Sitting of 1 March 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Public Accounts, Mr. Bouverie discharged, Mr. Hankey added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—£56,788 5s. 6d.,—EXCESSES ON GRANTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Factory Acts Extension; Hours of Labour Regulation; Religious, &c., Buildings (Sites); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries.*
First Reading—Factory Acts Extension [62]; Hours of Labour Regulation [63]; Religious, &c., Buildings (Sites) [64]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries* [61].
Third Reading—Trades Unions* [58], and passed.

GAS AND WATER BILLS.

  RESOLUTION.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTEN COLONEL WILSON PATTEN moved the following Resolution:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee of Selection that they have power to refer every Gas and Water Bill of the present Session, except those relating to the Metropolis, against which a Petition indorsed for hearing before the Referees has been presented, to the Court of Referees instead of to a Committee of the House, with power to the Referees to inquire into the whole subject-matter of the Bill, and to report the Bill, with or without Amendments."
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, that he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Instruction, but to throw out a suggestion to the hon. and gallant Member. By the present practice of Committees on Private Bills, it is not competent for a Select Committee on a Private Bill, whether opposed or unopposed, to make any inquiry into matters which by Standing Order No. 92 were ordered to be inquired into by the Court of Referees. In this way several Bills passed through the House with too little inquiry as to the engineering merits of the scheme. Sometimes inhabitants of a town or parties interested did not like the expense of opposing a Bill, and thus schemes of very inferior merit often passed into law. The suggestion he would like to make was, that every Private Bill, whether opposed or unopposed, should be referred to the Court of Referees for inquiry as to the matters detailed in Standing Order No. 92. That Standing Order required the Referees, in the case of all opposed Bills, to inquire into the engineering details and efficiency of the works, and the sufficiency of the estimate for all railways, &c.; also in the case of Waterworks Bills, into the proposed source of supply, the quality of water, and the storage reservoirs; and in the case of Gas Bills, into the quality of the gas, its supply and price, cost of production, &c. He merely wished to throw this proposal out as a suggestion to the hon. and gallant Member as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that if his hon. Friend would bring the matter forward before the Standing Orders Revi-

  1229
  sion Committee, they would be very glad to consider the suggestion.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Instruction to the Committee of Selection that they have power to refer every Gas and Water Bill of the present Session, except those relating to the Metropolis, against which a Petition indorsed for hearing before the Referees has been presented, to the Court of Referees instead of to a Committee of the House, with power to the Referees to inquire into the whole subject-matter of the Bill, and to report the Bill, with or without Amendments, to the House.—(Colonel Wilson Patten.)

METROPOLIS—BUNHILL FIELDS CEMETERY.—QUESTION.
MR. REMINGTON MILLSsaid, he wished to ask the Judge Advocate General, If, when the present lease of the ancient Burial Ground of Bunhill Fields to the Corporation of London expired, it is the intention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to preserve it inviolate and in perpetuity, together with the vaults and graves, and to provide for its future maintenance in decent order; if so, whether it is intended to promote a Bill in Parliament for these purposes?
MR. MOWBRAY: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Wycombe. I have to say that it has throughout been the intention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and still is the intention of those Commissioners, to preserve the ancient burial ground of Bunhill Fields inviolate and in perpetuity, together with the vaults and graves. This intention will be found fully expressed in a Correspondence which will be on the table of the House in a few days. With respect to a provision for its future maintenance, I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that some questions are pending between the corporation of the City of London and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on which the Commissioners have twice offered a reference to arbitration, which has not been accepted. Till we receive the answer of the corporation of course I can give no further reply. With regard to the last question, it is not intended to bring any measure on the subject into Parliament during the present Session. The Commissioners had no intention to devote the ground to any other purpose than it had always been devoted to.

JURYMEN (METROPOLIS)

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished
  1230
  to ask Mr. Solicitor General, If his attention has been called to the length of time Jurymen in the Metropolis have frequently to wait before they are called on the trial for which they are summoned, to the inconvenience of their having three or four summonses for different courts in one week, and to the frequency with which the same persons have to serve; and, if so, whether it is his opinion that a measure could be devised to fix the day when Jurymen are actually required to attend, to make the fees of Special Jurymen more in accordance with the time they are compelled to serve, and if it would not be to the public interest that trials should be shortened?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALreplied, that his attention was directed almost daily to the time that jurymen in the metropolis had to wait before the trial was called on for which they were summoned. This, however, was unavoidable. Special jurors were summoned to try a particular case, and if the preceding cases occupied much time the jurors were obliged to wait. As to the inconvenience of having three or four summonses for different courts in a week, that arose from the existing state of the law. In London and Middlesex juries were summoned for particular cases. In the rest of the country the law was different. When the law was altered in 1852 as to the mode of summoning juries in the provinces it was allowed to remain as it was in London and Middlesex. As to the frequency with which some persons were summoned to serve, that also arose from the state of the law. In his opinion, no measure could be devised to fix the day when jurymen were actually required to attend, because the time when any trial would take place must depend on the time which the cases preceding it in the list occupied. As to making the fees paid to special jurors more in proportion to the time they were compelled to serve, he would remark that special jurors were paid a guinea each trial. It would be easy to fee the special jurymen higher; but however easy it might be, it would not be a measure of justice unless something were also done in the way of paying common jurymen, who now received only 8d. per cause. And although a guinea was the proper fee payable to special jurors, he knew a case—the celebrated Windham trial—where each special juror received thirty-five guineas for thirty-five days' attendance. As to shortening the duration of trials, his

  1231
  opinion was that it would not he expedient to shorten them. The complaint generally was, that trials were not too long, but too short. Nor did he think it would be for the public interest that trials should be shortened.

SCOTLAND—ROAD REFORM.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have any intention of introducing any general measure of Road Reform for Scotland during the present Session?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply, that he was not aware that any measure for road reform in Scotland would be likely to lead to a satisfactory result.

NAVY—TENDERS FOR GUNBOATS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENDERSONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Specifications for building Iron Gunboats and other Ships of War are not being prepared; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to invite Tenders from the builders on the Thames exclusively, or whether builders in other parts of the kingdom will have the opportunity of tendering for such vessels?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: My answer, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Member for Durham is this—it is the intention of the Government, in moving the Navy Estimates, to propose the building of two iron gunboats; and the specifications are now being prepared, so that we may receive the tenders as early as possible. This course has been taken on account of the great distress which has been found to prevail among the shipbuilders in the East of London, and with the object that, if Parliament sanction the building of those ships, the companies on the Thames may, as early as possible, prepare for work. This is the course the Admiralty are taking; but it is not the intention to confine the tenders to the Thames companies only. On the contrary, it is intended to call on all the shipbuilders, usually called on, to send in tenders, and the most satisfactory ones will be selected.
  MR. HENDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as great distress prevails among those engaged in the iron trade as among the shipbuilders on the Thames?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I think I can say that no favour or partiality will be shown to the builders on the Thames over those anywhere else.

GOVERNMENT PRISON CLERKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Petition from the clerks in the various Government Prisons, praying for an increase of salary, as sent to the Directors of Convict Prisons on the 19th of November, 1866, has been forwarded to the Treasury; and, if so, whether an answer may soon be expected, or if its prayer will be granted?
  MR. HUNTsaid, in reply, that the petition had been sent to the Treasury at a much later date, and had not come under his notice until the Estimates for the year 1867–8 had been closed. It required to be referred to another Department before coming to the Treasury for decision.

PARIS UNIVERSAL EXHIBITION AND MUNITIONS OF WAR.—QUESTION.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether all or any portion of the Munitions of War, including machinery, have been shipped for or otherwise transmitted to Paris for the purposes of the Great Exhibition in that city; and, if so, at what date such transmission took place, and by whose authority?
GENERAL PEEL: The Question, Sir, respecting the exhibition of munitions of war was decided before I became Secretary of State for War. The War Department had been requested by the Commissioners of the Exhibition to make a selection of those munitions which they desired to have exhibited. In consequence of that, contracts were entered into for the conveyance of the munitions; the contracts were concluded on the 14th of February; the vessels arrived in the Thames on the 21st of February, and commenced lading. A question was raised in this House as to the propriety of exhibiting munitions of war, and if any notice had been laid upon the table of the House I certainly should have taken upon myself to delay the departure of the vessels until the question was decided. As the contracts had been entered into, and no notice on the subject had been given in this House, the vessels sailed on the 28th of February.

SUPPLEMENTARY ARMY ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When he proposes to lay the Supplementary Army Estimates upon the table of the House? He wished also to know, whether he was to understand from a reply of the I right hon. Gentleman on a former evening that he declined, under any circumstances, to lay upon the table the Report of the Committee on the Land Transport Corps?
  GENERAL PEEL: I propose, Sir, to lay the Supplementary Army Estimates on the table on Monday next. With regard to the Report of the Land Transport Committee, my answer was that that Report had not yet reached me, and until I had seen it myself I could not say whether it should be laid upon the table or not.

WAR IN THE RIVER PLATE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the continuation of the Correspondence relative to the war in the River Plate may be expected to be laid upon the table; and if the Mediation of Her Majesty's Government has been solicited by either, and which, of the belligerents, and with what result?
  LORD STANLEY: The Correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers is now in the hands of the printer, and I hope to be able to lay it on the table in a few days. The mediation of Her Majesty's Government has not been solicited by either of the belligerents.

DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND—THE "CORK HERALD" REPORTER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that a reporter employed by the Cork Herald newspaper was arrested at Killarney, and has been imprisoned, and is still in close confinement, because, in the discharge of what he considered to be his duty, he offered for transmission by Telegraph a message bearing the heading "Disaffection amongst the Military;" and, if it be true, by what legal authority that arrest has been made?
  LORD NAAS: Sir, on the 20th of February a telegram was taken to the telegraph clerk at Killarney to this effect—
  "Rumoured disaffection of troops. Officers heard men singing songs with civilians. Removed by police. Military sent to quarters. Fourteen soldiers missing this morning. A wire cut last night at Cluanmullane."
  I need hardly assure the House that with the exception of the last—the cutting of the telegraph wire—the whole was entirely false. On this message being taken to the magistrates by the person charged with the conduct of the telegraph at Killarney, the magistrates thought it their duty to order the arrest of the person who was proved to have sent the telegram. It turned out that the gentleman's name was Tracey, and that he was a reporter of the Cork Herald. The magistrates considered that this person, in sending this message, had been guilty of a very serious offence against the law of the land; and they committed him to take his trial at the ensuing assizes. Bail, however, was offered on his part and accepted. As the trial is pending, and as this gentleman has given notice of his intention to take action at law against the magistrates for false imprisonment, I am sure the House will feel that I should exceed my duty if I expressed any opinion on the transaction.

NAVY—COURTS MARTIAL.—QUESTION.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the sentence passed by the Court Martial on John Hawkins, of Her Majesty's Ship Cherub, on the 30th November last, has been approved by the Board of Admiralty, and if the opinion of the Legal Adviser of the Admiralty has been taken thereon; whether the attention of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty has been called to the sentences recently pronounced by Naval Courts Martial; and, whether it is in contemplation to issue any regulations with regard to the scale of punishments in future?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have, Sir, to state, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Marylebone, that the attention of the Board of Admiralty was called on the 8th of February to the court martial to which he has now referred, and by direction of the Board this Minute was passed—
"Their Lordships have to call attention to the extreme severity of this sentence, which the facts elicited at the trial did not justify; and under

1235
the circumstances their Lordships have directed that the future imprisonment shall be cancelled."
As to the other Question of the hon. Member, whether the attention of the Admiralty had been called to the sentences recently pronounced by Naval Courts Martial, I have to state that in the course of the last autumn the very serious attention of the Board of Admiralty was directed to the sentences of the courts martial. And in answer to the last part of the Question, whether it is in contemplation to issue any regulations with regard to the scale of punishments in future, I can hardly say it is in contemplation, because early in last December a confidential circular was issued to the Commanders-in-Chief and the captains of ships, calling attention to the severity of the sentences, and expressing an opinion that their severity ought to be relaxed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the preparation of the promised Reform Bill, the practice adopted in 1858 of availing himself of the services of the professional agents of the Conservative party, in lieu of the ordinary advisers of the Government, will be followed, seeing that such a mode of procedure led to a cost of £3,608 17 s. 2d., as per Treasury Minute of June 13, 1859?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry, Sir, to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton is under an erroneous impression as to the ordinary Advisers of Her Majesty's Government in drawing Bills. I regret to say that at the Treasury at the present moment there is no equity draughtsman who can assist the Government in that respect. There ought to be one; and I made an offer this year to one of the most distinguished men in the profession; but so great is the reward which first-rate professional talent now commands, that the application of the Government was fruitless, and I did not think myself justified, though the sum offered was considerable, in increasing that offer. The hon. Gentleman perhaps had in his mind the case of Mr. Thring, a very eminent man, who is usually employed professionally in drawing Bills for the Government. The appointment really filled by Mr. Thring is that of standing counsel to the Home Office, though he is employed
  1236
  mainly in drawing up Government Bills. But Mr. Thring is so over-worked just now, and such considerable appeals have been made to his energies, owing to the number of Bills introduced by Her Majesty's Government, that we have been obliged to give him extra assistance, and to ask him to undertake the work of draughting a Reform Bill, in addition to the labours which already overburden him, would be almost an insult. I trust the House will feel that the Government are not asking for too much confidence when, they hope that the House will allow them to select the best talent they can procure to perform the work now in hand; and I will not therefore dwell further upon that point. With regard to the sum mentioned by the hon. Member of £3,600, which appears in the Treasury Minute as the cost of the Reform Bill of 1859, I would observe that that sum really includes, besides the cost of drawing the Bill, which was comparatively small, the payments made to some of the most eminent statisticians and men of science, whose services were engaged in procuring facts and information upon the subject of Reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he believes that £3,600 is an extravagant sum for the preparation of a Reform Bill, he labours under a very erroneous impression. To my knowledge there have been other Reform Bills which have cost much more than £3,600. But I am sure the House will never grudge payment for any conscientious efforts in this direction. I believe I am right in stating that owing to the accumulated information now at our disposal, the cost of the present Reform Bill will amount to a sum which will quite satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the answer he has just given to the question of the hon. Member for Brighton, and also respecting an entirely different point. The right hon. Gentleman has not merely dealt with the right of the Government, which is undeniable, to engage the services of any gentleman they may select for any particular task, but also with their right to appoint a new draughtsman of Bills, who is to stand in an official relation with the Treasury. Now, I think the House would wish to receive from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that in making any such appointment he will be careful to make it known that any title which any gentleman may obtain from such

  1237
  an appointment, and the salary connected with it, will be subject entirely to the judgment of this House. The other point to which I wish to refer has reference to a misapprehension existing on a subject of great public interest—I mean respecting the time when we may anticipate the introduction of the Government measure relating to the amendment of the Representation of the People. On Tuesday I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could not then name a day for the introduction of that Bill, but could state with tolerable confidence that it would not be later than Thursday in next week. I have understood from other sources that last night an assurance was given that before the right hon. Gentleman introduced such a Bill, he would give notice of the day. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have the kindness to say in what way these different versions are to be reconciled, because great anxiety prevails upon a subject of so much importance. I think I have stated clearly the two versions, and I hope that the first of them is accurate?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The two statements I made were, I think, perfectly consistent. I hoped that I might be able to introduce the Bill on Thursday, but I particularly guarded myself on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman said—as I thought, courteously and fairly—that it was a business in which a Minister ought not to be bound to any particular day. Yesterday there was some conversation in the House on the subject. I said that fair notice should be given; and I propose on Monday next to name the day on which I will bring forward the Bill.

