow-prisoners might have availed themselves; therefore my incarceration told heavily upon me, both morally and physically. Under these circumstances, my wife, though she had no legal claim for interference upon the British Chargé d'Affaires, yet, as the daughter of a distinguished diplomatist who long served his country, and the sister of another now serving
1872
with honour and credit, she did not think that she was requiring too much of Mr. Corbett in requesting him to use his influence to procure a mitigation of my confinement; and so far from being insensible to Mr. Corbett's exertions in my behalf, on his telling her that he could do no more in this matter, she then expressed her thanks to him for what he had already done, with a hope that, should any opportunity occur whereby he might benefit me, he would take advantage of it. As your Lordship's speech has obtained extensive publicity through the press, I hope you will do me the justice to make the refutation also public through any channel your Lordship may think fit.
"I have the honour to be,
"Your Lordship's obedient humble servant,
"Cavaliére Brigadiêre TASSINARI.
The only remark he wished to make upon this was, that he had not said that M. Tassinari was charged with having been concerned in a plot for throwing shells into the house of one of the Tuscan Ministers, and when he saw that assertion imputed to him in the newspaper reports he wrote a letter to The Times explaining what he really had said. What he had said was, that the plot with which M. Tassinari was charged was suspected by the Tuscan Government to have some connection with the throwing of the shells. But he was quite ready and willing to believe that M. Tassinari, whatever might have been his hostility to the then existing Government of Tuscany, would not have been guilty of complicity in any such attempt as that of throwing explosive shells. He regretted that any statement he had made should have given rise to misapprehension.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he was glad to hear the explanation which the noble Earl had given; for he himself had received a copy of M. Tassinari's letter, and he was quite sure his noble Friend would take the earliest opportunity of setting the matter right. It now appeared that M. Tassinari had never been tried at all, and that the only examination he underwent did not take place till eleven days after his arrest. That gentleman, without ever having been heard in his defence, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on a false charge of giving ten dollars for creating a reactionary movement against the Government. That was the real fact of the case. He was happy to be able to add that, as one of the results of recent events in Tuscany, M. Tassinari had since then been set at liberty. He had felt sure that his noble Friend would take the earliest opportunity of correcting the error into which he had been led, as M. Tassinari was one of the most respectable men in

1873
Tuscany. It was too absurd to suppose that he, who was universally esteemed in Florence society, and who was now afflicted with almost total blindness, could really have been accused of any participation in a conspiracy for throwing bombs.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he had not stated that he bad been misled. What be said was, that misapprehension had arisen as to a previous statement which he had made, founded on the information he had received.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYwished to know whether or not his noble Friend adhered to the charge, not that M. Tassinari had been actually concerned in the throwing of the shells, but that he had had any connection whatever with the plot imputed to him.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he had already read M. Tassinari's letter to the House, and also explained what it was that he had said.

BILLS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTE CRIMINAL LAW.

  SELECT COMMITTEE NOMINATED.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that early in the Session Bills had been introduced for the Consolidation of the Statute Criminal Law and other purposes which, after they had been read the second time, it was determined should be referred to a Select Committee. Owing to the arrears of judicial business in that House, it had hitherto been impossible to proceed with the Committee on those Bills; but that obstacle bad happily been removed by the assiduous labours of the law Lords. He had, therefore, now to move the appointment of the Select Committee, and would be glad to have the co-operation of any noble Lords who were willing to serve upon it.
  Motion agreed to; and the Lords following were named of the Committee: the Committee to choose their own Chairman.

  Lord Chancellor.

  L. Cranworth.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. St. Leonards.

  V. Hutchinson.

  L. Wensleydale.

  V. Eversley.

  L. Belper.

  L. Lyndhurst.

  L. Chelmsford.

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  L. Kingston.

