Sitting of 17 June 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), Second Report [Parl. P. 366].
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Resolutions [June 15] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Howth Harbour.
First Reading—Domestic Servants and Apprentices Protection*[Bill 168]; Corporal Punishment in Schools* [Bill 169]; Walmer Vesting* [Bill 170]; Inclosure (No. 2)* [Bill 167].
Second Reading—Navy Prize Money, &c. [Bill 147]; Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) [Bill 138]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [Bill 165].
Select Commitee—Thames Embankment (South Side) [Bill 65], Mr. W. Cubitt discharged, Mr. Tite added.*
Referred to Select Committee—Election Petitions [Bill 124].
Committee—Marriages Registration (Ireland) [Bill 118], on re-committal.
Report—Marriages Registration (Ireland).
Third Reading—Offences (South Africa) (Lords)* [Bill 113]; Sheep and Cattle (Scotland)* [Bill 115]; Metropolis Turnpike Roads Acts Amendment* [Bill 131]; and severally passed.
Withdrawn—Endowed Schools [Bill 3].

ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL— [BILL 3.]

  BILL WITHDRAWN
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was sorry to learn that a great many Petitions had been presented against the Bill, but he was of opinion that much of the opposition entertained to it arose from unfounded statements which had been made with respect to his motives in introducing the Bill, and also from misapprehensions of what would be the working of the measure itself. He felt that the Bill was one of great importance, and that the misapprehensions he alluded to could only be dispelled by a full and fair discussion in that House. He was not aware when he fixed the second reading for that day that it was the day appointed for the celebration of the Oxford Commemoration, at which many Members of the House, including the representatives of the University, were naturally anxious to be present. He had, in consequence, been asked by several hon. Gentlemen to postpone the discussion on the measure to another day; but he did not deem it consistent with his public duty to do so, inasmuch as he knew that at that period of the Session it would be difficult to find another opportunity of bringing it on. He therefore suggested that the second reading should be taken pro formâ, and the discussion raised at the next stage of the Bill. That course did not meet the

  1005
  views of the hon. Members to whom he alluded. On re-considering the matter, however, and being strongly of opinion that the question was one which it was desirable should be fully discussed, being the last man, moreover, who would wish to take advantage of the absence of his opponents in dealing with a subject of such large national interest, and there being but little chance of his being able to carry the Bill this Session, he thought he should be pursuing the best course if he were not to ask the House to proceed with it any further. In taking that step, however, it was fully his intention again to re-open the question. Meantime he might be permitted to observe, as he had been made the object of censure for the part which he had taken in the matter, and as the character of the Bill seemed to have been much misapprehended, that it was by no means meant to be an assault upon the Established Church, but rather a resistance to an attack which had emanated from that quarter based on the decision in the Ilminster case. It was in promotion of the principle of civil and re ligious liberty that he had framed the Bill, and he did not, he might add, attach any very great weight to the numerous Petitions which he admitted had been presented against it, because he believed them to be, for the most part, the result of a well-disciplined organization. The hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, moved that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he rose to express his satisfaction at the course taken by the hon. Gentleman in withdrawing the Bill. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no intention on the part of any of the opponents of the Bill to make a personal attack upon him, or throw any aspersions upon him for the course he had taken. On the contrary, they were ready to acknowledge the temperate manner in which the hon. Gentleman generally dealt with these subjects. The hon. Gentleman had always advocated the views which he entertained on the subject of those endowed schools in the most fair and candid manner. The present measure was, however, he thought, even more objectionable than any of those which he had previously introduced on the subject, and he would further say that he (Mr. Selwyn) must protest against the Ilminster case, which they had all hoped was dead and buried, being again dragged forward. The Judges on the Ilminster case' did not lay down any general
  1006
  rule; but, on the contrary, simply recognising the existing rule, which had been fairly and impartially acted upon for many years, they applied it to the circumstances of the case before them. He trusted that the Bill would not be re-introduced. The House had been engaged in these religious discussions with very little profit or useful result, and he hoped that in future the labours of the hon. Gentleman and the dissenting body would be directed to questions more likely to prove beneficial to the masses of the population. He hoped, judging from the course the hon. Gentleman had taken in withdrawing this Bill, that it was not enthusiastic or visionary to anticipate that they were really approaching the end of these controversies. At any rate, he trusted that if any measure was to be introduced upon the subject hereafter, it would be introduced in a very different spirit from that which characterized the present Bill. So far as the remark that the Petitions against the present Bill were the result of a systematic organization' was concerned, he would say that Petitions had been presented against it from the two Universities and other bodies which were not open to the insinuation which that remark would convey. With no party feeling then, but with every desire to act justly, he begged to second the Motion for the discharge of the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. DILWYNexplained that he had not alluded to any discourteous attack upon him in the House, but to what had taken place out of doors.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that he regretted very much that the Bill had ever been introduced, and was therefore glad that it was about to be withdrawn. The hon. Member said that the object of the Bill was to promote civil and religious liberty, He would just point out that under the provisions of this Bill a Dissenter might found a school for the benefit of Dissenters, and it might be preserved for their benefit; but if a king founded a school for the benefit of the Church of England, it could not be preserved for the benefit of the Church. Speaking from experience, he would say, that if the end which the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the measure sought to attain was the promotion of tolerant views between Churchmen and Dissenters, he had taken a course in proposing such a measure eminently calculated to defeat that object. In his official capacity he was every day dealing