SUGAR DUTIES.—QUESTION.
MR. GLADSTONE: With a view to remove misapprehension in the public mind, although I myself am under the impression that a perfectly clear account was given on the subject, perhaps the Secretary of the Treasury will answer a Question with respect to the operation of the new system of duties and drawbacks upon sugar. From a telegraphic message I have received to-day from Hull, it appears that those concerned in the sugar trade there are not aware of the effect or the reason of the delay in bringing into operation that system; and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have the kindness to repeat the information which he has given in this House, and which appears not to have been quite accurately conveyed?
MR. HUNT: Last night, Sir, in moving the postponement of the Bill on this subject, I stated the present position of affairs with regard to the operation of the sugar duties and the reason for delaying the Bill at present. I said that by a Minute of the Conference, which was agreed to in September last, it was arranged that the new scale of duties and drawbacks then adopted should come into operation on the 1st of May, or at an earlier date, in case Great Britain should then have obtained Legislative powers to make these alterations. In consequence of that arrangement we supposed that the only delay likely to arise was the delay in procuring a Legislative sanction in this country; and we believed that the other Powers were immediately in a position to give effect to the Convention. But on our taking steps to submit a measure on the subject, we communicated the Resolutions in the first instance to the other Powers, and we learned there would be some delay on the part of Holland, though France and Belgium said they would be willing to give effect to the Convention on the very earliest day. The result of the communications since made is that the Dutch Government say that, under no circumstances, will they be able to carry out the alterations before the 1st of April, and that if they come into effect then, they must be accompanied by certain conditions as to floating cargoes. We have not been able to apprehend the exact nature of those conditions, and further communications have been made to the Hague on the subject. It must be clearly understood, then, that under no circumstances can the alteration take effect before the 1st of April, and if these conditions are such as cannot be agreed to by the other Powers concerned, there is every probability that the alteration will not take effect until the 1st of May.
MR. GLADSTONE: I hope the hon. Gentleman will inform the House promptly of any communication that he may receive on the subject.
MR. HUNT: I have already promised to do so.

NAVY—LIEUTENANT BRAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the Correspondence that has taken place

  1239
  between the Admiralty and Lieutenant Brand subsequent to his being placed on Half-pay?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, before answering the Question of the hon. Gentleman I must apologize to him and to other hon. Members for my not being in the House yesterday at the time a question on this subject was put. In answer to the hon. Member's Question I have to say, that as soon as Lieutenant Brand landed in this country he addressed a letter to the Board of Admiralty with regard to the rebuke which he had received from them in consequence of his letter to the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton), and I am bound to say that letter was written in very becoming and proper terms. It was ackowledged by the Admiralty, and no further correspondence has taken place. If the hon. Gentleman moves for the letters, they will be produced.

IRELAND—INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—QUESTION.
MR. BRUENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend that compensation shall be given to the county inspectors of weights and measures for the loss of their office, of which they have been deprived by Act of Parliament?
LORD NAASreplied that on the transfer of the inspection of weights and measures from inspectors appointed by grand juries to the constabulary, a proposal was made to give compensation to those officers. It was, however, negatived, and he conceived that were the proposal renewed it would not be likely to receive the sanction of the House.
MR. BRUENsaid, that he should therefore bring the Question forward on a future day.

DISQUALIFICATION OF CROWN OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated the appointment of a Draughtsman to the Treasury, he wished to know, Whether the right hon. Gentlemen proposed to exempt him from the operation of the Statute of Anne, disqualifying Officers under the Crown from sitting in Parliament?

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

IRELAND. RELEASE OF JOHN MORRIS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that in this instance the policy of extending leniency to the minor offenders, and being more severe upon the leaders of the Fenian movement, had not been observed. It was well-known that Morris was a head centre of the Fenians in Carlow, and that he had been most active and energetic in fomenting discontent in that district. It had been proved on the evidence of two witnesses at the trials of Luby and Moore, before the Special Commission, that Morris had received fifty pikes on an order in the handwriting of Stephens, and that he had taken these pikes with him by train, and had been called upon to pay excess of luggage upon them. There was at this moment in the hands of the Irish Government a ledger containing the names of all the persons to whom pikes had been delivered on the order of Stephens, and in this list the name of Morris appeared. In consequence of this evidence, the arrest of Morris was determined upon, and a reward of £50 was offered for his apprehension, the amount being subsequently increased to £100. The people of Carlow, anxious to show their loyalty and support the Government, raised by public subscription £177 to supplement the reward offered by the Government. The result was the apprehension of Morris in the spring of last year, he having been arrested with some difficulty and committed to Mountjoy Prison. In the month of August last the Government communicated with the magistrates as to the course that ought to be pursued with reference to Morris, and their advice was that Morris should be brought to trial. This advice, however, was disregarded, and a few days afterwards Morris was placed on board a steamer for America, and a free passage given to him in order that he might assist in cutting the throats of our esteemed friends the Canadians. It was not for him to cast any blame on the Government, because he be-

  1241
  lieved that the release of Morris was the act of a subordinate, without the knowledge or consent of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland; but it was evident that the magistrates had been grossly snubbed, that a failure of justice had taken place, and that there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry. He could not believe that that the Irish Law Officers had advised the exercise of such dangerous leniency. The best way of clearing up the matter would be by the production of the papers asked for.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there he laid before this House, a Copy of the Opinion of the Law Advisers of the Crown in Ireland relative to the release of John Morris, lately a prisoner, arrested on a charge of Treason-felony and Fenianism,"—(Mr. Bruen,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD NAASsaid, it was perfectly true that Morris had been a man of considerable importance, and had been connected with the Fenian conspiracy. He was consequently arrested and underwent a certain amount of imprisonment; but the Attorney General for Ireland being of opinion that it would be well to accept the offer which he made and to release him on condition of going to America, he was released in the same way as a number of other prisoners equally guilty. The Government had always acted on the principle that persons arrested under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant should not be kept in confinement any longer than the public safety required. Such persons were not arrested for the purpose of punishment, but as a preventative measure, in order to secure the preservation of the public peace. His hon. Friend was in error in supposing that a free passage to America had been given to Morris or to any of the released prisoners. No assistance was given to them either by the late or present Government, and they had invariably gone out at their own expense. Many others would have accepted the alternative of the Government sooner had they possessed the means of paying their passage. He was sorry he could not accede to the request of his hon. Friend to produce the opinion of the Law Officers. The arrest and discharge of Morris were equally
  1242
  effected on the responsibility of the Irish Government, and it would not be proper that the reasons which induced the Government to issue Lord Lieutenants' warrants should be made public. All he could say was that the Government acted upon each case on its own merits, and in deference to the opinion of those best qualified to advise them on the subject.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he thought the documents ought to be produced to satisfy the House of the prudence of the step taken. There was one point which the noble Lord had omitted to notice—namely, that Morris, who had promised to remain in America when he went thither, had now, in spite of that undertaking, returned to Ireland, or at least to some part of Her Majesty's dominions. This fact had been substantiated, and ought to be brought under the notice of the Government, for it certainly suggested the inference that there had been some negligence in this instance in granting Morris his liberty without taking a sufficient guarantee that it should not be abused.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MORRIS)said, that he thought it would be highly improper if confidential communications of this character were to be laid before the House. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) had informed the Government that Morris had returned to this country, As far as the Government were concerned, they had no knowledge of the circumstance, nor had they any reason to believe that Morris was in any part of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member for Donegal could furnish the Government with precise information on the point they would be glad to avail themselves of it.
  MR. KER: If Fenianism that has been over-riding the country is to be put down it will not be by allowing the leaders to escape and go to some other point more convenient for their designs. I cannot refrain from expressing my deep regret that the Government should have allowed these men to go free, and that you did not, when you had caught them, keep them. When you catch rats—
  MR. BRUENsaid, that in the face of the opinion expressed by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland he could not persevere in his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LIGHT AND AIR TO ANCIENT WINDOWS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the existing state of the Law as regards the right of access of light and air to ancient windows, and to the necessity of providing by Legislative enactment some means by which owners of property, under proper regulations, and on payment of compensation, if necessary, may be enabled to increase the height of their buildings. It appeared that so far back as the reign of Richard the First it was anticipated that the City of London would become overcrowded with buildings, and from that time till 1834 there was a custom which enabled the owner of a house in the City to raise it to any height he pleased, notwithstanding his doing so might diminish the access of light and air to adjoining tenements, A jury of twelve aldermen, with the Lord Mayor as Assessor, were to sit and determine the rights of the parties. But in 1834 an Act was passed which gave the owners of property a right to a perpetual injunction to prevent any diminution of the access of light and air to their property. This question was one of considerable importance, owing to the constantly increasing pressure for increased extent and accommodation of buildings in the metropolis, and the consequent necessity that was felt more and more of increasing the height and improving the character of ancient buildings. The law as it at present stood was such that persons anxious to improve and heighten their buildings were at the mercy of their immediate neighbours, and most extortionate demands were commonly made when any alterations of this character were contemplated. When the Act of 1834 came into operation the difficulties which now existed began to arise, and it has been held by Lord Westbury that when any window of a dwelling-house shall have been actually enjoyed for a period of twenty years without interruption, the right to such window shall be absolute and indefeasible. The difficulties to the public arose in this way. Supposing a man to have only a small window, admitting only a comparative small quantity of light, and another, in order that he might alter his house or premises, wanted him to enlarge his light, the law said you shall do nothing that can compel a man to enlarge his window unless he chooses. Suppose a person wishing to build said to the owner of a
  1244
  small window, "If you will enlarge your window, or do anything that will bring in rays of light, and will at the same time allow me to erect a building near your property, then you will not suffer from any diminution of light and air, but will obtain a greater access of them." The owner of the small window might refuse unless a very large pecuniary compensation was given to him. A case came before Vice Chancellor Wood, and the answer given by the Court was, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to make any alteration in his house to enable another to deal more advantageously with his own property. On that decision a party owning a small window could make terms advantageous to himself. In a work recently published, he found in the preface this extraordinary statement—
  "Since the demand has arisen for now and enlarged buildings, the right to window lights has become of considerable pecuniary value."
  That was to say, a person having a small light was not held to have it as an enjoyment for himself, but as of largo pecuniary value; because, unless a large pecuniary compensation was given, he would go to the Court of Chancery, and prevent any one erecting a building which should have the effect of diminishing that light. But the law extended not only to adjoining property, but to property on the other side of the street. Supposing a street to be twenty, twenty-five, or thirty feet wide, if it could be shown that by any building on one side the area of light did not come at its original angle, an application could be made to the Court of Chancery to restrain anything from being done, and there were cases where half a street had been stopped from anything like improvement. Some few years ago it was necessary for a man to go to a Court of Law to have his rights determined by a jury; but now a Court of Equity could deal with the legal rights of the parties, and a person might obtain a perpetual injunction. The Building Act did not provide any safety-valve; for even supposing an order to be made by the district surveyor, a man might still apply to the Court of Chancery. Suppose two building plots, of 100 square yards each, were purchased by two persons, and that one of the plots let very quickly to builders, while no buildings were raised on the other plot for a period of twenty years. Under the present law, the owner of the latter

  1245
  plot could be prevented by a perpetual injunction from raising buildings which would interfere with the access of light and air to buildings raised on the former plot. The law in France was different. An owner there could not acquire any right against an adjoining owner without giving him notice; and if he did acquire any such right it could always he restricted to six feet directly and two feet laterally. The consequence was that large decorative and other improvements were continually going on in Paris. He did not want to give any man the power to injure his neighbour. What he wished to do was this—that as there was an absolute necessity for carrying up buildings, so as to give a greater amount of accommodation to the mercantile public, any injury should be compensated by damages and not by a perpetual prohibition. If the House was in the habit, for the public convenience, of granting to railway companies the right not only to shut up lights but to take property, surely some plan might be devised for settling the cases to which he had referred by means of a jury. The suits instituted for the purpose of preventing an interference with light and air occasioned lengthy discussions on the difference between perpendicular light and lateral light, and the Court itself was sometimes puzzled to know what sort of a decree it should make. If his suggestion were adopted such discussions would be avoided, he wished to know whether the Government thought it was possible to prevent litigation on this subject by bringing forward a measure? If it was thought desirable he would move for a Select Committee on the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would be impossible to accede to any such Motion. The subject was no doubt one of growing importance; but he thought it had been somewhat exaggerated by his hon. Friend. It should be borne in mind that the law was carefully considered and settled so late as the year 1834. In the City of London, up to that time, there was a custom that tenements might be built upon old foundations to any height without regard to other people's light. That was greatly complained of, and it was thought proper to abolish that custom. The owner of a tenement had a right to a certain amount of light, and if he had enjoyed that light for twenty years it was his property. Of course, if the interests of the public required it, the right might
  1246
  be taken away on payment of compensation. No doubt there must be some cases of hardship under the present state of the law; but he thought it would be unreasonable in an offhand manner to unsettle what had so lately been, after full consideration, settled. It was impossible either for a Select Committee or the Government to take the subject into consideration during the present Session; and he therefore trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press the matter further. In another Session, perhaps—if the hon. Member again introduced the subject—the matter might be fully considered.