  L. Overstone.

  L. Egerton.

DIVORCE COURT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in mov-
  1874
  ing the second reading of this Bill, said, it had been introduced on the recommendation of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) who sat near him; and its object was to improve the procedure of a most important Court, with which the morality and domestic happiness of the community were intimately connected. For a great many years, practically speaking, any person who could prove that his wife had been unfaithful to him was considered entitled to a dissolution of the marriage tie; but that could only be obtained by an Act of the Legislature, preceded by an action for criminal conversation and by a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court. According to that practice those only who had a large sum of money to expend in these most costly proceedings could have the remedy they sought; but their Lordships most justly thought that this was not a legislative matter, but one for judicial consideration; that the remedy should be open to the poor as well as to the rich, and that a judicial tribunal should be established for that purpose. But a difficulty arose respecting those who should be the Judges of this new tribunal. It was experimental; it was desirable, first of all, to know what quantity of business was likely to be thrown into it, and not unnecessarily to increase the number of the Judges of the land. In the first instance, therefore, the Judges were the Lord Chancellor, the three Chiefs of the common law Courts, and the senior puisne Judges, with the Judge-Ordinary. It was enacted by the Bill establishing the Court that, as regards a very considerable portion of the business, the Judge-Ordinary, sitting by himself, should have power to do all that could be done by that tribunal; but there were several matters that were reserved for what was called the Full Court, consisting of three members—the Judge-Ordinary and two common law Judges to assist him. It had been found that there was great difficulty in obtaining this Full Court, the Judges being so much occupied with the increased business in their own Courts and at Chambers, going circuit, and attending that House; and to meet this difficulty it had been enacted that all the Judges of the common law Courts should be competent to act as Judges of this tribunal, the number being thus raised to seventeen. But still that was found an inadequate arrangement. All the business that could be done by the Judge-Ordinary sitting alone was speedily and satisfactorily disposed of; but that

  1875
  which required the attendance of three Judges had fallen most lamentably into arrear. Without the greatest inconvenience, and interfering with the administration of justice in other Courts, it was found impossible to obtain the attendance of two common law Judges to sit along with the Judge-Ordinary in full Court. It had therefore been suggested by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) that the proper course would be to enable the Judge-Ordinary to do all that might be done subject to an appeal, with authority at all times to call in another Judge, or two other Judges, but to leave it to his discretion when that should be done. He entirely concurred with his noble and learned Friend in thinking that was the best course that could be adopted. He was fully persuaded that there was a great deal of the business now to be done exclusively by the Full Court that might be adequately performed by a single Judge, and to insist on three Judges was a mere waste of judicial power. There might be cases, no doubt, where a single Judge would hesitate to pronounce sentence; but he might then call in the assistance of his brother Judges in order to give such cases the fullest deliberation. He did not stand up for the doctrine maintained by some, that there should be only one Judge for every tribunal. There were cases in which it was desirable to have assistance before pronouncing sentence. He himself, after long experience, shrunk on many occasions from determining important questions of law without the assistance of his brother Judges; but there were many other cases in which justice was satisfactorily administered by a single Judge. Before this reform a single Judge sitting in the Ecclesiastical Court pronounced a sentence that was effective. The analogy here was not indeed complete, because that was only a sentence for separation a mensâ et thoro, and did not dissolve the marriage tie. But there was another analogy which he thought would remove all difficulty. By the immemorial custom of this country a single Judge presided at trials for life and death. At the assizes all over England capital cases were tried by a single Judge, and tried satisfactorily; for this reason, that if he had any doubts or scruples he consulted his brother Judge who was in the commission along with him, and he had this great additional resource that he could at all times reserve any question of law that arose for the solemn determination of all the Judges.
  1876
  He thought they might safely place the same confidence in the Judge-Ordinary of the Divorce Court. The learned person who now filled that high office had steered his course in a manner to give great satisfaction, and confer high benefit on the community; and, under this Bill, whenever he had the smallest reason to believe he might derive assistance in any particular case he would be enabled to call in assistance, and do what was necessary for the satisfactory settlement of the matter. This was the principal enactment of the Bill, and he hoped their Lordships would read it a second time. He by no means said, however, that this should be the permanent constitution of the Court. The respondent sometimes did not appear at all in cases which came before the Court of Divorce; so that the arguments and the evidence in those instances were all on one side In such cases the Bill gave authority to the Court to request the Queen's Proctor to instruct counsel to appear, so that both the parties to the suit might be represented. There was also another important point with which the Bill proposed to deal —the power of disposing of the property settled on the wife when a divorce took place on the ground of her adultery. That power did not under the existing law apply to executory settlements; but it seemed to him desirable that it should be so extended that the Court should have complete authority so to dispose of the property of the wife that the children of the marriage might suffer as little as possible by her misconduct. Any suggestions for the improvement of the Bill which their Lordships might offer should receive his most careful attention.
  Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that when it was originally proposed to constitute this Divorce Court, he had expressed his opinion that the Assistant Judges would never be regular in their attendance to perform a duty additional to their already heavy labours. They now proposed to fall back upon a single Judge in deciding on a dissolution of marriage, and other important matters. But what would have been said if such a proposition had formed part of the Bill when it was originally introduced? He contended that ably as the present Judge Ordinary discharged the duties of his office, with the utmost zeal and ability, the power which this Bill proposed to confer upon him was one which the Legislature would never have