  1007
  with parties who were drawing up regulations for the management of schools connected with the Church of England. These parties wished to establish regulations which would virtually exclude Dissenters, and the great difficulty with which the Committee of Council had to contend in the case of those endowments, in order to secure a spirit of reasonable toleration towards Dissenters was, that those who were opposed to action in that direction were able to point to proposals which went so far as that of the hon. Gentleman. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would duly consider how much damage he did to a cause which he believed him to have really at heart, by making such proposals, he felt assured he would deem it to be his duty not to continue to press them upon the attention of the House.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, he rose to express a hope, that notwithstanding what had fallen from the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, the hon. Member for Swansea would introduce the Bill in the next Session. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had misrepresented the object of the Bill, which was not to create ill-feeling between Churchmen and Dissenters, but to place the law with reference to endowed schools on a fair and reasonable footing. As an instance of the way in which the law now operated, he might mention the case of a grammar school in Northampton which had been founded many years ago, nothing having been said in the foundation deed as to the religion which should be taught in it. Subsequently the income of the school had been augmented by the diversion of other charities, and upon none of the occasions of such diversion was there anything said on the subject. Now, it seemed that the Attorney General had the power of framing rules for the management of the schools, and in accordance with a rule lately made, it was laid down that both the head and second master should be members of the Church of England. That rule, it would at once be seen, operated harshly in the case of Dissenters, with reference to whose exclusion from those situations nothing whatever was said in the deed of foundation. He hoped that in a future year the hon. Member for Swansea would bring on a bill to set the law right in that respect.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should not have made any remark, had it not been for the parting kick which the right hon. Gentleman had given the Bill. The right
  1008
  hon. Gentleman said that measures of the kind tended to prevent the settlement of religious disputes between Churchmen and Dissenters; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could conceive nothing more likely to prevent the settlement of such questions than the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman. The people of the country generally would look with great suspicion upon that course, when they found a right hon. Gentleman who had obtained his present position in the House by advocating the claims of the Dissenters to civil and religious liberty, so far forsaking that position as to talk of toleration as the only object the Dissenters had in view.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, it was a mere personal objection that was raised to the Bill. It was a moderate measure, and was only intended to abolish an insult; no interest of the Church was affected by it. It was by moving ecclesiastical and spiritual hatred that the Bill had been defeated.
  Order discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

NAVY PRIZE MONEY, &c. BILL.

  [BILL 147.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN HAT, in moving the second reading of this Bill, stated, that its object was to restore to naval officers the right of appointing agents to take charge of their interests in regard to prize money and bounties, of which they were deprived in the year 1854, when the duty of protecting them was cast upon the Accountant General. It was at that time alleged that the interests of officers and crews would not be so well protected by that officer as by agents whom they themselves appointed and whose remuneration would depend upon the amount of prize money recovered. To prove the soundness of that objection, he would contrast what was done in the case of the capture of St. Jean d'Acre with what had occurred with regard to the kertch prize money. St. Jean d'Acre was captured in the year 1840, an agent was appointed by the captors, and the Government, to avoid going into the Admiralty Court, at once paid over a sum of £70,000, out of which the agent received a commission of 3 per cent. With regard to the Kertch prize, in the year 1857 there was great difficulty in getting the case taken into court, owing to there being no provision for the payment of the agent. Finally, himself and Commodore Wilmot, who were afterwards joined by

  1009
  Captain Mends, asked Mr. Ommanney to take the case into court. Mr. Ommanney did not see his way to any remuneration but out of personal friendship to them he endeavoured to take the case into court; but he did not succeed. Last year the Government was, by the action of the House, compelled to allow the matter to be brought before a court, and in order to avoid foreign complications and save money, they offered to pay £85,000. Mr. Ommanney, who had been actively engaged on behalf of the captors for six years, made a claim to be allowed 2½ per cent. The Treasury, however, said that they could not give away the money of the captors, but the Admiralty offered to give Mr. Ommanney £500 for his remuneration Even though himself, Commodore Wilmot, and Captain Mends were to give up their own shares in this prize—about £200 each—there would still remain £1,000 due to Mr. Ommanney for his commission, which they could only raise by writing letters to 10,000 or 12,000 of the individual captors, Last year, when this subject was before the House, he was informed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitehead) that the Government were not prepared to bring in any Bill; but that if he would frame a measure, they would examine it. The Bill was drawn, and after communication with Mr. Romaine, Mr. Rothery, and other officials, alterations were introduced into it. At the request of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, who himself promised to introduce a measure, he postponed the introduction of this Bill until after Whitsuntide, and it was then read a first time without opposition. He now found that the Admiralty entertained some objections to certain provisions of the Bill, and he had given notice of Amendments in Committee to meet some of those objections. He understood that some of the legal officials objected to the title, "A Bill for facilitating the distribution of Prize Money," because they said that no such facilities were required. This he certainly could not admit, but he should not refuse to amend the title of the Bill. The Admiralty were anxious, that until distribution took place, the money should remain in the hands of the Accountant General unproductive. This, he thought, was undesirable. In some cases the interest of money which had been invested had paid all the expenses and left a small sum over; and as his measure provided that the money should only be invested in the public funds
  1010
  or stocks in Great Britain and Ireland, he did not see that any valid objection could be raised to it. The officers of the Admiralty were very anxious that the sale of prizes should be left to the Marshal of the Court of Admiralty. In his opinion the interests of the captors would be better attended to by the agent, to whose advantage it would be to get as large a price as possible; and as the money would never come into his hands, but would be paid immediately to the Accountant General, there could be no reason why the whole matter should not be left to him. He could mention many instances, besides that of Kertch in which captors had suffered under the existing law. He believed that every one would admit that this Bill, with, the Amendments which he was prepared to introduce into it, would be a step in the right direction. He therefore trusted that this measure would he allowed to pass, in order that it might stop the gap until the Admiralty Bill was produced, and that the interests of the navy might not be allowed to suffer for want of legislation, which the Admiralty ought to have undertaken, but in regard to which they had neglected their duty.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read a second time.—(Sir John Hay.)
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would give his hon. and gallant friend the greatest credit for the zeal and industry which he had displayed in preparing this Bill, which showed that he was as good a lawyer as he was a sea captain, and for which the navy generally would be very grateful to him. He should have been very glad to support the Bill with certain Amendments, if he had not been assured by his legal advisers that it would he injurious to the public interests that a Bill dealing with a small portion of naval prize business should be thrown on the top of a vast number of Acts of Parliament with which it might possibly interfere, and which, in dealing with the subject, ought to be very carefully examined, especially when the legal advisers of the Admiralty were preparing a Bill with the view of putting the important subject of prize on a satisfactory footing, repealing certain of these Acts and consolidating the others. To show that the matter was attended with great difficulty, he would refer to a Report made by Mr. Rothery, the Registrar of the Court of Admiralty, on the 20th of May last, in which that gentleman