EXPORTATION OF COOLIES (EAST INDIES.)—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I rise, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the exportation of Coolies from the East Indies. There is no doubt a great difficulty in calling the attention of the House to a question of this nature, seeing that it does not possess any political interest, and is of long standing; but if the House will grant me their attention for a short time, I think I shall be able to show that the subject is one of the saddest and most melancholy interest, and one well deserving the attention of the country. It affects the lives of a great number of persons, who, although not our countrymen, have a claim upon us to the fullest protection. At one time we encouraged the slave trade. We afterwards abolished it at an immense cost. Since the abolition of that trade, we have kept up a large force on the coast of Africa at an expense of nearly £1,000,000 a year, for the purpose of suppressing the slave trade. But, whilst we have been incurring that heavy expense we have been encouraging, promoting, and developing a system of what is called free labour, in the shape of emigration from the East Indies, which is nothing more than the slave trade in another shape. The system is objectionable on another ground. At this very moment—I believe the noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne) will bear me out in the statement—labour is wanted in our Indian dependencies, especially in Bengal, and all this time we have been promoting the system of free labour emigration. When we abolished the slave trade, and made the Negroes free, the natural result was that they would not work, and it was therefore impossible to cultivate the plantations

1247
in the West Indies. To meet that evil the Government promoted the system of exporting coolies from the East Indies. When colonies state what number of labourers they require, an officer is appointed in the East Indies to collect these labourers, and ship them to the different colonies with all possible despatch. If there be a demand for labour in one place and a superabundance in another, it might naturally be expected that it would find its level. The system of emigration from the East Indies, on conditions which bind the labourers to periods of servitude for three, or five, or seven years, is open to very great evils and abuses. What is the manner in which these poor people are induced to emigrate? Officers are appointed to collect them together, and they are induced to embark on this venture by the most illusive promises. Their credulity is imposed upon by the picture of an El Dorado, which it is represented to them they will find on their arrival at their destination. Having by these means been brought together at some establishment at Calcutta, not more than five days are allowed them before they are shipped off to the colonies, and, no doubt, when they arrive there theoretically their rights are secured to them, and if the persons to whom they are articled do not fulfil their obligations they have the power of appeal to the magistrates. But it should be recollected that the appeal is to the magistrates of the Province where the plantations are situated; and, in one instance, where a number of the workpeople, including several women, made a complaint to a magistrate at Durban, in Natal, because they ought to have complained to a magistrate in the district where the planter lived, they were not admitted, and afterwards the overseer came into the town, tied them to carts, and flogged them back again to their own district. Although they are surrounded with rights, yet, owing to their ignorance and their inability to understand their rights and privileges, they are of little or no value. It may be said that these are exaggerated statements but there is one point which admits of no such accusation, and that is the treatment which these poor people experience on shipboard, and the conduct of the officers in India, in shipping them in vessels which they charter for the purpose of conveying them on these "voyages of death," as they are called in India. The official Report for 1864–5 contains the following figures:—
1248

Coolies shipped.

Landed.

1st Ship

457

420

2nd Ship

490

>435

3rd Ship

585

392

4th Ship

431

343

5th Ship

454

311

6th Ship

398

250

7th Ship

491

195

3,306

2,346

This statement shows that nearly one-third died on the passage, and great numbers died soon after their arrival from weakness and sickness. Surely such a state of things is deserving of the attention and consideration of the House and the Government. Now let us inquire into the causes of this state of things. The object of the officers is to secure a ship as cheaply as possible, and the consequence of the system was the fearful loss which occurred only eighteen months ago. All these things, notwithstanding their importance, attract little or no attention. Yet we are responsible for them if we approve them. But I will give you one more instance. The Eaglespeed, with a number of coolie emigrants on board, was wrecked the day after she set out, she not being a seaworthy vessel, and the loss of life was 262 souls. It is a remarkable fact, however, that none of the Europeans were missing. The Report upon that case points out some of the evils with which we should grapple. It appeared that both the emigration agent and the protector repudiated any responsibility in the matter. They both said they had nothing to do with the crew of the vessel and could not be held responsible. The wonder is, under such circumstances, that the loss of life in cases of this kind is not much greater. There were no life-buoys in the ship, although five had been provided, and the number of emigrants embarked was 425. The Report finds, with regard to the protector, that he was quite in error as to the scope of his duties, and then we come to another part of the Report, which is one of the most striking things I have ever read. Here you have a ship sinking the day after she sails, and 262 lives are lost; and on an investigation being made into the circumstances of the wreck, it is found that the chief officer of the ship was sick at the time, and did little or nothing; that the doctor was suffering from an attack of pleurisy, and therefore did nothing; that the second officer was sober, but suffering from the effects of liquor; that the boatswain had jammed his finger, and was in a great

1249
measure off duty; that the captain saved his own life, but did nothing else; and that the crew, with two exceptions, behaved disgracefully. It was shown that all the lives might have been saved with proper care; but as it was, the captain and crew left the ship, and 320 souls were left there to perish. The conclusion arrived at in the Report was that the emigration agent and protector failed in their duty; that the captain and doctor erred deplorably; that the second officer and boatswain behaved disgracefully; and that the crew also behaved badly, the only persons on board who behaved well, being two seamen named William Maynard and William Wilson. It may be said that this is an isolated case, and does not prove that other vessels are not properly manned and commanded; but we do not know that, for it is seldom we get so full a Report bearing upon the treatment the coolies receive. In 1859 an interesting article on the subject appeared in the Revue des Deux Mondes. It reviewed a work by M. Du Hailly, who said—
"To him (the planter) the coolie merely took the negro's place, and emigration was no more than a return to the old system; it was—if one may venture to say so—the slave trade of the 19th century."
The same author said—
"It is curious that emancipation has brought back recruiting for labourers for our colonies nearly to the state of things prevailing before slavery existed as an institution. What virtually is the emigrant but a modification of those white bondsmen of the 17th century who paid for their passage by a three years' surrender of their liberty, and whose sufferings brought to mind the most frightful features of the slave trade?"
A gentleman who has published a work in favour of the system of emigration (Mr. Beaton) writes—
"The Government, yielding to the popular clamour and the threats of the press, ordered the 656 coolies to be disembarked on Flat and Gabriel Islands, two miserable rocks, a few miles from Port Louis, where no sufficient provision had been made for affording them shelter and food. The condition of these miserable wretches was truly deplorable. The quarantine laws, strictly enforced, forbade them to land—the open sea and the bare rocks offered them only a grave. In the course of a short time the bones of 200 coolies were bleaching on those barren rocks, the victims of Creole cowardice and Government mismanagement. This painful mortality created little sensation among the Creoles. Cholera had broken out in Port Luis, and they had no sympathy for any suffering save their own."
That cannot be an exaggerated account, coming as it does from a gentleman in favour of the system under which such things
1250
are done. Is it possible, then, for us to shut our eyes to the abuses which have occurred in the mode of carrying out this system of free labour? It is an absurdity that we are keeping up a fleet at an expense of £1,000,000 a year to suppress; slavery, and that yet we are permitting it in another form, and misleading the poor people who are called free labourers. But what shall we say to the conduct of Earl Russell's Government in entering into a treaty with the French to allow them to take our labourers to the island of Reunion at the rate of 10,000 a year? There is no doubt that in 1858 the French were engaged in the African slave trade at Zanzibar, and that they introduced slavery under a false pretence. The French ship the Charles et Georges was taken, and that led to a diplomatic difficulty. They I induced labourers, under false pretences, to embark, and then treated them as slaves. We protested. Lord Malmesbury protested in a despatch to Lord Cowley, which would apply equally to our conduct now, saying—
"Your Excellency is aware that Her Majesty's Government have not altered their opinion as to the analogous nature of the scheme of the French nation for exporting negroes with that of the avowed slave trade."
At that time the Isle of Reunion required 10,000 a year of these so-called free labourers to keep up the supply. Subsequently, in 1860, Lord Russell entered into this Convention with the Emperor of the French, to allow the exportation of these coolies from India to the Island of Reunion, where we could have no control over them. That treaty, I believe, should have expired last year. I asked the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Layard) last year on this point, but he wished me not to bring the question forward, as he thought France would not ask to have the treaty extended. I believe, however, that the treaty was extended for another year after all, and whether it expires this year or not I cannot say; but I hope that if it does expire, or has expired, it will never be renewed. There is responsibility enough, and evil enough, for us in what we are doing in our own colonies, without giving other countries power over these unfortunate men. I am asked, "Do you propose to ruin these colonies by allowing no further exportation?" No! I think it would not be difficult to improve our present system, and to repress some of these evils. Some of the recommendations I am about to name to the House have

1251
been suggested to me by gentlemen who are perfect masters of the subject—who have themselves lived abroad, and given me accounts of more scenes of sadness and sorrow than I choose to trouble the House with. As remedies for the evils now existing the following suggestions had been made by exceedingly competent authority:—
"1. That no further extension of the present system be permitted. 2. That the trade in seagoing coolies be more nearly assimilated with that which has been found necessary in Assam and Cachar; and that the severe laws governing the latter, as recently passed by the Bengal Legislative Council, be followed so far as practicable. 3. That after a given period only those colonies should be allowed to recruit Indian labourers as can show an absence of such population as could develop its soil. 4. That no further treaties be entered into giving to any foreign Power the right to recruit in British India. 5. That it should be impressed upon colonial Governments that China affords a large market for available labour, if properly enlisted in that country. 6. That the laws of recruiting in India should be made more comprehensive, and that greater checks should be put upon the exportation of persons not thoroughly comprehending the nature of the servitude they are undertaking."
It has been said that we do not take such an interest in the Chinese coolies; but it should be borne in mind that the Chinese are a very different race to the Bengalees. You cannot treat the Chinese as the Bengalees are treated. The Chinese combine together, and insist upon having their rights; and there is a great contempt of life in China, which leads the men to enter of their own free will and risk the chances. They value their life at so low a rate in China, that I have heard a man sentenced to execution may get a substitute to undergo his fate for him for some twenty or thirty dollars. Then the laws of recruiting in India should be made more comprehensive, and a check should be placed upon the exportation of coolie labour. Those who take charge of the coolies should be bound to give security for their own conduct, and every man taken should be supplied with a ticket upon which is written, in his own language, a statement of the objects of his enlistment, and the name of the place he is to be taken to. Heavy penalties should attach to any man moving a coolie ten miles from his home without having a certificate. These are very simple suggestions, but they are very important. The result, if adopted, will be to secure a better class of men than the miserable crimps now employed in India, and to give the fullest information to the
1252
coolies, so that they may know where they are going, and what conditions they are subjected to. The House will see, doubtless, that great hardship is done under the present system, and that British legislation should interfere on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. I will now leave the matter in the hands of my noble Friend (Viscount Cranbourne), and I am sure the House will think that this is a case of so much hardship and grievance that I am justified in bringing it forward.
MR. ADDERLEY: Sir, the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) has attempted to make out a case against the system of coolie emigration from the East Indies such as would induce this House to put a stop to it altogether. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: No!] The hon. Gentleman says "No;" but he does not seem to be aware of what the result of his proposals would be. The proposal he makes is tantamount to the abolition of the whole system. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if his view of the case is true, no amount of advantage in the system of coolie emigration would justify such a state of things as that which he believes to exist; but I do not think he has at all made out his case, and from all the information I can acquire he is entirely mistaken on the subject. He began by saying that coolie emigration is only a modified slave trade; but that is a phrase which may be met by a counter assertion—that it is no such thing. The only facts that he has stated in his speech to base this assertion on are cases of very considerable mortality on the voyage between the East Indies and the West Indies, and of shipwreck. He states that the mortality on the voyage is 30 per cent, leaving the House to suppose that that is a fair sample of the mortality on all voyages, and that, therefore, they should be put an end to. It would be just as legitimate an argument to say that the cholera raging at the East End of London, the mortality in that district was ground enough for pulling down the East of London. In the case he has cited, occurring in 1864–5, the mortality amounted to 28 per cent, but that arose from typhus fever, arising from the starvation they came from, breaking out amongst a batch of emigrants. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: But there were eight ships.] The hon. Gentleman will excuse me; but if he will turn to the page from which he quoted, he will see that the typhus fever raged in all those ships. He asks us, then, to do

1253
away with coolie emigration from the East Indies, because the typhus fever broke out on board eight ships in 1864. In the case of the Eaglespeed which he quoted, there was no doubt a great loss of life; but the case was investigated by the Courts of Law and also by a Committee of this House, and condign punishment was inflicted on those who were guilty. But is that to be cited as an illustration of the average state of things on board all emigrant ships which carry coolies? It would be too monstrous a state of things to be allowed to continue if it were true, but the real state of things is utterly un-like that. In point of fact, there is no class of British subjects who are so care-fully protected as these East Indians, who are elaborately guarded and protected from harm in every way from the outset of their engagement through the voyage, and where they went. The primâ facie justice of the system there can be little doubt of. The hon. Gentleman himself allows that there is a great demand for labour in one part of the world, and a great want of employment in another, and it is desirable, for the interests of the world, that the excess in one part should be utilized to supply the deficiency in the other. The hon. Gentleman says that that should be left to a natural process. But no natural process will cause the poor ryots, who are starving on 2d. a day in the East Indies, to tumble into the West Indies, where labour is as necessary to the planter as food is to themselves. Steps must accordingly be taken to convey the surplus labour from the East to the locked-up capital of the West. The Act by which this is done was passed in India in 1864 to consolidate and amend seventeen previous Acts passed there since 1839. As it now stands the Act effectually protects the coolies against fraud on the part of those who recruit them. The description which has been given by the hon. Gentleman of the mode of recruiting does not in the slightest degree resemble the real fact. The recruiters who bring the coolies to the ports are licensed and are bound to wear badges. Their licenses must be countersigned by a magistrate, and when a coolie agrees to emigrate it is their duty to take him before a magistrate, and it is the magistrate's duty to explain the matter to the coolie, and to see that he understands what he is about, and whether he wishes to go, and until that is certified by the magistrate he cannot even be taken to the port of
1254
embarkation. At each of the ports where this emigration is carried on—Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, Madras being the principal—there is a protector of emigrants, who has most elaborate functions, and is subject to heavy penalties for their non-performance. He has to see that the recruiter accompanies the coolies to the port, and provides them with necessaries on the road until the time of embarkation. There are stringent provisions also against their embarkation if in ill health, and against embarkation at all without a license. The ship is also surveyed before sailing, and the master has to give a bond of £1,000 for the proper observance of the conditions prescribed. I have made careful inquiries at the Emigration Office, and had all the reports diligently searched, and there was not found a single instance of neglect, or evasion of the regulations, in the records of the office. And now as to the French Convention. The hon. Gentleman has most justly stated that that Convention was first entered into in the interest of the negroes. No doubt, it was an inducement to the English Government to supply the French with labourers, on condition that they would cease to take slaves from the coast of Africa. That Convention was made for three years, beginning in 1860, and was continued indefinitely, subject to termination, upon notice on either side, of three months; but no such notice has been given. When the hon. Gentleman talked of 10,000 coolies having emigrated from the East Indies to Bourbon, [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I was not certain of the number] he adopted a very large figure; but instead of 10,000, I believe the number who now emigrate is not ten. In fact, the emigration has almost entirely ceased. The French did not like the coolies; the scheme was a failure, and, as I have just said, there is no coolie emigration to Bourbon now going on. I have alluded to the protection granted to these coolies in the East Indies at the time of their emigration, and I wish now to show the kind of protection which they receive on their arrival at the West Indies. The emigration takes place almost entirely from Madras, and the coolies go chiefly to Trinidad, Mauritius, and British Guiana, In all the colonies where these emigrants are received laws are passed expressly for their protection—laws which have been carefully drawn up and based upon instructions from the Colonial Secretary at home, and which guard most