  1877
  consented to confide to a single Judge. The best plan would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The Bill as it at present stood would create general dissatisfaction. Since the Judges of the Common Law Courts were unable to attend to make a full Court, it was necessary that some other tribunal should be constituted. The effect of the Bill was to set aside all previous settlement of the question. Notwithstanding, however, that there were strong objections to the Bill upon these grounds, as well as because of the mode in which it interfered with the subject of marriage settlements, he should not oppose the second reading.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he wished briefly to call the attention of the House to the mode in which his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack proposed to get rid of an admitted evil. Was his noble and learned friend (Lord St. Leonards) prepared to leave the law as it now stood? Two years and a quarter had elapsed since the present Court of Divorce had been called into existence. During that period 509 cases of divorce à vinculo had been entered on its records. Of these it had disposed of 177, and 232 remained to be heard. Supposing, then, that the Court were to proceed with the same degree of activity it had hitherto displayed it would take four years to dispose of the arrear of business with which it had to deal, and before the expiration of that time new cases would have accumulated. Now, he should like to know how his noble and learned Friend, who objected to the present Bill, (Lord St. Leonards) proposed to redress an evil so intolerable. There were two courses open to him in order to effect that object. He might either provide an additional number of Judges or enable the Judge-Ordinary to discharge the functions of his office without been obliged to call in the common law Judges to his aid. The assistance of those Judges had, he might observe, been made avilable up to the present only sixty-five days, or about thirty days for each year since the establishment of the Court; so that if the Judge-Ordinary were not empowered to dispense with their services the arrears of his Court could not be worked off before the lapse of the time which he had just mentioned. What course, he would ask, was it under those circumstances desirable to take? It appeared to him that there was no alternative but to dispense with the attendance of those learned personages, or else to ap-
  1878
  point additional Judges, and to the latter course considerable objection would be made by that and the other House of Parliament. Let it be considered what the nature of these cases was. A divorce à vinculo matrimonii depended upon the result of a trial for the offence of adultery, and such trials were, generally speaking, of a most simple character, and, for the most part, depended for their decision upon matters of fact. He might add that previous to the establishment of the Divorce Court trials for crim. con., which were of a similar character, took place before a single Judge. It was universally admitted that no man could more satisfactorily deal with such questions than the learned Judge by whom the business of the Court was at present with so much zeal and ability transacted—cases involving points of the utmost difficulty, such, for instance, as the nullity of marriage. Divorce à mensâ et thoro used also to be disposed of before a single Judge in the Ecclesiastical Courts; while in the Equity Courts the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors sitting separately decided upon questions—subject to appeal—by which the rights of individuals with respect to vast amounts of property were affected. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had referred to the assizes, where cases of great magnitude as regarded the property at stake, and of great intricacy in point of investigation, were continually decided by a single Judge. Questions of the utmost nicety in criminal law were decided by the same tribunal. Why, therefore, should they not trust the Judge of the Divorce Court to sit alone in deciding the cases which came before him? His noble and learned Friend had very properly referred to the power conferred in the Act of Parliament of calling in the assistance of one of the Judges of another Court in cases of great difficulty—a power similar to that which was exercised by the Judges of almost every Court. Another noble and learned Friend—who was not now present, and who was, he believed, at that moment in the neighbourhood of a very excited and disturbed population—had on a previous occasion called their Lordships attention to the question of collusion, against which he maintained that it was most important to guard. Undoubtedly collusion ought to be guarded against; but how were three Judges sitting in a Court more competent for this purpose than a single Judge? A clause had been very properly added to the present Bill by which