  1011
  stated that "the Acts relating to the subject were exceedingly numerous, ranging from the reign of Queen Anne to the late war with Russia," and that many of them had unquestionably expired, spent, or otherwise obsolete, while in the case of others it was extremely difficult to say what provisions were in force and how far they might safely; be repealed. As an instance of the latter class of Acts, Mr. Rothery referred to the 45 Geo. III., which had been partially repealed, and re-enacted by a great number of other Acts passed in the same reign, and in the reigns of George IV. and William IV., thus producing a state of confusion which rendered the work of consolidation one of great difficulty. At that moment there was no immediate necessity for legislation upon the subject. If they were at war, he could understand that it might be desirable to pass this Bill; but, under existing circumstances, he thought it would be more for the convenience of the service itself, instead of passing a Bill which was to remain in force for only six months, and which would not reach the foreign stations until it was about to be repealed, to wait for the general measure, which he had no doubt would be ready at the beginning of next Session. He wished that the lawyers could be made to carry a little more sail; but, nevertheless, it was eminently a legal question, and he did not think that it was safe for his hon. and gallant Friend, however eminent might be the legal gentlemen who had assisted him, to press on the measure, when the work had been undertaken by the Government, who were as anxious as he was that the law should be amended. He would not enter into a discussion of the details of the measure, although he was informed that there was hardly a single clause in it which would not require alteration. The Bill could not affect the question of the remuneration of Mr. Ommanney, or the distribution of the Kertch prize money; and he hoped that the assurance which he had given to his hon. and gallant Friend that the Admiralty were endeavouring to push forward their Bill, and that he had every reason to believe that it would be laid upon the table immediately after the meeting of Parliament next year, would induce him not to press the measure, but rather to go to the Admiralty and assist them in the work which they had undertaken.
  MR. G. HARDYsaid, that he did not know much about the subject, but he certainly was not satisfied with the remarks
  1012
  of the noble Lord. It was admitted that the law was in an unsatisfactory state as regarded the captors of prizes, there being great delay in the captors getting the money to which they were entitled. The manner in which the distribution of the Kertch prize money to the soldiers and sailors was delayed was not at all creditable to this country. The measure appeared to him to be a very simple Bill, and one the value of which was in no way affected by the observations of the noble Lord, Its object was simply to adopt the natural course of enabling captors to appoint an agent, and to provide that he should be remunerated by a payment at the rate of 2½ per cent, out of the funds which he received. He trusted that the House would not be deterred from reading the Bill a second time by the promise of a consolidation of the law upon the subject. The work of consolidation would not be impeded, but rather facilitated, by a declaration in favour of the principle that the captors of vessels should be entitled to appoint an agent who might act for them. Consolidations, too, were often attended with many delays, and a promised consolidation ought not to be allowed to interfere with such a measure as this, which was a simple remedy for a simple grievance. The noble Lord said that the Bill would not come into operation in time to produce any advantage. It was, however, possible that before the meeting of Parliament next year the navy might be called upon to make captures; and as the provisions of the measure referred to bounties as well as to prizes, it would at once apply to all bounties payable for the capture of slavers. He hoped that the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, he fully appreciated the motives of the hon. and gallant Officer, between whom and the Admiralty there was no substantial difference. The only question the House had to consider was, as to the best mode of attaining the object which both had in view; whether it would be better to pass the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman himself said was a mere stop-gap, or to wait until the next Session in order that a well-considered measure, consolidating all the former Acts, might be passed. Almost all the difficulties which were now experienced in regard to legislation arose from the practice of passing stop-gaps. Not only were there in existence, as Mr. Rothery had said, fifty or sixty statutes upon the subject; but when Mr.