1255
minutely the interests of the coolies. There are, moreover, agents and sub-agents, who periodically visit the coolies in the colonies, and report to the Governor upon their condition. It is the duty of these agents to see that the regulations are carried out; that proper provisions and medical attendance are provided; that the members of families are not separated from each other; that the hours of labour are limited; that their hack passage is secured; and that the indentures are cancelled in cases where the emigrants have been subjected to cruelty or injustice. I can scarcely conceive of better arrangements being made than those at present enforced. It is perfectly true that there have been some disasters lately in the shape of shipwrecks. The Report which the hon. Gentleman quoted from stated that five vessels were lost from 1864 to 1866 inclusive. It must be remembered, however, that one of these was wrecked in a tremendous storm on the Hooghly, which destroyed all the shipping in the neighbourhood. Does the hon. Member ask us to put an end to coolie emigration because a tempest swept away the Ally? The case of the Eaglespeed I have alluded to. Another vessel put into shore on account of sickness on board, she dragged her anchor, and twenty-six emigrants perished. In another case, there was also a loss of life, and in the disaster of the Countess of Ripon, all lives were saved. Taking all together, however, I do not think that these shipping losses have lately been greater than they were in former years. There has certainly, however, been a very great mortality, particularly at the period to which the hon. Gentleman has referred to. But taking everything into account, its average has been nearer 5 per cent than 28 per cent of the number shipped; and last year, although famine was raging in Bengal, and at such a time many emigrants would embark who would be unable to stand the voyage, the average was only 2 per cent, the smallest that had yet been known. This certainly is most creditable as regards the efficient working of our agency. The House must bear in mind that, during a period of distress, such as the famine to which I have alluded, the utmost precautions will not prevent some emigrants being taken on board, who, though seemingly in good health, may, during the voyage, succumb to disease, on account of their bodies being weakened by privation. It is therefore matter for congratulation, and shows how ably our agents
1256
discharged their duty, that the mortality was not greater last year when such distress prevailed. I may state here that the agents at Calcutta have recently allotted to the coolies a larger amount of space on board these emigrant ships than was formerly given, in consequence of the mortality which prevailed during some of the voyages. The Act stipulates that only ten superficial feet of space shall be given to each person, but this has been increased to twelve superficial feet. I wish now to call the attention of the House generally to the beneficial effects of this system of emigration. It has been of the greatest possible benefit, both to the coolies themselves and to the planters of the colonies to which they are consigned. Those who have ever been the opponents of the system are the East Indian Government and the abolitionists, who blindly seek to promote the interests of the negro by the adoption of measures which are most detrimental to them. The opposition of the Government of the East Indies is easily explained. They wish to keep these coolies at home and get the benefit of their labour on the lowest terms. But, let me ask, is it fair to keep these men in India, earning wages at the rate of 2d. a day, when they can earn 1s. per day in the colonies to which they are sent? The coolies were much more slaves at home than where they went. It seemed that Pharaoh wanted to keep his slaves at home, and refused to let them go into the wilderness, where, in this case, they would get better fare. In the East Indies they wanted to keep down the mass of the labourers to the starving point. The very fever which destroyed them on the voyage should be set to the account of the condition they were taken from. When the coolies emigrate their condition becomes, not only physically, but morally improved. From being miserable and dependent creatures they become men, act the part of men, save money to a very considerable extent, and frequently return again, after taking their back passages, to their native land. I should like, while on this point, to quote some figures showing the savings which some of these emigrants have made. In 1859 there were 349 coolies who returned to the East Indies with savings to the amount of £7,496, or at the rate of £21 per head. In 1861 there were 270 coolies who returned with £3,076, being at the rate of £11 11s. per head. In another year the savings amounted on

1257
the average to £25, and in a second to £28 per head; while sums as great as £12,000 a year have gone back to India in the pockets of these coolies, Another fact, which is perhaps more striking, is the number of these coolies who having returned to the East Indies with money, have gone back again to the colonies where the hon. Member thinks they are so hardly treated. In 1866, 20,362 coolies went from the East Indies to the Mauritius; and of these 717, after returning to the East Indies, went back to the Mauritius because they liked it better. At the present moment there are 246,000 coolies in the Mauritius, the greater part of whom work regularly upon the estates. It is much the same with regard to the West Indies. There are almost as many cases of re-emigration to Trinidad and Demerara. The savings of the emigrants there are also very large, and only 13 per cent of those who go to these islands think it worth their while to return to their native country. The hon. Member has quoted one Report, allow me to quote another. It is the Report of Mr. Underhill, of whom we know something in connection with the recent proceedings in Jamaica. That gentleman, in the year 1860, went out to the West Indies as a Baptist missionary, and reported most elaborately upon the prosperity of the coolies there. The opinion of this gentleman is all the more valuable that his inclinations were all the other way, and that he wished to make out that the coolies interfered with the prosperity of the negroes. He winds up his Report by saying that prosperous as the coolies are they were not more useful to themselves than to the negroes, whose condition has been improved by the importation of the coolies among them. I need not point out to the House that if this system of coolie emigration has been useful to both coolies and negroes it has also been most useful to the planters. Nothing required steady labour so much as sugar cultivation, and since their emancipation, the negroes in our West Indian colonies could not be trusted to anything like the same extent that they were before for such labour. The slightest delay in getting in the crop was fatal; but the planters in many colonies had to trust to the negroes, who were constantly inclined to refuse to work, and he might say that their property had been saved only by the introduction of coolie labour. To abolish the system, therefore, merely because in a particular case two or three
1258
crews had been destroyed by typhus fever, and because the Eaglespeed had been lost, owing to great carelessness, would be very unwise. The hon. Gentleman proposed, first, that there should be no further extension of the system—what that obstruction and extension meant he did not know; second, that it should be assimilated to that of Assam, which, he himself admitted, he did not understand; and thirdly, that the Indian Government should be allowed to impose checks on the emigration. The result of that, considering their anxiety to retain this surplus labour, would be to put a stop to coolie emigration altogether. He hoped, therefore, the House would not adopt the views of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he wished to bear his general testimony to the correctness of the views which had been expressed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley). He believed the system to be beneficial alike to the coolies, who in the colonies earned wages which they could not earn in their own country, to the West Indies and Mauritius, and to the negroes themselves. From its very inception to its close, the system was surrounded by every possible safeguard. The Indian Government required that persons enlisting coolies should be licensed; that the coolies should be recruited in the presence of a magistrate; that a full explanation should be given them; and that, up to the last moment, before going on hoard, they should have the power of withdrawing, so that none might be taken without their full consent. The ships were carefully surveyed, the greatest precautions being taken to insure sufficient accommodation, medical aid, and every reasonable comfort; while, on arriving at the colony, under a system superintended by local inspectors, the observance of the conditions of the engagement was enforced. The coolies, more over, had the right of returning to their country, which they frequently did with I sums of money, which, to them, were considerable. This system was superintended by some of the ablest public servants which this country possessed—namely, the Emigration Commissioners. Of course, abuses must sometimes occur in this, as in every other system, and the hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of the Eaglespeed, in which, undoubtedly, great fault existed. A full inquiry, however, was made, and the delinquents received punishment. His hon. Friend would do a service to humanity,

1259
and to the Commissioners, by bringing forward any abuses which came to his knowledge; but the occasional occurrence of abuses was no reason for destroying or discrediting a system which had been productive of most beneficial results.

LAW OF MASTER AND SERVANT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had given notice that he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What are the intentions of Government with reference to the Law of Master and Servant; but instead of putting a direct question to the right hon. Gentleman, he would venture to make a request. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman publicly, as he had already done privately, to undertake to bring in a Bill to legislate on this question. He had a faint hope that such an expression of opinion would be made by hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman would be encouraged to legislate upon it. This question of the law of master and servant was one which required to be dealt with by Parliament early in the present Session. The law, as it at present stood, was this—that a servant, if he broke a civil contract, was liable to a criminal prosecution, and might be imprisoned with hard labour. Such a state of law as this was harsh, unjust, and un-called for—and required remedy at the hands of Parliament. The position in which the question stood was this:—Last Session a Committee sat to inquire into the law regulating contracts between master and servant, and the Committee unanimously came to the decision that the present state of the law was objectionable, and they passed certain Resolutions recommending some changes in the law. A Committee, representing the united trades of the United Kingdom, had expressed their approval in general terms of the Resolutions arrived at by the Committee. It being admitted that a change was necessary, the question arose by whom was that change to be made. He felt very strongly that the question was one of such importance that it ought not to be dealt with by a private Member of this House. It ought to be taken up and dealt with upon the responsibility of the Government. The Secretary of State had gained just credit to himself for the way in which he had dealt with the trades unions; but he (Lord Elcho) thought this ! question of the law of master and servant
  1260
  was not less important. It was the wish of the master as well as the workman that Government should take it in hand, and with such a general concurrence of opinion upon the subject the Government ought not to hesitate to speedily act in the matter. He was also supported in this view by the opinion of the Committee, who thought the question should be dealt with by a Bill introduced by the Home Secretary. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to take up the matter in the present Parliament, and introduce a Bill to regulate the law with regard to it.
  MR. E. POTTERsaid, he thought the question was so much mixed up with that of trades unions, that it would be better to await the result of that inquiry than to institute hasty legislation. The delay of a year or two could do no harm, for the evidence taken by the Committee disclosed very few cases of harshness or oppression, and he believed that the law was not often enforced except in cases which came under the Combination Act. The Committee did not discover a single instance of the law having operated unfairly in the district where textile manufactures were carried on, which branch of industry employed the largest number of hands in the kingdom; and his own experience, both as an employer and a magistrate, was to the same effect. If, however, a Bill were introduced, it ought to be under the charge of the Home Secretary.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that questions between masters and servants coming for adjudication before a magistrate arose frequently out of trades unions under the Combination Act. He (Mr. Candlish) had had great experience both as a magistrate and an employer of labour, and he could not remember a single instance of the kind. His experience went to show that the prosecutions under the present law were cases simply of breach of contract, and had nothing to do with the Combination Act. They occurred especially in seaports, sailors being proceeded against for refusing to go to sea. A general feeling prevailed that the law which imposed only a penalty on the employer for the breach of a civil contract while it sent the workman to prison was unequal, and ought to be amended. He hoped the Home Secretary would introduce a Bill on the subject at an early day. He was quite sure that such a Bill would

  1261
  receive the cordial support of both sides of the House, and of masters as well as men.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he concurred in the request that this subject should be taken in hand by the Government, without any loss of time, and that the summary and humiliating process of arrest should be put an end to by statute. He believed that the cases were rare in which a workman, who was supposed to have been guilty of some breach of duty, was manacled and brought before the magistrate as a felon; but he thought that there was a widespread opinion among the masters, and an almost universal opinion among the workmen, that the law was one which tended to dishonour and degrade the workman, and which, in a case of a breach of contract, placed him in a state of inferiority, mischievous to him and injurious to the master. There was one proposal of the Select Committee which ought not to be overlooked—namely, that in cases of aggravated breaches of contract, which might have caused injury to persons or property, the magistrates should have power to award punishment by imprisonment, instead of by fine. He alluded to such a case as that of an engineer who, carelessly or wilfully, left his engine, which was attached to a colliery, whereby a man ascending or descending the shaft might have lost his life, but some one providentially discovered his absence, and averted the calamity. The arrest of wages in Scotland for the payment of fines ought to be abolished. He hoped the House would very shortly deal with that question, and sweep the arrest away, as a relic of a past age, and unworthy the time in which they lived.
  MR. WALPOLE: This is, Sir, one of the most important questions that can engage our attention. The Committee of last year arrived at certain conclusions by way of Resolutions, which I thought my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) would have embodied in a Bill and submitted to the consideration of the House, That Committee, my noble Friend reported, were unanimous in the Resolutions they adopted. But this very night has shown that very great precautions are necessary in adopting these Resolutions, because one Member of the Committee has expressed doubts as to these Resolutions, and has given his reason for so doing. My noble Friend has recommended to Her Majesty's Government the propriety of bringing in a Bill on this
  1262
  subject. I will not put him off by the observation which I might make, that, owing to the great pressure of the Government business, I do not see the probability of bringing in such a measure at an early opportunity. I admit that this subject ought to be taken into consideration at an early period, and I think that both the House and the Government equally desire to entertain it. At the same time, the subject is one which it is not easy to grapple with. I am engaged in communications with the Attorney General on this matter, and, without any positive pledge as to the time when we can introduce a Bill, I will give my best attention to the subject, and will if possible bring in a measure.