  1879
  the Queen's Proctor was authorised, at the desire of the Court, to appoint some person to investigate the case,—partly, he had no doubt, with a view to the detection of collusion. Whether this provision would be effectual for the purpose he would not pretend to say; but, at any rate, that was not the question which was now before the House. He was satisfied their Lordships would feel the absolute necessity, both in order to uphold the power of the law and the credit of the constitution, that justice should neither be delayed nor refused. The present condition of business in the Divorce Court was, however, productive of the greatest possible delay, amounting to a refusal of justice. On every ground he hoped the Bill would therefore be read a second time, unless any other measure remedying the inconvenience to which he had adverted could be pointed out by any noble Lord.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he was inclined to concur in the proposition of his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; not because he believed it would be materially altered or improved, but inasmuch as the subject was one of vital consequence, and which interested the public to a great degree. Having had the honour of proposing the Bill in its original form, he differed from his noble and learned Friend in thinking that there was in the Bill now before the House an entire departure from the spirit of the original measure. The original mode of obtaining divorce was not strictly judicial. After a proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court, and an action for crim. con., an application was made to their Lordships' House, which really amounted to an application to the Lord Chancellor, with one or two of the law Lords, and sometimes to the Lord Chancellor alone. It was impossible originally to ascertain to what extent the change of system would increase the number of applicants; and in the temper of the House at the time the Bill was passed a larger measure than that introduced would not have been accepted. Regard, therefore, being had to the feeling of the Legislature at that time, it was thought the best course to associate the Lord Chancellor or the Chief Justice with the Judge Ordinary in dealing with cases of divorce a vinculo matrimonii; and the burden which was thus cast upon them did not seem at the time very heavy, inasmuch as the total number of days occu-
  1880
  pied in their Lordships' House in the hearing of cases of divorce was usually not above two or three in the whole year. It had been sometimes thrown in the face of those who introduced and supported the measure, that the number of applications had been greatly increased; still, so far from shrinking from the responsibility of the measure, he was prepared to maintain that this circumstance afforded conclusive evidence for the necessity for such a change in the law, because by it relief was granted to persons who formerly could not have hoped to obtain it, it being under the old system unattainable, except at the cost of several thousands of pounds. By the Bill, as originally framed, the Lord Chancellor and one of the Chief Justices, with one of the senior puisne Judges, were appointed to assist the Judge Ordinary; but it was soon found that neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Chief Justices were able to attend, and a Bill was then introduced allowing any of the Judges to sit and try cases. But it being now found impossible to get through the causes because of the arrears, which accumulated faster than they could be disposed of, the only remedy was either to allow the Judge Ordinary to dispose of cases alone, or to create some other legal functionaries to assist him. To the latter course there was, he thought, an insuperable objection, as these legal functionaries would have nothing to do but to dispose of cases a vinculo matrimonii, which never presented any features of difficulty, except from the single circumstance that collusion might exist between the parties seeking the divorce. To check collusion he did not believe three Judges were in the least better adapted than one; and, though he did not mean to say that it would be entirely successful, he believed the interference of the Queen's Proctor, which it was proposed to sanction, afforded the only safeguard. He trusted that the measure, in its present form, or with but trifling alteration, would be passed into law, for he regarded it as the only practical solution of an admitted difficulty which had yet been proposed.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill had been attended with the effect which he had always predicted—namely, that the business was so overwhelming as to render it impossible that it could be conducted under the provisions contained in the first Act. In the Report issued by himself on account of his inability to agree in the