  1013
  Riley, the gentleman who prepared Bills for the Admiralty, examined the subject, he found that there were a great many other Acts, all of which would have to be considered with a view of ascertaining whether they were obsolete or repealed or still in existence, and it was that circumstance which had prevented Mr. Riley, with all his diligence and industry, from preparing that year a Bill which would be satisfactory to the House and to the country. The measure before the House was in some respects consistent, in many inconsistent, with previous Acts. If it were passed into law, questions must continually arise as to how far those Acts were virtually or actually repealed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed not to have considered sufficiently the extent to which the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court would be affected. He proposed to put the cart before the horse; to pay over the proceeds of the sale for distribution among the captors before the Court had decided whether the ship thus sold was lawful prize or not. Clause 26 deprived the Admiralty of the power of ordering the investment of the prize-money, except upon the application of the agent for the captors—a change for which he was unable to discover any valid reason. These and many other clauses would require minute criticism if the Bill ever got into Committee, But he was disposed to believe that it ought not to be entertained by the House. It was a mere stop-gap, forestalling and taking the place of comprehensive legislation on the whole question. He was not answerable for the course which had been adopted; but when the responsible advisers of the Government, able and experienced men, who were actually engaged in the preparation of a measure, said that it was impossible without further consideration to digest and consolidate into a perfected scheme the various Acts already on the statute book, he must say the independent legislation which was now pressed on the House for its adoption reminded him of the proverb. "The more haste, the less speed."
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he thought it hard that his hon. and gallant Friend should be accused of haste, when he had pointed out that it was not till after repeated promises by the Admiralty and repeated delays on their part, that he had taken the initiative in introducing a measure to Parliament. Four objections had been taken to the Bill, the first being that it was merely a stop-gap, and had reference only to a particular
  1014
  point. He was quite prepared to go along with the noble Lord in desiring the introduction of a measure to remedy all the abuses in the distribution of prize-money, for he had heard officers of experience declare that in any future war it would be difficult to maintain the same discipline which had hitherto prevailed, and to restrain the men from indiscriminate plunder, because they had no longer any confidence in the distribution of prize-money through the legitimate channels. But it was no answer to say, that because they could not do everything by a particular Bill, nothing whatever should be done. He wished to speak with all possible respect of the Gentleman (Mr. Riley) on whose authority they had been told that fifty or sixty Acts of Parliament must he studied before legislation on the question could be approached. But would the learned Gentleman who had just sat down, or anybody else on the Government benches, point out in what way any one of those Acts of Parliament would be affected by the present measure? The Bill did not propose to repeal any Act of Parliament; it did not even contain the clause, so fertile of doubt and difficulty to be found in many acts of Parliament, repealing any portions of previous Acts which might be inconsistent with itself. To the principle of the Bill no objection whatever had been made; and as to verbal criticism on such points as the substitution of the word "Paymaster" for "Accountant General," he gave his learned Friend all the benefit to be derived from them. He ventured to say, that instead of embarrassing Mr. Riley in his preparation of a general measure, it would be an advantage to the draughtsman to have a distinct expression of the opinion of the Legislature on one branch of the subject. Then it was objected to the Bill that there was no probability of war. He was glad to hear the noble Lord express his willingness to enter into securities to keep the peace with all the world; but, unfortunately, he could not always control circumstances. Besides, questions of salvage and bounties would arise under the Bill, and there was some prospect that under the recent treaty with the United States captures of slavers would become more numerous. The fourth objection to the Bill be had been really astonished to hear. It was said, the details of the measure could not be made known on distant stations for a considerable period. Was the large Government Bill, when carried