REPRESENTATION OF SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid, that a few days ago he had warned the Government that when it was known in Scotland that no addition would be made to the representation great dissatisfaction and disappointment would be felt in that country. He had reason to believe that he had by no means exaggerated that feeling. He begged to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Return laid on the table last year. That Return showed the proportional number of Members which ought to be given to each of the three kingdoms. First, proportionally, as to population; secondly, proportionally, as to contributions to the revenue; and thirdly, the mean between the two. According to population the Return would give to Scotland sixty-nine Members. According to taxation it would give eighty-six Members. And the mean between the two was seventy-eight. The present number of representatives was fifty-three. He did not expect that a claim of that kind would be paid in full; but in the Bill of last year the claim was acknowledged, and it was proposed to add seven Members to Scotland. In 1859, although no specific increase was promised, he remembered that the Lord Advocate, at the close of the debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill, pointed out, in reply to a question, that there were still seats not allotted to other parts of the Empire, and that hon. Gentlemen were not to suppose that no increase was to be made to Scotland. It was generally understood at the time that they were to

  1263
  have three new Members. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely to apply the same rules to Scotland which he had laid down for England. His right hon. Friend had enlarged with great force and clearness on the necessity for enlarging the county representation in England. Yet the greatest and wealthiest county in Scotland sent no more representatives to that House than half the number sent by the county of Rutland. His right hon. Friend proposed to add to the representation of Stafford shire a new Member, who was to represent what he called the "Black Country." He begged to remind his right hon. Friend that in one of the largest counties in Scotland—Lanark—they had also a "Black Country," which was growing daily in wealth, importance, and population. Yet that county was only represented by a single Member, unless they added to its representation one-third of the Member for the Falkirk district of boroughs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now introduced the sixth of the Reform Bills which had been introduced during the last fifteen or sixteen years. The right hon. Gentleman was taking a step, in the name of the Conservative party, in the direction of Reform greater and more solemn than he had taken before. A large majority of the Members from Scotland had always declared themselves in favour of Reform, and if the question had been left to them it would have been settled long ago. Now, it appeared to him that the Conservative Members who assisted the right hon. Gentleman in taking this question out of the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite were bound to see that the interests of Scotland were as much considered and as carefully weighed by their leader and his Cabinet as they would have been by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They were making a concession to the opinions of their hon. Friends opposite, and if that concession were to do any good, it must be fairly and handsomely made. Would it be fair, or handsome, or wise, that a suspicion should be allowed to arise in Scotland that that country was not treated upon that side of the House as it would have been treated on the other; and that, in fact, it was to be deprived of its fair share of the new representation because the timepiece which regulated the opinion of the Treasury Bench went a little slower than that which regulated political opinions on the Opposition? As regards the second part of the question, respecting the source
  1264
  from which the increase might be derived, there were several seats which might be now said to be vacant. That part of the speech the other night, in which the right hon. Gentleman announced the proposed disfranchisement of the four seats which had recently been reported for bribery, was received with especial favour. If these boroughs were to be deprived of the right of sending Members to the House of Commons, would it not be wise to consider the claims of that portion of the kingdom which contained no boroughs that could be disfranchised for a similar cause? If these seats were to be taken away for the purpose not only of punishing the peccant boroughs, but also in order to give a solemn warning to the boroughs which had not yet been found out—though their bad eleotoral habits were, to say the least, strongly suspected—if such were the case, would it not add force and meaning to that warning if some of the seats were transferred to a country which, whatever might be its shortcomings, had during the last thirty years conducted its elections with almost unsullied purity? He asked this question with great reluctance, not with any desire to embarrass the Government, but because the subject excited the greatest possible interest in Scotland. So far from wishing to place any additional obstacle in the way of the right hon. Gentleman, he desired to bring the subject under his notice in order that he might take timely means to remove a difficulty which might otherwise prove serious. He begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in his proposed scheme of Reform, it was proposed to give any additional representatives to Scotland; and, if so, from what source the increase was to be derived?
  SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, he hoped that the Government, before producing their Bill, would re-consider their proposals as they affected Scotland. The hon. Baronet who had brought this question forward had not exaggerated the dissatisfaction which existed in Scotland on this subject. He should not be doing his duty if he did not state that many places in Scotland, including the borough he represented, were, from their increase in population and wealth, fairly entitled to additional representation.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, the feeling in Scotland upon this subject was very strong indeed, and he found himself in a position of some difficulty; for, though he desired to lend his support to

  1265
  Her Majesty's Government in bringing to a settlement the most difficult question which they had taken in hand, he was considerably embarrassed in consequence of the marked silence maintained by the Government in reference to a subject which excited very great interest, not only in his own county, but throughout the whole of Scotland. That was not exactly the time to enter upon the question; but he might state that he represented one of the largest counties in Scotland (Lanark), in which there were five towns of many inhabitants wholly unrepresented. There was not a case in the United Kingdom with stronger claims to be considered, although its claim was not peculiar, for Ayrshire, Perth, Aberdeen, and a number of Scotch burghs were imperfectly represented, and had also strong claims on the Government. He submitted the claims of Scotland in the interest, not only of the country itself, but in the interest of the Government and of Parliament. He desired to ask English Members whether it was fair that the position of Scotland, which was now in the enjoyment of so much wealth and prosperity, and which contributed so largely to the national resources, should remain, with regard to representation, even below the position occupied by it on its union with England. At that time, when only forty-five Members were given to Scotland, the proportion was one in twelve, and it was less than that at the present day. The union between the two countries was a close and hearty one, and English Members should not object to the claim now made for additional Members for Scotland.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he begged to join with those hon. Members who had preceded him in raising his voice in support of the claims of Scotland to be fairly considered in this matter. He wished to enlarge the question, and to suggest an extension of it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The discussion which had taken place had turned chiefly on the question of giving more Members to counties; but that point could be much better considered when the discussion on the Reform Bill took place, and he did not intend, therefore, to offer any observations upon that matter now. But his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton had made an inquiry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening respecting the sum of £3,600, paid out of the public Treasury for the procuring of statistics upon
  1266
  which to found a Reform Bill in 1859. The right hon. Gentleman very properly justified that expenditure on the ground that the information then obtained was of a most valuable nature, and that some of the first statisticians of the day, and some of the most scientific men, were employed to procure that information. He (Mr. M'Laren) had an opportunity of reading these private papers, which had never been published, and one of which was specially directed to the claims of Scotland. It was, as appears from the heading, prepared at the request of the noble Lord, now First. Commissioner of Works; and it placed those claims on such fair grounds that he should be prepared at once to accept those grounds, and ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was prepared to give effect to the opinions expressed by the scientific gentlemen and the eminent statisticians whom he employed for the purpose? The summing up of the argument, in which the claims of Scotland were rested, was as follows:—
  "In order, therefore, to ascertain whether the Scotch Members for counties and boroughs ought in fairness to be increased or diminished, he ought first to ascertain to what number of Members Scotland is entitled by virtue of her population, and then to what deduction from that number she ought to be subjected in consequence of the smaller amount of her real property."
  That principle he held to be undeniable. The result arrived at by the writer of that able paper was, that Scotch counties have too many Members, as compared with England and Ireland; and that Scotch boroughs should have twenty-eight additional Members according to population, and twelve according to population and wealth combined. The Union had been referred to. It would be seen from a Return which he had the honour of moving for last Session, and which was laid on the table, but had not yet been printed, that while the revenue derived from England had increased tenfold since the union, the revene derived from Scotland had increased sixtyfold within the same period. But it had been stated that at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill, Scotland got eight additional Members. That, so far, put matters right. But assuming that everything was then made right as between England and Scotland, still the progress of Scotland since the Reform Bill, as indicated by its taxation, was so much greater than England as to be almost incredible, he would just mention two figures to show

  1267
  how the case stood, and to found upon it the supplemental question with which he should conclude. The revenue derived from England, on an average of three years before the passing of the Reform Act, was £44,059,256, while the revenue derived from Scotland during the same period was £4,656,306. The revenue derived from England, on an average of three years ending in 1866, was £51,303,346, while that derived from Scotland for the same period was £7,740,494. Therefore, while the revenue derived from England had increased 16 per cent since the passing of the Reform Bill, the revenue from Scotland had increased 66 per cent during the same period. Justice to Scotland demanded that her proportion of representation should have adjusted at the present time; and he joined with other hon. Members who had spoken in the course of the debate, in entreating the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give effect to the calculations and statistics, which, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, were obtained from the most eminent authorities in 1859. He begged that the right hon. Gentleman would look into the Returns which had been laid on the table last night, and that he would do justice to Scotland in the proposals which he would lay before the House. He should state that the Return laid upon the table last night excluded from the revenue collected within Scotland the duties upon spirits which had been sent to England and consumed in that country. The supplemental question which he wished to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether he was prepared to give effect to the recommendation made to him in 1859, and give twelve additional Members to the boroughs of Scotland?
  MR. CUMMING-BRUCEsaid, he wished to urge the claims of the Scotch Universities. The English Universities and the University of Dublin were represented in that House by six Members, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of giving a Member to the University of London, while the, Scotch Universities were altogether unrepresented. He was informed that the constituency of the University of London would not amount to 2,000. The Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh would give a constituency of 4,000. They were entitled to one Member, and the Universities of St. Andrew's and Aberdeen ought to have one also.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he hoped that, in dealing with the question of Reform,
  1268
  the Government and the House would consider what was for the substantial benefit of the country. It was said that the Act of 1832 was a settlement of the question. He denied it. That Act had only unlocked the mind of the country.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that the general subject of Reform was not under discussion. The discussion was confined to certain matters referred to in a Question put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. HADFIELD: I was wandering. Every interest has been attended to but the claim of 5,000,000 of our fellow-subjects. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Ample occasion will be given to enter into that.
  MR. HADFIELD: The people of Scotland are the friends of liberty and enlightened policy, as is shown by the Members they send to this House. Scotland is an example to the United Kingdom. I join in the request made by the hon. Gentleman. It is a glorious opportunity, such as is seldom given to any mortal man, that is now given to my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)—an opportunity of elevating the character of the United Kingdom.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was disposed to augur favourably of the result of this discussion from the expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's countenance while he listened to the figures which were cited by the hon. Baronet who had introduced it, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state what his intentions were.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it appears to me that the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire is framed on a misconception of the precise state of affairs. I have promised the House that, with their permission, I would introduce a Bill that will improve the representation of the people in Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have not arrived at the conclusion that there is too much representative power in England. The conclusion at which we have arrived is that the representative power in England might be more efficiently distributed. As to that we have a clear opinion; but there is a great difficulty in extending the representative power in some places and curtailing it in others, so as to distribute it in a more efficient manner. In the Bill which I shall shortly ask for leave to introduce, we make proposals when we believe will render the representation of England more efficient.

  1269
  We call into the representation a number of towns which have risen into importance since the passing of the Bill of 1832. We also propose to give more representation to large districts, which, I believe, every one of candid mind admits to be insufficiently represented. We see no reason to believe that the representative power of England is greater than its population, its property, and those mixed considerations, which ought to be admitted in an adjustment of such important details, entitle it to. Therefore, I cannot admit that, in attempting to improve the representation of England and Wales, we are bound to consider the claims of any other part of the United Kingdom. I think it a course much to be deprecated that the justice of any claim, which may be urged on behalf of one part of the United Kingdom, should be made to depend on what can be subtracted from another part of the kingdom. Having said that, I must beg the Representatives for Scotland to understand that Her Majesty's Government, when dealing with the case of Scotland, will consider it without any foregone conclusion, and solely with reference to the claims which it may fairly put forth to perfect its representation in this House. The claims to representation of the Scotch Universities are, no doubt, claims that may fairly be urged. My hon. Friend has spoken of the superiority, in point of numbers, of the Scotch Universities as compared with the University of London, to which I said a few nights ago it was the intention of the Government to recommend that a Member should be assigned. But my hon. Friend cannot accuse the present Ministers of the Crown of any neglect of Scotch Universities. These Universities may now appeal with pride and confidence to the character of their constituencies and to the interests which they represent. But to whom are they indebted for that character and for those constituencies? It was the Bill introduced under our auspices in 1859 which gave, I may say, a corporate character to those Universities, and laid the foundation of the claim which they could not before then have with any propriety urged. It cannot be supposed, therefore, that we, as a Ministry, are insensible to the claims of the great seats of learning in Scotland. I have always been favourable to constituencies which, mixed with those based on the great material interests that must always form the bulk of a representative assembly, should be founded on intellect and educa-
  1270
  tion. I can only repeat to the House, and especially to the Representatives for Scotland, that they are under a very great error, if they suppose that the Government are insensible to their claims, or unwilling to consider them; but they cannot consider them on the condition, that the improved representation of Scotland is to be satisfied by the sacrifice of English interests.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Scotch Reform Bill was likely to be introduced? The character of that Bill might make a great difference in the support the English Bill might receive from Scotland.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could inform the House of the number of male occupiers resident in the boroughs and cities of England and Wales who would be placed upon the register for the election of Members of Parliament, by a household suffrage, accompanied by a three years' residence and the personal payment of rates? He had no wish to provoke a premature discussion on Reform; but the need of information on this point was sorely felt by many representatives of boroughs in England, and by none more than by some hon. Friends who sat on the Benches near him. If the right hon. Gentleman had it in his power to grant the information, or could suggest any other form in which the question might more acceptably be framed, he felt certain that, with his invariable courtesy to the younger Members of the House, he would not object to do so. From the information already in possession of the House it would appear that the borough occupiers in England and Wales, resident in houses of £10 and upwards, amounted to 639,000. Including the metropolitan constituency, these 639,000 were divided into equal halves at the £20 point; but, deducting the metropolitan occupiers whose house-rent was exceptionally high, there would remain 400,000 equally divided at the £18 point. So much for the houses above £10. Now, what was in the abyss below that limit? Looking down into it, he could not say, with Sir Charles Coldstream, that "there was nothing in it," but he believed there was much less in it than was generally supposed. The number of occupiers below the £10 level he took to be 650,000 or 700,000, not greatly exceeding therefore the number of those above the £10 level. What he wished to ascertain was

  1271
  the number of those who would come upon the electoral register in case the conditions of a three years' residence, with personal payment of rates, were insisted upon. In putting this question he was actuated by an earnest desire for the satisfactory solution of the question of Reform upon some basis that should satisfy the conditions of an equitable, a comprehensive, and a conclusive settlement?
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—EXCESSES ON GRANTS.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
£56,788 5s. 6d., for sums to make good Excesses on Grants for the following Civil Services:—

£

s.

d.

1. Office of Public Works, Ireland

747

6

0

2. Postage of Public Departments

8,522

14

5

3. Law Charges, &c, England

6,007

9

10

4. Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland

7,722

19

5

5. Maintenance, &c, of Prisoners

11,293

5

3

6. Special Missions, &c.

3,266

15

7

7. St. Helena

1,571

4

0

8. Miscellaneous Expenses

1,012

4

3

9. Inland Revenue

16,644

6

9

£56,788

5

6

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

FACTORY ACTS EXTENSION BILL.
  LEAVE. FIRST READING.