  1881
  recommendations of his brother Commissioners, the opinion had been expressed that the effect of making divorce a common law remedy, and of removing the discretional power which had been exercised by their Lordships, would cause it to be granted in many cases in which it would have been refused by Parliament, and that thereby respect for the matrimonial tie would be greatly lessened. Everything which had occurred in the Divorce Court since it had been established had done much to lessen in the country the sanctity of the matrimonial tie; every year brought additional evidence that such was the course towards which things were tending in this country. Take the jokes that were now levelled at marriage and the Divorce Court, so common in the pantomimes and burlesques, and they must be admitted to afford strong proof that the marriage tie was no longer regarded by the people of this country with the sanctity that had hitherto attached to it. He had no objection to the alterations proposed by this Bill; but he thought some more stringent measures ought to be adopted to prevent abuse. When the question of divorce was first proposed to be taken within the domain of common law, it was argued that the proceedings of the Divorce Court should be regulated by the practice which was wont to prevail in their Lordships' House. But before the Bill passed through Parliament a departure from that rule was made; for a clause was introduced by which women were allowed to sue for divorce, which their Lordships had never permitted; and other departures had taken place under the practise of the Court from the discretion vested in the Judge being too much limited. For instance, a case occurred last year, where a man married a woman who had just before been notoriously living with another man as his mistress. After living a short time with the person who married her, she went back to the man with whom she formerly lived, and the husband sued for and obtained a divorce. He was sure their Lordships would never have granted a divorce in a case of that kind. He thought such cases ought to be prevented by authorising the Judge to exercise a discretion under such circumstances similar to that which had been exercised by Parliament. He had nothing further to say to the proposition itself, but he could not help fearing that if the cases of divorce were to be disposed of by a single Judge, they would not long be left to this
  1882
  high Court only. At present divorce was brought within the reach of men of moderate means. The cry would soon be raised to bring it within the reach of men of any means; and he believed that an attempt would be made to have divorces settled in other and cheaper courts than that in which it was decided at present. He concurred in all that had been said on the subject of collusion, and he would suggest that there were often cases where the friends of parties could throw important light on that question if they were admitted into the suit. For instance, it might happen that an unfortunate young man might be entrapped into a connection with a woman who was in collusion with her husband to procure a divorce; the relations of that young man might, if they were permitted, give such information as would prove the collusion. He thought, also, that compelling both parties to appear, would prove of great advantage.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought it was not desirable that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, as it would only lead to delay. The Bill contained no new principle, and there was therefore no real reason for the proposition of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in reply, said he had anxiously watched the proceedings of the Divorce Court, and he earnestly desired to prevent any abuse of its powers by the suitors. He had proposed a Bill last year, by which the Judge of the Court was authorized to call in the assistance of the Attorney General in cases in which collusion between the parties to a suit was suspected. The clause was agreed to by their Lordships, but was rejected by the House of Commons. He had in the present measure done his best to prevent such collusion. It had been stated during the debate, that the Common Law Judges had time enough to preside in the Divorce Court; he contended that they had not; they were overwhelmed by the business of their own courts; and it was more advisable to give one Judge the power of deciding, than to create new Judges. He objected to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; it contained nothing that required investigation; it was limited to a single point—giving additional powers to the single Judge; and this point it was better to discuss and settle in the full House, which, he hoped, would agree to the second reading.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON,EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, moved the second reading of the Bill. By the Act for the better Government of the University of Oxford, the Commissioners then appointed were empowered, under certain circumstances, to frame such Ordinances and Regulations as they might deem expedient, which if not objected to by the authorities of the Colleges respectively were to take effect as statutes of such colleges, If, however, the governing body of any college should declare such ordinances and regulations to be prejudicial to their college as a place of learning and education, they were not to take effect, and the Commissioners were to prepare others; but where no new ordinances were framed, the original ordinances were to be embodied in a report to be transmitted to one of the Secretaries of State and laid before the two Houses of Parliament. The Commissioners having framed ordinances and regulations for the better governing of the College of St. John's, in the University of Oxford, which had been objected to by the governing body of the College; and not having framed any substitutive ordinances, had embodied their original ordinances in a report as directed. It had, however, been found that the powers of the Commissioners had expired, and that no further proceeding could be had in reference to that ordinance. The present Bill empowered Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to refer the matter to a Committee of Privy Council, who were to consider the ordinance and the objections, and report to Her Majesty. If their report confirmed the Ordinance, it was then to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and unless within forty days either House should present an Address to Her Majesty praying her to withold her assent, the ordinance, having been approved by Her Majesty was to become a statute of the College. By one clause a power was given to the governing body or any parties interested in the College to petition Her Majesty in relation to the ordinance and every such petition was to be referred to the Committee with the ordinance.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had no objection to the second reading of the
  1884
  Bill; but be had received a request from the Master and Wardens of the Merchant Taylors' Company that he would procure the insertion of words into the Bill which would secure to them the right of petitioning the Committee of Privy Council against any ordinance which they might deem injurious to the interests of their School—a right which did not appear to be given to them by the clause as it now stood. He had a copy of the words which they desired to have inserted, and would hand them to the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill before the House went into Committee.
  Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MORTGAGES, &c, BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON EARL DE GREY AND RIPON moved the second reading of this Bill. He explained that at present the Treasury, retaining the powers vested in them by the Municipal Corporations Act of confirming certain mortgages made by corporate bodies, were to be empowered by this Act to carry out a system which had been adopted in Ireland, by which provision was made for paying off these mortgages by instalments without the intervention of trustees. The general scope and object of the Bill, therefore, was to enable the Treasury to sanction the adoption of one uniform and general rule with regard to these matters, only dispensing with the appointment of trustees and simplifying the arrangements generally.
  LORD REDESDALEinquired whether the word "may" in the first clause of the Bill, empowering the Treasury to insist on the formation of a sinking fund, was to be considered as merely permissive, or as making it imperative upon the Treasury to do so?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, it appeared to him the exercise of the power was optional in this case.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought it of very great importance that Municipal Corporations should not be allowed to mortgage their property without at the same time creating a sinking fund. He was aware that they were extremely anxious to have that power, not only with respect to their real property, but in respect also of the rates, which were sometimes heavily mortgaged without a sinking fund being

  1885
  created, This was very objectionable, as it was entailing a heavy burden on succeeding generations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to say he was not prepared to cede, to the extent demanded, the necessity, or even the expediency, of the object proposed by the Bill, but if it were felt to be desirable, he certainly thought the provisions of the measure should be of a character which should give to the Treasury a right to exercise their judgment in each case submitted for their approval.
  Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Seven o'Clock, to Thursday nex Half-past Ten o'Clock.