  1015
  next year, to fly out with any greater rapidity? The noble Lord must have been very hard pushed for objections when he resorted to such a transparent argument. He hoped the House would not refuse to apply a practical remedy to a clear grievance, and that, if it could not aid their soldiers, it would, at least, do justice to their sailors.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, there was no charge of undue haste against the hon. and gallant Member. The question was simply, whether the House would think it necessary to enter into the details of a measure, the Board of Admiralty having already under their consideration the details of a much more comprehensive Bill, which they had determined to bring before the House. It was not the fault of his noble Friend that the Bill had not been laid upon the table of the House; it was only recently that the Government learnt it would be unwise to press it during the present Session. The Admiralty were acting solely upon the representations of their professional advisers, and he had no doubt his noble Friend would give a pledge that the Bill should be introduced very early in the next Session. No pressing necessity for legislation at an earlier period had been established.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the opposition of the Government had resolved itself into, a struggle, not against the principle of the Bill, but simply; for delay. He believed that there were important interests concerned in the speedy settlement of the question. In addition to the increased capture of slavers which might he anticipated within the next two years, in consequence of the Treaty with the United States for the suppression of the slave trade, they were engaged in suppressing piracy in the Gulf of Borneo, and had eight or ten vessels upon that station. If they could only succeed in putting their hands upon the depots there, the amount of prize-money would he considerable, If the Government were really in earnest in amending the law, they ought to have given the necessary instructions last year, immediately after they promised to bring in a Bill. Instead of that, he was told the instructions did not reach Mr. Rothery till the month of January. Could there be a graver reflection upon the heads of Departments than the fact that they suffered sixty or eighty obsolete Acts to encumber the statute book on a matter of such vital consequence to the efficiency of the navy?
  1016
  In 1854 the Act which it was sought to get rid of passed through the Houses of Lords and Commons with indecent haste. Very shortly afterwards a midshipman of the James Watt brought home a prize, and on landing in London with his crew of fifteen men found himself without means of subsistence. On applying at the Admiralty, he was told that the hunger of the party would be satisfied and shelter provided for them when the proceeds of the prize had been realized. Such were the first-fruits of a naval administration of which, speaking advisedly, he ventured to say, that in the course of its existence it had done more harm to the navy of England than ever was done by the French, A precisely similar case to that which he had just mentioned occurred to an officer and prize crew belonging to the Euryalus. Under the old law the officer in charge would have been consigned to an agent, who would have made the necessary advances. In those cases, supposing the prize to have been disabled by stress of weather, he wished to know on whom a bottomry bond for repairs would be drawn?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, these were not questions for a Prize Court. Application ought to be made to the Admiralty.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he admitted that a prize might he victualled from a guardship, say, at the Cape of Good Hope; but a bottomry bond could not be drawn upon men. Under the old Act the officer in charge would draw upon the consignee of the vessel, as in an ordinary mercantile transaction. In the debate in the House of Lords, in 1854, Lord Brougham bore testimony to the invaluable services of the prize agents, and expressed apprehensions, which the result only too well justified, regarding the change of system. Those agents had sometimes succeeded in establishing the claims of the captors where these were disputed by the Government. The Kertch and Yenikale prize money, which had been so long outstanding, was ultimately got in by an agent, and the Government now refused to allow that gentleman any fair amount of commission which he claimed. He did not think the Admiralty had made out any case for delay. He quite conceded the advisability of removing obsolete statutes, and of going into the Admiralty regulations so as to have them condensed. At present officers were placed in a position of the greatest difficulty, and were often mulcted

  1017
  in their pay for faults of which any one might be guilty. He gave his ardent support to the Motion of his gallant Friend, and advised him very strongly to take the sense of the House upon it.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was at a loss to understand why, when the facts were undoubted, the Government should want six or twelve months more to maunder over old Acts of Parliament. He hoped that the discussion which had taken place might have the effect of calling attention to the abuses in the distribution of military prize money, which were just as flagrant as in the navy. Only the other day he received a letter, extremely well written, from a man who stated that he had been walking about the streets for a week in a state bordering on starvation, although money had been due to him by the Government ever since the Kertch and Yenikale expedition. In many cases prize money remained unpaid for ten or twelve years; whole families sometimes starved before their proportions could be obtained. Burmah, Luck now, Delhi, the Deccan,—not one of these names could be mentioned without recalling scandals of the worst kind.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would not oppose the evident wish of the House, but would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and bring forward his Amendments in Committee. At the same time, he felt bound to warn the House, that it was assuming a responsibility which properly belonged to the Government.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Friday

ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.

  [BILL 124.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the object which the measure contemplated, that of checking the presentation of frivolous Petitions, was undoubtedly beneficial; but it was necessary to surround the Bill with some precautions, otherwise it might discourage the presentation of bonâ fide Petitions. Considering the importance of the subject, and the number of Amendments which it was proposed to introduce, he thought it would be better that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, in order that when reprinted it might be referred to a Select Committee composed of gentlemen
  1018
  of experience in election inquiries. In any case he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not ask them then to go into the details of the measure.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the opportunities at the disposal of private Members were very limited, and he was therefore indisposed to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. There ought not to be the least difficulty in proceeding with the consideration of the Bill, to the second reading of which, when it was last before the House, no opposition had been offered. He had eagerly caught at every suggestion for its improvement. The Amendments on the paper were no doubt extensive, but some had been rendered necessary in order to carry out alterations which the Government had itself suggested. He had gone through the Bill, clause by clause, with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and was under the impression that the hon. and learned Gentleman had assented to the Clauses and the Amendments. To refer the Bill to a Select Committee, would be to postpone it to another Session; and he therefore trusted that the House would consent to go into Committee on the Bill at once.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, the Bill might have the effect of preventing the presentation of some vexatious Petitions, but it might also prevent the presentation of some which were of bonâ fide character. He hoped the Bill would not pass without further consideration than it had hitherto received.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought a fair opportunity was afforded for the consideration of this measure, the principle of which had already been affirmed by the House. The necessity for the measure had been acknowledged for many years, and he therefore hoped to see it passed at once.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he could speak from his own experience of the great necessity for some such legislation on the subject. In 1859 he was returned for Sandwich. A few days after the election a carriage containing some Conservative agents came over from Dover, and the result was a Petition against his return. When he accepted office, and went down for re-election, the Conservative party in the borough repudiated all knowledge of the Petition which was then hanging over his head. Certain parties, however, who opposed his return, issued a placard adopting in effect the charges made against him in the Election Petition. He brought an