    HOURS OF LABOUR REGULATION BILL.
    LEAVE. FIRST READINGS.
    MR. WALPOLE: Sir, in asking the leave of the House to introduce two Bills upon subjects closely allied, I propose to make a statement of their provisions, so that the details may be fully considered before the measures again come on for debate. The success which has attended on factory legislation has been so great, the beneficial results that have flowed from these Acts have been so marked and are now so universally admitted, and the evils still existing in some trades not subject to these Acts are so flagrant, that I believe the time has come when, with the valuable Report of the Commissioners on the employment of children in our hands, we may
    1272
    extend the principle of these Acts more largely than it has ever been extended before. We may even act, I will not say upon a new principle, but upon one that before the present occasion has never received full recognition. These factory laws were originally applied simply to two great branches of the trade and enterprize of this country—namely, to the cotton and woollen factories. The operation of the Acts was then confined to trades where steam or water or mechanical power was applied in working the machinery. These Acts have since undergone gradual development—first, by the Bleaching and Drying Acts in 1850, then by the Lace Factories Acts, and in 1864 the same principle was extended with some modifications to six other kinds of trade. Among those trades were the manufacture of hardware, of percussion caps, of cartridges, of lucifer matches, and of fustian. Those Acts proceeded upon the main principles contained in the Factory Acts, but they carried the Factory Acts much further—namely, to employments in which steam, or water, or mechanical power was not used, and in one instance even to trades carried on in private houses. The main principles of the Factory Acts are these:—First, to provide on sanitary grounds for the health of those employed in factories; secondly, where dangerous machinery is used to take care that it is properly guarded; thirdly, to adopt what is commonly called the half-time system in regard to children under thirteen years of age, that they might attend, compulsorily, at some school for the purpose of having their education carried on at the same time that they are earning wages by their labour; and lastly, with regard to young persons and all women employed in these factories, that the hours of work should be limited to ton and a half in the course of the day, and those hours should ordinarily be between six in the morning and six in the evening. I say ordinarily, for in some respects that rule has been deviated from by subsequent Acts of Parliament, and, I am sorry to add, it has also, in some respects, been deviated from with regard to the number of hours during which both children and women are to be employed. In extending these Acts, the main difficulty which arises is not so much with regard to the extension of their principles, as to the exceptions and modifications which the special and peculiar circumstances of special and peculiar trades may require. Bearing this

    1273
    in mind, allow me to call the attention of the House to the valuable Report of the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the employment of children, and let us see what in their Report they have recommended to the consideration of Parliament. Their first Report was presented in 1863; and it was in consequence of that Report that the six new trades which I have mentioned as having been made subject to the provisions of the Factory Acts in 1864 were brought under their operation. In 1864, in 1865, and in 1866, four other Reports have been presented and laid on the table of this House. Those Reports contain a mass of matter, the value and importance of which cannot be over-estimated. In grappling with this subject a single statement will show the large field over which we have to travel, and the immense variety of interests with which we have to deal. These four Reports embrace 150 separate trades, and they affect, more or less, the growth, the health, the physical, the moral, and the intellectual condition of not fewer that 1,400,000 women and children. It will probably interest the House to know how these 1,400,000 women and children are classified according to their I respective trades. I find from the Reports of the Commissioners that the proportion of them employed in the lace, the hosiery, I and the straw-plait manufactures, and one I or two trades of a similar kind, is 320,000. In the manufacture of wearing apparel, &c, where women are principally employed, the number is 858,000 In the metal trades of Stafford shire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire the number was 91,129. In the paper, glass, tobacco, and other manufactures, it was 72,000. In the printing, book-binding, and stationery trades it was 18,250. In certain miscellaneous trades, including brickfields, it was 38,720;—making an aggregate of 1,398,199. You may, therefore, say that the Bills which I ask leave to introduce affect the well-being of, in round numbers, 1,400,000 women and children. With these facts before us, the question arises how are we to deal with trades so varied, and interests so diverse. The subject may be divided into two branches, which I have endeavoured to incorporate in two Bills, and for the sake of clearness I shall call those two branches, the trades which are carried on in the larger establishments, and the trades which are carried on in the smaller establishments. The dividing
    1274
    line between the larger and the smaller establishments cannot be made with reference to the nature of the work done in them, for it is more or less the same in both. The dividing line, therefore, adopted in these Bills, pursuant to the suggestion of the Commissioners themselves, is to measure the larger establishments and the smaller with reference to the number of persons who are ordinarily employed in them. Accordingly, one of the Bills relates to the larger establishments and the other to the smaller. The larger establishments, speaking generally, will be made subject to the regulations of the Factory Acts. The smaller establishments, also speaking generally, will be subject, not to the inspection' of the Factory Inspector, and not to the provisions of the Factory Acts, which can hardly be made applicable in all their particulars to these smaller establishments, but they will, as we propose, be placed under local supervision. I cannot do better than now briefly explain each of the Bills in their order. The first enumerates six different heads of trade which will be included in it. Then that is followed up by a seventh head, which applies to any building or premises whatever in the same occupation, in or upon which 100 or more persons are employed in any manufacturing process—that means any manual labour exercised by way of trade, or for the purposes of gain in the making, adapting, altering, or repairing of any article. The dividing line between the two Bills will take in on the one side of the line all those establishments where 100 persons or more are employed, and the other side will comprise the smaller establishments, many of which are carried on in private houses. With reference, then, to manufactories included in the first Bill, I propose to make them subject to all the provisions of the Factory Acts as to ventilation, cleanliness, security, health, the length of time during which women and children are to be employed, and as to compulsory attendance at schools for purposes of education. These will be the provisions of the first Bill; and, inasmuch as you are attempting to apply the provisions of the Factory Acts to a vast number of trades which have peculiar circumstances affecting them, and also to a vast number of trades which will require time to adapt themselves to the new requirements which the law will impose on them, there will be found at the end of the Bill certain temporary and certain permanent

    1275
    modifications which will relate to the trades included in them. Among the temporary modifications will be the allowance of intervals of time, beginning with twelve months and going on to a year and a half, for adapting those trades to the new requirements to which they will be subjected. The permanent modifications refer mainly to those special trades which require workpeople to be employed during the night. What we propose to do by the Bill is this—we will not allow children or women to be employed on night work at all but with the sanction of the Secretary of State; and where, in certain specified trades, young persons are required to be employed during the night, it is provided that they shall not be employed on the day preceding or succeeding, and that they shall not be employed above a certain number of nights in the fortnight. It will also be found that the Bill refers to certain particular evils specially referred to by the Commissioners. I allude to the grinding process and to the use of the grinding stone. When the grinding stone is used, it is found that the dust which comes from steel and stone is so deleterious to the workman that in those places where a fan is not used for the purpose of driving the dust from the mouth the grinders, inhaling the particles into their lungs, live on an average only forty years; it is therefore insisted in this Bill that fans, which in some cases are now provided at the workman's expense, shall be fixed to all grinding machines. The accidents arising from the Use of the grinding stone are so numerous, and the injuries caused by these accidents so great, not merely to the workmen actually employed, but to those in his neighbourhood, that it is required in this Bill that the stone shall be permanently fixed in such a manner as to prevent these accidents. This is the first Bill which I shall have the honour to introduce. The second is somewhat novel in principle, though not so much so as at first sight might appear. This Bill, if passed, will, I believe, do more for the benefit and protection of those who cannot protect themselves than any other measure that has yet been devised. I have already stated to the House that those engaged in the lace and hosiery trades amount to 320,000, while those employed in making wearing apparel amount to 858,000—in all, 1,178,000 out of the 1,400,000 women and children so employed. These two trades will be chiefly affected by the second
    1276
    Bill. With respect to these trades the Report of the Commissioners convinces me that the evils incident to the employment of women and children in them are unfortunately greater than the evils which have been found to exist in many of the factories already under inspection. I am sorry to add that we find these evils are aggravated to a tenfold degree in the small workshops where children are found at work. The early age at which they are forced to work, the length of time during which they are employed, the incessant labour which they are compelled to go through, the bad ventilation, the deficiency of air and exercise, the miserable want of education, and all the mischiefs that necessarily flow from these causes, make their appeal to us—they make their appeal to our better feelings—they make their appeal to our benevolence and humanity—they make their appeal to our sense of justice and right and I am sure that appeal will not be cast aside by the House of Commons without an endeavour to ascertain the source of the mischief, and if possible to apply a remedy. There are three objections—objections which appear to be very formidable at first sight—that are urged against the application of this principle. It is said that the number of people in those workshops is so small, and it will be so difficult to exercise a supervision over them, that it will be better to leave them unprotected. In the second place, it is said that the rights of private houses ought to be respected, and that we ought not to interfere with them. In the third place, it is said that we ought not to interfere with the rights of a parent over his child. Now, my answer to the first of these objections is, that it is the duty of the State to protect those who are not able to protect themselves, and that class is composed of those who are employed in the small manufactories, the women and children. Independent of that, I could show that wherever the principle of this Act has been put in operation it has always been found to be beneficial. The very first Factory Act passed in 1802, and introduced, I believe, by the first Sir Robert Peel, was applicable to places where only three persons were employed. The Factory Acts of 1833 and 1844 were silent as to the numbers employed. When you take the subsequent Acts—the Print works Act, the Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act, the Bakers' Regulation Act, and the Acts with reference to chimney sweepers—you will

    1277
    find that they all apply to places where very few persons are employed, so that the Legislature has sanctioned the principle in all of those cases to which I have referred. As to private dwelling-houses, I could quote passage after passage from the Commissioners' Reports to show that those private dwelling-houses ought not to be allowed to remain without supervision. But the principle has been already adopted by the Legislature. The treatment of lodging-houses, the Public Health Acts, the Nuisances Removal Act, and Local Government Acts, are all precedents for our guidance in this respect. As regards parental rights, I must be permitted to observe that there is a parental duty as well as a parental right. The first duty of a parent is to see that his child is physically, mentally, and morally educated, in order properly to fulfil the various duties of life. If that duty is neglected, we must come to the State, the parent of the country, to fill the place of the natural protector of the child. The main objects of the Bill are, in the first place, to secure that no children under eight years of age shall be employed in workshops; secondly, to regulate the hours of labour for children between eight and thirteen years of age; and lastly, the working hours of all young persons, not absolutely, but very nearly, in conformity with the principles applied in the Factory Acts. The question arises how those regulations are to be enforced. If we appoint Inspectors to supervise the whole of the trades to which the measure relates, they would find it a matter of impossibility, so numerous are the workshops scattered over all parts of the kingdom, to discharge that duty with anything like efficiency. What, therefore, we propose to do is to impose a penalty both on the employer and upon the person who, whether parent or not, directly profits by the labour of the children, for acting in contravention of the law. We propose further, that the local authorities shall have the power to see that the provisions of the Act are properly complied with, and, if not, to subject the transgressors to the penalty to which I have adverted. The Bill, like the other, will require to have inserted in it special clauses with respect to the grinding stones used and the grinding process which may be carried on in some of the mills. It will also contain certain modifications of the Factory Acts, in order that it may be rendered workable without interfering unduly with particular trades, which are not
    1278
    conducted in the same manner as the works in factories. I believe I have now stated the chief provisions of these two Bills, and it will be seen that they apply to every case except that of agricultural labour, and of labour in mines, and in ordinary shops. The labour in mines is already more or less regulated by Acts relating to them specially, and ordinary shops can hardly he subjected to the provisions of these Bills, As the Commission appointed to inquire into the Employment of Children in the Work of Agriculture have not yet issued their Report, I think it is better to postpone legislation on that particular part of the question—as I took occasion to say the other night, during the discussion which took place on the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett)—until we have before us those full details which would enable us to deal with it satisfactorily. I forbear on this occasion from doing more than making such a statement as will place hon. Members in a position to form an opinion on these Bills, which will, I hope, be in their hands on Monday morning, and what is to my mind still more important, will call the attention of the country generally, and of those interested in the trades to be affected, to the proposals which we recommend for adoption. Two remarks I would make before I conclude. The first is that inasmuch as we are dealing with a subject so vast, so varied, and so complicated, I am anxious that every suggestion that can be made with a view to improve these measures should be brought under the consideration of the Government and the House before they are read a second time, or at any rate, before they go into Committee. With that view I earnestly invite all those hon. Members who take an interest in the question to consult their constituents as to what amendments, if any, they would desire to see introduced into these Bills. To facilitate the attainment of that object, I would postpone the second reading for a considerable period, say, three weeks or a month. After the second reading we might put off the Committee for some time; but while, on the one hand, I should deprecate undue haste in dealing with the subject, I should, upon the other hand, equally deprecate unnecessary delay. The other remark I would make is that, fortunate as we may consider ourselves as a Government in having the honour of recommending such measures as these to the consideration of Parliament, the merit of them does not rest