  1019
  action against those persons for libel, and but for that accident he should have had no opportunity of proving his innocence of the charges of corrupt practices, because the Petition against his return was withdrawn. There ought to be a Committee to take cognizance of Election Petitions, not only on their withdrawal, as was proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt), but on their presentation. Such a Committee should act as a sort of grand jury, to see whether there was a primâ facie case for proceeding with the Petition. It would be the duty of such a Committee to see that the person who made such a charge was not a man of straw, as frequently happened, and also to compel him to come forward and make an affidavit that he had some grounds for his allegation. No one gained by the present system but a class of of men who made a trade of such practices. He trusted something would be done before another general election, to check a system that was unfair both to Members and constituencies, and which neither added to the dignity of the House, nor the character of its proceedings.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid he thought that was a very fair opportunity for considering the details of the Bill. The Attorney General was present, and he hoped the House would at once go into Committee, and consider the matter clause by clause.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that if the Government would not do their duty, and incur the responsibility of bringing in such a Bill, it was necessary that any measure introduced by a private Member should be very carefully examined. There was a good deal in the law relating to election Petitions which was of a very minute and technical character, and he moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)—instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 92: Majority 1.
  Words added.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that as the House had determined that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he trusted that no
  1020
  time would be lost, so that the House might have an opportunity of discussing the Bill before the close of the Session.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not voted for the Amendment in order to defeat the Bill. The House had, however, never passed a measure on the subject without first referring the Bill to a Select Committee.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee; and on June 18 Committee nominated.

MARRIAGES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL [MR. MONSELL].

  [BILL 118.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Provision for Marriages not within Provisions of 7 & 8 Vict., c. 81).
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid that the Bill was one which enabled Roman Catholic marriages to be registered in a most exceptional manner. In England the registration of the marriages of Roman Catholics took place under the general law applicable to all classes of Dissenters. But by the Bill, as soon as a marriage had been celebrated in a Roman Catholic church in whatever form, the State was to register the marriage as lawful. It was said that the Bill was borrowed from the Scottish law, but in Scotland the bans were publish in the parish church, and other securities were taken. Under the Bill there was no provision of bans, no notice or security that the parties were of full age, or, if under age, that the consent of their parents had been obtained. He had given notice of several Amendments to cure these defects, which might be summed up in the provision that the parties married should be themselves their own registrars, and that the marriage law for Roman Catholics in Ireland should be similar to that of this country. The consequence of passing the Bill would be that marriages would be solemnized without preliminary examination, without proof of consent of the parents, and without evidence of the age of the parties. He would admit that the non-existence of any registration of Roman Catholic marriages was a blot upon the present social system of Ireland, yet he

  1021
  contended that the Slate ought to take precautions which were neglected by the Bill. He begged to move, in page 2, line 35, after "same" to insert "one of."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, after "same" to insert "one of."—(Sir Edward Grogan.)
  LORD NAASsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. He was not very sanguine that any Member of that House would live to see the marriage law of England and Ireland assimilated, and his right hon. Friend, therefore, proposed to deal with the existing law in a manner which he believed would meet the wishes and the wants of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. There was no proposal in the Bill which would throw any impediment in the way of future legislation. Speaking as a sincere member of the Establish Church, and wishing to see that Church maintained exactly in her present position, he could not see any danger in this Bill. It could not render legal marriages which were otherwise illegal. On the contrary, it might place an effectual check on an objectionable kind of marriage. The Amendments, however, which had been proposed would affect the whole law of marriage in Ireland and open up the whole question. He did not think the Committee would consent to enter into such a discussion. Believing that the Bill would have a beneficial effect, he trusted that the Committee would consent to proceed with the consideration of its provisions.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 105; Majority 74.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, after that expression of opinion on the part of the Committee, he would not move his other Amendments.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he hoped that the Bill would be dealt with in a different way when it went to another place.
  Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o to morrow.

CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 138.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, the courts which
  1022
  the Bill proposed to amend were among the most popular and useful institutions in Ireland. Their jurisdiction had grown, from time to time, from a very small one to a very extensive one; and it now extended from £10 to £40, and in some cases reached £100; and it was therefore most important that the decisions and processes should be carried out with a due regard to the interests of the public. But he regretted to say that the system which had theretofore existed, and still existed, was not a satisfactory system. Some hundred thousands of decrees were pronounced in these county courts in Ireland in the course of a year. There were ejectment decrees to the extent of many thousands. That being so, it was found that the sub-sheriff of the county, who executed the process in the name of the high sheriff, was perfectly incapable of discharging his duties in a multitude of cases. Therefore, the plaintiff, at his own peril, had been allowed to appoint the bailiff to execute the decrees of the courts, and this had led to great abuses. It was found that the bailiffs so appointed were men of no property, and bad character; not being responsible to the court, they extorted money from the plaintiff for the execution of the decree. The bailiff thus obtained a large portion of the money for which the decree was issued. For instance, £4 had been expended for the execution of a decree for £20, and in other cases £2 or £3; the plaintiff having no protection. It happened, also, that the bailiff, having no character to lose, after extorting money from the plaintiff, betrayed him to the defendant Having got a large sum of money from the plaintiff to execute the decree, he took a sum of money from the defendant to neglect the performance of the duty for which he had been so highly paid. The bailiff, also, very often did his duty thoughtlessly and recklessly, and consequently, a large proportion of the criminal business of the courts in Ireland was composed of cases of assault and rescue, in consequence of the employment of such men. Complaints of the operation of the system were universal, and it was absolutely necessary that something should be done to protect the poor, and to secure process being properly carried out. As a remedy for the evil, it was proposed that, as in the case of the English county courts, a high bailiff should be appointed in each Irish county court, for the purpose of executing faithfully the process of

  1023
  the court. In England, the high bailiff was appointed by the Judge of the county court, and in Ireland it was proposed that the chairman of quarter sessions should appoint the high bailiff. A salary of £250 to £300 a year would be given to the high bailiff; and in large counties, such as Cork and Tipperary, it might be necessary to appoint two such officers. The high bailiff would be required to give substantial security for the execution of the process by himself and his bailiffs. He would appoint his bailiffs at his own peril, and would be responsible for their default and misconduct as well as for his own; he would be obliged, however, to execute in person every ejectment decree of the Civil Bill Court. They proposed to defray the expense by putting stamps on the process of the court to the extent of the fees payable at present to the sheriffs; and, as a sufficient sum would not be thus obtained, it was also proposed that there should be a progressive rate of stamp duty in proportion to the amount of the debt for which the decree was obtained. In that way a sufficient sum would be obtained to pay the salaries of the high bailiffs. It was desirable in this matter, as in others, to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England; and as what was proposed had worked well in the latter, there was no reason why it should not do so in the former. That, however, was not the only provision in the Bill. At present, a landlord was precluded from seizing the growing crop of any of his tenants; while a person who had a civil bill decree could seize it. That state of things led to very great mischief—potatoes, cabbages, and so on being often seized for small debts, and the landlord being, perhaps, deprived of his rent. It was proposed by the Bill to abolish the ordinary creditor's right of seizing the growing crop; and he believed the effect of that change would be to protect the landlord, and at the same time benefit the tenant. Among the objections to the Bill was this—that the sheriffs would be injured by the abolition of their fees. As a matter of fact, that was so; but it afforded no ground of complaint, the sheriffs being appointed annually, and having no vested interest. The Bill, if passed, would not come into operation till the following February, when the present sheriffs would go out of office. The appointment of the high bailiff by the chairman of quarter sessions was also objected to. That was a matter
  1024
  which might be considered in Committee. The precedent of the English courts had been followed in that respect, and it was thought better to follow that than to place a number of new appointments in the hands of the Government. He should be prepared to listen attentively to any Amendments which might be suggested in Committee.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, that in common with every Member of the House he had heard with gratification the clear and lucid statement of his right hon. and learned Friend—but in regard to some essential matters he could not concur in the views expressed by him. He would admit that the process under civil bill decrees required considerable amendment, but he could not concur in the transfer of the administrative jurisdiction from the high sheriff to the officers which the Bill proposed to create. The legal profession in Ireland was, he believed, universally opposed to that change, which proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the civil courts in Ireland resembled those of England. The county court in England was altogether a civil court; whereas these courts in Ireland comprised civil and criminal matters, and the sheriff had to be in constant attendance. If that portion of the Bill passed as it stood, the high sheriff and the high bailiff would both return jury panels at the same sittings of the court, and there would be a collision between them, which would lead to great inconvenience. He was prepared to admit that great inconvenience and injury arose from the practice of executing a warrant to a special bailiff named by the parties, and that practice therefore should be abolished; but he was at a loss to know why that duty should not be confided to the recognised authorities—the high and under sheriffs. The places to be created would, according to the schedule to the Bill, cost the country £11,500 a year; but he had heard it estimated as high as £22,000, and that additional expense was incurred in order to carry out an object which he considered injudicious, inexpedient, and unnecessary. The Bill contained some useful provisions, and with respect to one clause—that preventing the seizure of growing crops under civil bill decrees—he hoped the present Session would not pass without a measure embodying that provision being carried through Parliament. He suggested the separation of that clause from the Bill, and would like to