    1279
    so much with us as with those who have been the originators of the Commission, and those who, as members of that Commission, have brought the matter so ably under our notice. In alluding to those to whom I think merit is due, I cannot pass without mention the benevolent exertions of the Earl of Shaftesbury, who, from the begining to the end of all these factory measures, has been the prime mover at every step, through a period of trial and of difficulty, and who now has the satisfaction of seeing his labours rewarded by the prospect which presents itself of having those labours brought to a triumphant conclusion. I must also bear my testimony to the unwearied industry, the careful investigation, the discriminating judgment, and the great ability which Mr. Tremenheere and his fellow Commissioners have brought to bear upon the subject, and I cannot better conclude my remarks than by adopting the language which they use at the end of their Report—.language which I think will find an echo in every part of this House, as well as in every part of the country—
    "We heartily trust that we may have thus in some degree contributed to bring the time nearer when so many hundreds of thousands of your Majesty's poorer subjects of the working classes—especially the very young and those of the underer sex—will be relieved from the totally unnecessary burden and oppression of overtime and night work; will be confined to the reasonable and natural limits of the factory hours, with the established periods for meals and for rest and recreation; will perform their daily labour under more favourable sanitary conditions, breathing purer air, amid greater cleanliness, and protected against causes especially injurious to health, and tending to depress their vigour and shorten their lives; and finally, will be under the obligation, between the years of eight and thirteen, of combining a certain and very useful amount of school instruction with wages, yielding employment, and thus benefiting themselves and their country by reaching, as may be hoped, when they grow up, a higher standard of morals and intelligence. Should it be found practicable to extend the principles of the Factory Acts so as to embrace the large numbers which have come under review in these Reports, the blessings which follow—if at all equal to those which have attended that series of Acts since their commencement in 1802—will largely add to the store that has been accumulated by the beneficent legislation of your Majesty's reign."
    With these words I conclude. I believe that future generations will look back with pleasure upon that reign—that beneficent reign—in which many good things have been done, but none more gracious and just than throwing the protection of wise and considerate legislation over the women and children of this country.
    MR. BRUCEthanked his right hon. Friend for the large and comprehensive measure he had introduced. The nature of those difficulties he could easily understand, having himself had to deal with the same subject, though on a smaller scale, referring only to five or six trades. With respect to the first Bill, he understood the right hon. Gentleman drew a line of distinction between establishments employing at least 100 persons and those employing a less number. He asked whether there were not certain specific trades which, whether more or less than 100 children were employed, might not properly come under the first Bill. He did not understand whether with regard to trades employing less than 100 the provisions of the Factory Acts as to the protection of machinery would apply. [Mr. WALPOLI:: They will,] He also wished to know, with reference to the second or Workshop Regulation Bill, whether it contained any provision for the education of children; because, if it did not, much diasappointment would be felt. He heartily concurred in the provision prohibiting the employment of children under eight years of age in the trades to which the right hon. Gentleman's Bills referred. It would, he believed, put an end to many grievances not only in the manufacturing but also in the agricultural districts, as he supposed the Act would apply to straw-plaiting. His right hon. Friend would, he had no doubt, find little difficulty in defending the course he had adopted with regard to children working under the paternal roof. When the Act of 1864 was framed the Government had to consider one of the worst cases, that of fustian cutting, which was mostly carried on in private houses, and it was deemed advisable then that no children under eleven years of age should be employed at a trade which could be shown to be injurious to the human frame. No doubt there would be the same objections offered to these Bills which were urged against preceding Factory legislation—namely, that there was an improper and prejudicial interference with the labour market, and that the effect would be to deprive a number of children of employment. Such a cry was in fact raised at the time of passing the great Factory Acts, and it was partly verified. In 1835, when the subject was legislated upon, 47,000 children were employed in factories; in 1838, only three years afterwards, they had dwindled to

    1281
    24,000; and in 1856, in spite of the great increase in trade and manufactures, the number employed was only 44,000. Yet such was the beneficial effect of a just and true principle that, in spite of this diminution of employment, all classes, employers and employed, were unanimous in their approval of this restrictive legislation. The limitation of labour had led to increased wages; and the improved health and intelligence of the working population were a direct advantage to the employer, more than counterbalancing the loss involved in the increase of wages. To prevent a child of four or five years old from working was not only just to the child, but ultimately advantageous to those parents who eked out their own miserable wages by the premature labour of their infant children. The Legislature, by its interference, would contribute to that even distribution of labour throughout the country, which was the most effectual remedy to existing evils. Some branches of the tree of evil had been lopped off by the previous Acts, but the right hon. Gentleman, by this large measure, had struck at its root. If the right hon. Gentleman would give one more blow by extending l the operation of the Act to the agricultural districts, he would complete a work of which this generation might well be proud.
    MR. E. POTTERsaid, he could only express the extreme gratification he had experienced in listening to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole). He knew not which most to admire—the right hon. Gentleman's talents or his industry. It was a pity, however, that the Bill did not contain a provision for the compulsory education of the children employed in the various trades affected by the proposed alteration in the law. He believed that the compulsory education conferred upon the masses by means of the Factory Acts had been one of the greatest benefits derived from those measures. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman before the second reading of the Bill, would take the matter into consideration, and would see if he could not introduce a clause to make education compulsory among the children employed in the manufactures referred to in the measure. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Bills introduced to-night would embrace 1,400,000 persons, which was double the number of those at present under the operation of the Factory Acts. If the right hon. Gentleman could make educa-
    1282
    tion compulsory upon the agricultural population, he believed it would be better than the application of the Factory Acts.
    MR. WALPOLEsaid, he felt much gratified with the reception the Bill had met with. With reference to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bruce), he might say that he had purposely avoided going into the details of the separate heads into which the various trades to be affected by the Bill were divided. The list was as follows:—
    "1. Any blast furnace or other furnace or premises in or on which the process of smelting or otherwise obtaining any metal from the ore is earned on. 2. Any copper mill. 3. Any iron mill, forge, or other premises in or on which any process is carried on for converting pig-iron into malleable iron. 4. Iron foundries, copper foundries, brass foundries, or other premises or places in which the process of founding or casting any metal is carried on. 5. Any premises in which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used for moving machinery employed in the manufacture of any kind of metal in the manufacture of India-rubber or gutta-percha, or articles made wholly or partly of India-rubber or gutta-percha. 6. Any premises in which any of the following manufactures are carried on—namely, paper manufactory, glass manufactory, tobacco manufactory. 7 Any building, or premises whatsoever, in the same occupation, in, on, or within the precincts of which 100 or more persons are employed in any manufacturing process: and every part of a factory shall be deemed to be a factory except such part, if any, as is used exclusively as a dwelling."
    The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Potter) had pointed out that the Bill contained no clause to make education compulsory upon the children employed in the various manufactures dealt with. That omission was certainly a grave defect in the Bill. The matter bad not escaped his attention; but he had not been able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the means by which the desired end should be arrived at. Not yet seeing the best mode of doing that, he thought it well to introduce the Bill merely with the points in it about which he saw his way, instead of introducing, without further consideration, matters on which he had not yet made up his mind. His notion was, before the Bill went into Committee, to insert a clause to the effect that, before a child should be admitted to any of these employments some certificate should be required for its having made a certain progress in education, and that after it had been admitted another certificate should be required of its attending school a certain number of hours each day. He would also see if some such clause could not be inserted in the Workshop Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill for the Extension of the Factory Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Lord JOHN MANNERS, and Sir JOHN PAKINGTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 62.]
    Bill for regulating the Hours of Labour for children, young persons, and women employed in workshops; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Lord JOHN MANNERS, and Sir JOHN PAKINGION. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 63.]

RELIGIOUS, &c, BUILDINGS (SITES) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that this measure was not intended to interfere with the Mortmain Acts further than to permit the founders of certain institutions to purchase or give land upon which the necessary buildings might be erected. He did not wish to enable parties to take large estates; and therefore the Bill limited the quantity to be taken, at full value, to two acres. He proposed no alteration in the laws of Mortmain, which Blackstone said were intended to prevent a dying man from endeavouring to atone for a bad life by giving to God the wealth which he could no longer retain.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the Bill of his hon. Friend had been very carefully and judiciously guarded, being limited to sites for buildings and bonâ fide purchases. He thought it would be a great improvement in the law, and he would be prepared to go further in the same direction. Its principle should be exempted from the strict rules of the Mortmain Act. He was prepared to give the measure his cordial support.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the question was one of some importance, and he should therefore reserve his opinion upon it until the Bill was before them. The Mortmain Act had been a very useful one in preventing languishing and dying persons leaving gifts to religious and charitable uses. The present measure was intended to strike a blow at that Act, although it only referred to the purchase of sites, because a languishing or dying person might on his death bed, under its provisions, ask another to buy two acres of land in the City of London, saying he would give full value for it, and make it a site for a church or chapel, or school, or anything else which came within the category of a charitable purpose. He would
  1284
  not, however, oppose the introduction of the Bill.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the proposal now made was in strict accordance with the recommendations of two Select Committees of the House, one of which was presided over by himself, and the other by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield).
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for facilitating the acquisition and enjoyment of Sites for Buildings for religious, educational, literary, scientific, and other charitable purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HADFIELD, Mr. BAZLEY, Mr. AKROYD, and Mr. LEEMAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 64.]

  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Bill for the preservation and further protection of Oyster and Mussel Fisheries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEPHEN CAVE and Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 61.]
  House adjourned at half after Nine o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriages (Odessa)* (.30).
Second Reading—Hypothec Amendment (Scotland) (12).
Report—Masters and Workmen* (3).
Third Reading—Lis Pendens* (6); Sale of Land by Auction* (10), and passed.
The Right Honourable Duncan McNeill, late Lord Justice General and President of the Court of Session in Scotland, having been created Baron Colonsay of Colonsay and Oronsay in the County of Argyll—Was (in the usual Manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir Hugh MacCalmont Cairns, Knight, a Judge of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, having been created Baron Cairns of Garmoyle in the County of Antrim—Was (in the usual Manner) introduced.

THE CONVERTED ENFIELD RIFLE.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War a Question, of which he had given him private notice. There had recently appeared in the newspapers some statements which, if they were correct, tended to show that the Enfield rifles converted on the Snider principle had proved, since they were issued to the troops, by no means so efficient and so calculated to make good shooting as was anticipated when the system was first adopted. The Reports which came in just before he left the War Office gave good reason to believe that this system of conversion afforded a satisfactory mode of tiding over the time that must necessarily elapse before it was possible to determine what was the best breech-loading rifle to place in the hands of the troops. His noble Friend the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) determined that a considerable number of Enfield rifles should be converted on that principle at once, with a view to their being placed in the hands of the troops in case any emergency should arise. The present Secretary of State for War was so satisfied with the Reports, that shortly after he took office he presented a Supplementary Estimate to the other House of Parliament, and ordered a very large and extensive conversion. The statements, however, which had recently appeared in the public papers had caused fears to be entertained that the system of conversion was not so satisfactory as was at first supposed. But the main defect appeared to be not so much in the rifles as in the ammunition which was made by machinery, and which had not made as good shooting as ammunition prepared by hand. Taking into consideration the importance of this subject on account of the large sum of money which had been spent in this system of conversion, and the necessity of arming the troops with the best possible arms, he hoped the noble Lord would state what information the Government had received on the subject.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that reports had been current much to the disadvantage of the Snider system of converting Enfield rifles, the fact being that, although they had been tested and experimented upon in every possible way, previous to their adoption into the service, some small defects had developed them-
  1212
  selves in the cartridges and in the mechanism of the arm. The first cartridge adopted in the course of practice did not prove satisfactory. A second was then tried, and was not found satisfactory; but although these cartridges failed in accuracy at target practice, they were not unserviceable. A third had now been adopted which there was every reason to believe would be perfectly satisfactory. The small defects which had developed themselves in the mechanism of the arm were such as could easily be remedied without making any change in the original plan of the arm. He held in his hand a letter from Sir James Yorke Scarlett, who is commanding at Aldershot, and whose attention had been directed to the exaggerated reports which the noble Earl had referred to. It was as follows:—
  "Aldershot, Feb. 26, 1867……. I for ward a letter from Captain Thompson, District Instructor of Musketry, under whom the practice so erroneously described took place….Though I believe a still simpler plan will be produced, I consider the present pattern Snider rifle an admirable weapon, and perfectly efficient when well made and well handled."
  The enclosure from Captain Thompson was dated February 25, 1867, and was in the following terms:—
  "Having noticed an article respecting the recent trial of Snider rifles and ammunition at Aldershot which is likely to lead the public to form erroneous opinions as to their general efficiency, I think it right to inform you that the trial which took place here, instead of proving not very favourable to the new arm and ammunition, may be considered the reverse. Out of 8,000 rounds fired, only twenty cartridges burst, none of which in any way injured the breech arrangement, and only three missed fire. In very few cases were the old cartridge cases found difficult to withdraw, and those frequently from the awkwardness of the men who were firing for the first time with an entirely new weapon. As regards accuracy at 500 and 700 yards, notwithstanding an apparent inferiority of the Snider to the Enfield at the longer ranges, I think that the very little practice which was made with the Snider rifle at the longer range should not be received as a test of accuracy, as the sighting of the rifle is altered in consequence of the reduction of the weight of the bullet; and the accuracy of the Snider may probably not be found inferior to that of the Enfield rifle when the soldiers become accustomed to its use, which, up to the present time, they have had no opportunity of becoming."
  Sir James Scarlett added—
  "My only regret is that the correspondents who furnish information on military matters to the press do not first make themselves acquainted with the subjects on which they write."
  He trusted that this explanation would be satisfactory to the noble Earl: and he

  1213
  might add, that although it would be a great disappointment to be obliged to confess a failure, the War Office would not have proceeded with the conversion, as they were now doing, if they had lost confidence in the arm.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was not satisfied either by the answer of the noble Earl, or by what he had read of the Snider rifle in the newspapers. Considering the vast sums of money to be laid out in putting a proper weapon into the hands of our soldiers, he thought that proper means had not been taken with regard to the selection of that weapon. Last Session, when this question was mooted in that House, he strongly recommended the noble Lord at the head of the Government to appoint a Committee other than the Ordnance Committee, in which he had no confidence, to consider the question of a selection of small aims. He recommended that the Committee should consist of some of the lieutenant-colonels commanding the regiments which had the highest number in musketry, and to add to them some of those gentlemen who took a deep interest in, and were thoroughly conversant with, the long range shooting of our Volunteers. If such a Committee were appointed to consider the best weapon, there would be a good chance of obtaining a good, a simple, and an effective arm. Before the country was put to very great expense in obtaining improved arms, it was but right and just that all engaged in the manufacture of arms, and all interested in putting a good and simple rifle in the hands of our soldiers, should have an opportunity of competing before a competent Committee, which should recommend such weapon as it might think best adapted for military use, and above all adapted to receive the rough usage which was given to any rifle put in the hands of the common soldier.