  1025
  see it made the substance of a distinct Bill, which could be carried, probably, unanimously through that House, With respect to the rest of the matter of the Bill, his opinion was that it was not yet ripe for legislation. It could not be dealt with by a Select Committee, and the Session was now too far advanced to take that course with any hope of passing the Bill this year.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was disposed to agree to a certain extent with his hon. Friend who had just spoken. But there was one point to which the attention of the House ought to be directed, and that was, that it was impossible to throw the duty of executing the civil bill decrees on the sheriff, on account of the smallness of the fees. Now, he could conceive nothing more monstrous than the present system, which allowed the writs to be placed in the hands of persons not duly authorized to execute them, who sometimes committed the greatest enormities. He considered an alteration in that respect essential to the administration of justice in Ireland, and he should be sorry indeed if it were postponed. With respect to the expense, he understood the assent of the Treasury to the increased expenditure had been obtained. No doubt, they ought to do nothing to lower the dignity and power of the sheriffs; but the present Bill was absolutely necessary to avert a great evil, and he had an Amendment which he hoped would reserve to the sheriff his present power and emoluments. He hoped sincerely the Bill would not be postponed.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he believed that all persons in Ireland would agree in thinking that it was most desirable to get rid of that class of persons which the present Bill proposed to supersede, and to place the office in respectable hands. He preferred for the purpose a high bailiff, as provided by the Bill, to the high sheriff, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the county of Wexford; and he thought the appointment should rest with the Government, responsible to Parliament, rather than with the assistant barristers or sheriffs.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, that the sooner the monster abuse arising out of the existing mode of appointing bailiffs to execute civil bill decrees was got rid of the better; but he did not approve the plan adopted in the present measure for that purpose. While a constitutional officer like the sub-sheriff was in existence, he ought to be made to perform his duty;
  1026
  and it would be much better to pay to him the money that was proposed to be given to a new officer, and thus get rid of the principal difficulty which had arisen. There were three provisions in the Bill which he regarded as exceedingly valuable. Those were the proposed enactment with respect to the non-seizure of the growing crops, though he should have been better pleased to see a short Bill by itself introduced on that subject—the power taken in the Bill of paying the expenses of witnesses—and the authority given to the judge to amend the proceedings, so that justice might not be defeated by an error arising from mere oversight. Further time, however, was required for the consideration of the measure. There was no analogy between the system of high bailiffs in England and that proposed in the Bill, for the jurisdiction of English county courts was only civil, whereas the Irish county courts had both civil and criminal jurisdiction There was no conflict or confusion of authority in England between the sheriff and high bailiff, but both would certainly arise under the different jurisdiction that existed in Ireland On the whole, he thought the Bill should be postponed till next year; but meantime the Government should deal with the power to seize the growing crops.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, sufficient notice had not been given of the Bill. It was a subject that the Government ought to postpone until the grand juries in Ireland, who were about to meet, should have an opportunity of giving an opinion on it.
  MR LONGFIELDsaid, the Government deserved credit for dealing with this important subject, but the fact of the importance of the subject was the reason why it should receive great consideration. Although his opinion was in favour of special bailiffs as appointed under the Bill, he could not but forget that the system had been tried in the Act of 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 74, and had turned out inoperative, or that it was repealed in the very next year. While cordially supporting the main principle of the Bill, he thought that more time should be allowed for its consideration; and he hoped that if they read the Bill a second time, it would not be pressed further during that Session.
  MR. LEFROYremarked that he had received communications from various quarters in Ireland which led him to think that a postponement of the further progress of the measure was desirable.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he had not heard any objection to the principle of the Bill. Irish Members were well informed on the subject; they knew there was a great grievance to be remedied, and he hoped they would assent at once to the Motion for the second reading. The details might be considered in Committee.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONexpressed the hope, that if the Bill should be postponed till the next Session, the question of the seizure of growing crops would be made the subject of a separate measure, to be introduced and passed as speedily as possible.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he was glad that the House was unanimous in feeling that the principle of the Bill had been most fairly and ably explained by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. The Bill had been before the House several weeks, having been printed on the 19th of May, and therefore some time had been given to consider it; and if the House would read it a second time, they would postpone the Committee till Monday week. He believed that the cost of carrying out the measure would not exceed £11,500, and the Treasury had consented to the expense on condition of their receiving the fees under the Act. With respect to the patronage which would be created under it, the Government were prepared, though reluctantly, to undertake it in deference to the opinion of the House. The 49th clause was introduced to remove a hardship to which a poor occupier was subject—namely, the seizure of his crops when they were not one-tenth of their regular value. If the measure was not likely to pass, he would consider the propriety of introducing that clause as a separate Bill, but he would not give a pledge to that effect.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not think the postponement of the Committee till Monday week would allow sufficient time to elicit the opinion of Ireland on the much-debated question. That was a date at which most Irish Members would be absent, attending on their assize duties.
  LORD NAASsaid, the Government would find it impossible to discuss the Bill in Committee on Monday week, owing to the pressure of other business. There were objections to the principle of it which Were worthy of consideration, such as the cost which the working of the Bill must entail on the country, and the additional cost which it must cause to the parties
  1028
  themselves. Then there was the expense of witnesses to be thrown on the litigant parties. Again, the high bailiff would have the power of calling out the posse comitatus, so that there might be a collision of jurisdiction between that official and the high sheriff. He thought the Bill ought to be sent to a Select Committee.
  Bill read 2o, and committed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee instead of a Committee of the Whole House. The matters in the Bill, especially those which had reference to the duties of sheriffs, required the greatest consideration, far more than could be given to them late in the evening or at a morning sitting. If the Government acceded to his Motion, he would be glad to allow the right hon. Gentleman to nominate the Select Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Committee of the Whole House," in order to add the words "Select Committee,"—(Mr. Longfield,)—instead thereof.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion; and if the time between the present and Monday week should not prove sufficient, the Government would name Thursday fortnight for the Committee. It would be far better to discuss the provisions of the Bill in a full House than in a room upstairs. The objections which had been put forward would be fully considered by the Government before the House went into Committee on Monday week.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 36; Majority 4.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed for Monday 29th of June.

  DOMESTIC SERVANTS AND APPRENTICES PROTECTION BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount RAYNHAM, Bill for the Protection of Young Persons under the age of sixteen years, engaged as Domestic Servants and Apprentices, ordered to be brought in by Viscount RAYNHAM and Mr. BEAMISH.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 168.]

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount RAYNHAM, Bill to regulate Corporal Punishment in Schools and elsewhere, ordered to be brought in by Viscount RAYNHAM and Mr. DUNLOP.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 169.]

  WALMER VESTING BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill for vesting in Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department certain Lands and Hereditaments at Walmer, in the county of Kent, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and the JUDGE ADVOCATE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 170.]

  HOWTH HARBOUR BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PEEL, Bill for the further improvement of the Harbour of Howth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. MILNER GIBSON.

  INCLOSURE (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Bill to authorize the Inclosure of certain Lands in pursuance of a Special Report of the Inclosure Commissioners, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 167]
  House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.