MILITARY AT ELECTIONS IN IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in moving for Papers on the subject of the Employment of the Military at Elections in Ireland, said, that in any allusion he should make to recent events, he did not seek to throw blame upon any one. It would be improper in him to do so, if for no other reasons than that, arising out of the two elections to which he should refer, there were petitions to the other House of Par-
  1214
  liament against the return of Mr. De la Poer and Captain White for Waterford and Tipperary, and that some men of the 12th Lancers might be put upon their trial for an event which took place at Dungarvan during one of those elections. He should have been ready to leave the duty which he was now about to discharge to some noble Lord locally connected with the part of the kingdom in which those elections had taken place; but he was glad to be the means, however humbly, of showing that in Irish affairs a warm interest was felt on this as well as on the other side of St. George's Channel. Further, he ventured to think that the use of Her Majesty's troops at an election was a matter which any Member of their Lordships' House might reasonably bring under the notice of Parliament. He should now very briefly state the reasons which had induced him to put his notice on the paper. In England it had been found unadvisable to call on the military either to convoy voters to the poll, or to parade the town or village in which the polling was taking place. In Ireland it was quite the reverse. In Ireland when violence was apprehended troops were called out, and the election was put under military supervision and control. In England it was thought better to run the risk of individual encounters between the inhabitants rather than that a single man should receive a wound at the hand of any of the Queen's troops. In Ireland, however, electoral purity and independence and freedom of election were upheld at the point of the lance and with the edge of the sword. Now, what was the Parliamentary declaration with respect to English elections, made on the 17th of November, 1645? It ran in these words—
  "That all elections be made without interruption or molestation by any commander, governor, officer, or soldier."
  Again, on the 22nd of December, 1741, it was declared—
  "That the presence of a regular body of soldiers at an election is a high infringement of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution of this kingdom."
  But Parliament had gone still further. By the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 21, s. 3, it was enacted—
  "In order to secure freedom of election it is directed that the Clerk of the Crown or other officer making out any new writ shall as soon as the writ has been made out, give notice to the Secretary at War, or, in case there be no Secretary at War, to the person officiating in his

  1215
  stead, and he to the General commanding the district, who is to see that no soldier, within two miles of the place of election or poll, shall be allowed to go out of barracks on the day of nomination or polling, unless to mount or relieve guard, or give his vote at the election, and that going out for such purpose, he shall return with all convenient speed."
  Such was the law as regarded England. In Ireland the principle appeared to be quite the reverse. At the recent elections in Tipperary and Waterford the military had been called out. The events of the Waterford election were so recent and so well-known, that he need not detain their Lordships by detailing them. In the town of Dungarvan, in the latter county, a number of the 12th Lancers were engaged in escorting voters to the poll, when a disturbance took place, and a gentleman named Captain Keily, who lived in the town, received a fatal wound from the lance of one of the soldiers. A coroner's inquest was held, and a great deal of evidence was given as to the throwing of stones at the troops; but the result of the inquiry was a verdict of wilful murder against several of the Lancers. It would appear to him that while the troops were powerless to protect the voters, unless they were allowed to use their arms freely, their presence on such an occasion was a cause of irritation. Every officer knew that it was impossible for him to order his men to act; the men knew the same thing; and the Irish mob was equally well aware of the fact. He found that in the reports of the inquest these observations were attributed to Mr. Waters, a professional gentleman who appeared for the friends of the deceased Captain Keily. Mr. Waters said—
  "It was asked was a trooper to sit in his saddle and be stoned, and not resist it? He asserted that he was, and such was the law of the country."
  That doctrine might appear extraordinary to some of their Lordships, but an Irish jury had borne Mr. Waters out in his view of the law. What, he would ask, was the result of the employment of troops at the Waterford election? First, it had placed gallant officers in a very painful position; next, it had led to a stigma being for a time cast on one of the finest regiments in the service, and, of course, had rendered that regiment unpopular in one of the richest recruiting districts of the Empire; and lastly, it had, in all probability, raised a hostile feeling between Her Majesty's troops and a portion of her people. Sol-
  1216
  diers in the discharge of their duty were but men after all, and at the inquest it came out that one of the Lancers said to his officer, referring to the conduct of the mob, "Flesh and blood cannot stand this." Under such circumstances, officers must feel it extremely difficult to decide how they ought to act. He spoke in the presence of illustrious and distinguished officers, and he asked them whether he was not correct in making that statement? He submitted that the proper instruments for securing freedom of election in Ireland were the Irish police, and the power of petitioning Parliament against any return which was brought about by violence. It might be said that there would be breaches of the peace if the military were not employed; but it must be remembered that the Irish constabulary was a very large and a very well disciplined armed force. During the last election for the county of Dublin the troops were confined to their barracks, and yet no disturbance took place. He had been assured on all hands that the noble Lord now at the head of the Irish Government (the Marquess of Abercorn) conducted his administration not only with great splendour and liberality, but with a hearty desire in every way to promote the best interests of the country. At the same time, when the true interests of the people in both countries pointed to a perfect assimilation of rights and privileges, an elector of the county of Water-ford might well ask why he was to exercise the franchise under different auspices from an elector in the county of Sutherland. He would conclude by thanking their Lordships for the kind attention with which they had listened to him.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of the Instructions or Orders issued to Officers commanding Regiments and Detachments called upon to aid the Civil Power in maintaining Order at recent Elections of Members of Parliament in Ireland: Also,
  Copy of the Instructions issued to the Stipendiary or other Magistrates concerning the Use of Troops on such Occasions: Also,
  Copy of any Reports or any Extracts of Reports to the Government from the General commanding the Forces in Ireland respecting the Employment of the Military in aid of the Civil Power during any recent Elections in that Country, and the Conduct of the Troops upon such Occasions.—(The Duke of St. Albans.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, there had been three elections lately in Ireland, at which troops had been employed in aid

  1217
  and upon the demand of the civil power. He did not find that, at any one of these, special instructions had been issued, relative to the conduct of officers or soldiers, whose duty, in such cases, was well understood. The Queen's Regulations provided generally for the movements of troops to aid in the suppression of riot, and were applicable, generally speaking, to Irish elections. Each officer was provided with a small book, in which the Queen's Regulations were somewhat amplified; and those books were also supplied to magistrates. There would be no objection to produce one of those books, if the noble Duke wished, but their contents were simply what he had stated. He was further informed that the stipendiary magistrates acted under their ordinary instructions; those he could not produce, as they were not actually in his hands; but his noble Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department would, no doubt, be able to say whether there was any objection to produce them. To enable 3,400 electors of the county of Waterford to exercise their constitutional privileges, nineteen stipendiary magistrates were collected to cooperate with the local magistrates; and a force of 1,900 soldiers, besides a body of police, was stationed in the county, and stationed in vain; for since the election a petition had been presented, setting forth that a number of voters, through the violence and intimidation which prevailed, had been unable to record their votes. Voluminous reports had been received from the General commanding the district, covering other reports from officers who had exercised independent commands, bearing testimony to the admirable conduct of the troops under gross provocation, harassing duties, and violent assaults. These reports also gave details of numerous instances of violence perpetrated by organized bodies of men, who openly set the law at defiance, constructing barricades most skilfully disposed, accumulating with prudence and foresight great heaps of stones, at points where they might prove serviceable, and generally obstructing, by all the means in their power, the progress towards the poll of those electors to whose opinions they were opposed. At Tipperary election, although there had been considerable violence, although the troops had been insulted, and subjected to most disagreeable duties, no loss of life, at the hands of the military, had been reported. But at Dungarvan, as
  1218
  the noble Duke had stated, the outrages were carried to much greater extremes. In the town of Waterford, at Dungarvan, and at many other points in different parts of the county, attacks were made upon the military, sometimes in small parties, sometimes even when they were in large bodies. At Dungarvan an affray took place, in which the Lancers were obliged to defend themselves from the violence with which they were assailed; two men, unfortunately, lost their lives, one a person who, he believed, had taken no part in the disturbances. The responsibility, however, of that loss of life rested on those who organized bands of rioters to disturb the public peace, and not on those who, in the exercise of their duty, and by no will of their own, were placed in a position which brought them into conflict with the populace. A charge had been put forward against the soldiers of having acted with unnecessary violence; but, having read the various reports which had reached him, and also those which had been published, he was disposed to concur with what an officer upon the spot, unconnected with the troops, had declared as to the great forbearance exercised by the soldiers under great provocation and most trying circumstances. The noble Earl having read extracts from reports received from Lord Strathnairn, Colonel Sawyer, Captain Betty, 6th Dragoon Guards, and other officers, descriptive of the movements and duties of the troops during the elections, and of the outrages to which they had been subjected; and from Mr. Fleming, senior magistrate of Tipperary, Mr. Gore Jones, one of the most experienced stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, Mr. Miller of Waterford, Mr. Warburton, stipendiary magistrate, who read the Riot Act—testifying to the forbearance, good conduct, and efficiency of the soldiers—proceeded to say that all these reports tended to prove that the skirmishes were not local or accidental, but formed part of an organization deliberately set on foot. Into the legal aspect of the question, he would not enter, for it had been debated only a few evenings ago, on the question raised as to calling out the Volunteers in aid of the civil power; and it would, he believed, be brought directly under the notice of the other House by a Bill introduced with the object of extending to Ireland the English law as to the non-employment of military at elections. If it were decided to withdraw the military, there were two alternatives, either

  1219
  such an increase of the civil force as will make them equal to the performance of such duties as the civil power may require; or, police as well as soldiers might abstain from taking any part in elections, leaving it to each individual voter to make his own way to the poll, by whatever means, and with whatever arms for his protection, he thought best. Upon the propriety of the latter alternative, of course, he offered no opinion whatever; but he would gladly concur in any project by which the military may be relieved from a most ungracious duty. If the noble Duke pressed for such documents as he had declared it to be in his power to produce, the desired information would, of course, be afforded.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that in the case of riot at an election the troops were sometimes called in in England in aid of the civil power; and he had himself, on two occasions, commanded troops in Warwickshire under such circumstances.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that no instructions of a special nature had been issued by the Home Office to the stipendiary or other magistrates with reference to such occasions as were referred to in the Motion.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I wish to express my sentiments with respect to the employment of troops at elections, and I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without doing so. I think the practice most objectionable; and I believe there is no duty of which the troops have so great a horror. At the same time, it must be remembered that the initiative must always be taken by the civil authorities themselves; and it is clearly laid down that when the troops are called on by the civil power it is necessary that they should support it in the preservation of the peace. I apprehend that these troops are not sent to attend the election, but practically in obedience to the requisition of the magistrates stating that they apprehended a breach of the peace and that the civil power at their command was not sufficient to meet the emergency. Unfortunately, in Ireland it almost always happens that the services of the military are called into use at elections, at the request and in aid of the civil power. Under these circumstances, the law is clear; and although, for the sake of the troops as well as the people, I should very much like to see such a change as would enable the civil authorities altogether to dispense with the use of troops, I am afraid that it is im-
  1220
  possible to make any change in this respect. How is it possible if the civil authority requires assistance on the ground that it apprehends a breach of the peace, bloodshed and loss of life, that the Government could withstand the pressure from without if they refused to do all in their power to prevent such a calamity? I should heartily wish to see a more conciliatory spirit prevailing at Irish elections on both sides; but until such a change takes place I am afraid you cannot alter the law. At the same time, I am strongly of opinion that no troops should ever be exposed to unnecessary insult or provocation. With reference to the acts of the troops in cases of riot, I desire to say that, although I have no wish to screen any from the censure due to those who exceed their duty, I think every allowance should be made for bodies of troops employed in the suppression of riots; and respecting the cases under discussion, I have every reason to believe, from the representations we have had from responsible persons, that the troops were exposed not only to the greatest obloquy and insult, but that they were actually attacked with stones and other missiles. This, I think, is almost beyond a man's powers of endurance; it is not to be expected that men are to sit still under such a state of excitement; such a passive endurance is not in human nature, and is more than can be expected of the troops. I verily believe that, if we were to go critically into the conduct of the troops, we should find that the amount of forbearance which they exhibited redounds very much to their credit. I deplore, perhaps more than any of your Lordships, that two cases of death resulted from the riots at the Waterford election; but I must express my belief that these deaths were occasioned by one of those unfortunate combinations which it is almost impossible to avoid in a dense and excited crowd of people, crushing upon one another, and surrounding a few soldiers endeavouring to extricate themselves from the general confusion. We must not forget that upon such occasions as these the throwing of stones and shouting not only irritate the men, but make their horses uneasy; and in this particular instance the horse of the officer in charge became so restive that it was unmanageable. These are incidents which still further complicate the difficulties of the situation. I merely wish to point out to your Lordships the great difficulties to which the troops have been exposed. I hope, then, on full

  1221
  consideration of the circumstances of the case, not only your Lordships, but the public at large, will appreciate these difficulties, and be led to take a generous view of their conduct. I do not wish to defend anything palpably wrong, and I think that the whole profession will deplore these results. There is not one of the men who were engaged who would not, I am sure, feel with me delighted if these sad events could have been avoided. I am satisfied that nothing would be a greater solace to the troops than to know that the country believed that they had endeavoured to do their duty without recklessly or inconsiderately availing themselves of the opportunity to exceed it. My Lords, I feel called upon to make these remarks in justice to the troops. If I felt the slightest doubt as to their conduct, I should be the first man to admit that censure might be due. I feel, however, justified in stating distinctly I believe honestly and sincere that no censure is due, but that the troops, on the occasion in question, did conscientiously and moderately perform their duty.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, we must all have heard with great satisfaction the observations which have fallen from the illustrious Duke, and we must all concur in deploring the necessity of using troops to quell civil disturbances; but, at the same time, we must not forget that it is the first duty of the Government to protect Her Majesty's subjects in the exercise of their lawful rights. Riots with violence must, at all hazards, be put down; if the civil force cannot do it, then the military must support them, and if painful consequences ensue, the fault lies, not with the troops, but with those persons who have broken the law in the first instance. The very essence of free Government is violated if an elector is coerced by fear when giving his vote. It is therefore absolutely necessary that violence at elections should be put down; and if any fault was committed by the troops upon the occasion referred to, it was an excess of leniency, inasmuch as they allowed, so far as we can judge from the published reports, an excess of rioting before they decisively interfered. It should be understood by the populace that troops are not sent out at elections as a mark for stone-throwers and as subjects for violence; and it should be understood that they are justified—nay, that it is their duty to use their arms to put an end to the violence of rioters.
  LORD VIVIANexpressed his belief that the troops were not only called out at the request of the civil power, but refrained from acting until the civil power directed them to do so. He presumed, then, that the Lancers al Dungarvan did not act until called upon, and then he believed they performed their duty with great forbearance. He rose, however, for the purpose of inquiring of the Under Secretary for War as to the actual position of the Volunteers. The old adage, "Quot homines tot sententiœ," had never fitted any case so admirably as it applied to this question.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that on the last occasion when the subject was discussed in that House, it was stated that very shortly would be published instructions, which are under preparation in the Home Office, for the guidance of the civil authorities and Volunteers in the cases referred to.
  LORD VIVIANhoped that the Government would give proper attention to the subject, as it was a matter of considerable importance.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

HYPOTHEC AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
HYPOTHEC AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 12.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that from communications which had been made to him from various quarters, he had been led to believe that this Bill would not be received favourably by any noble Lord connected with Scotland, and therefore he had not felt in a very agreeable situation. What had occurred, however, on the previous evening had re-assured him on that point. He should perhaps be pardoned if he entered into a short explanation of the objects of the measure. Hypothec is a right by the common law of Scotland which the landlord possesses over the fruits of the ground, and over the cattle and other property of his tenant, as security for his rent. Perhaps it might be convenient to explain to those who were familiar only with the law of England the difference between it and the law of Scotland as to the relation of landlord and tenant. In England, the landlord has no power over his

  1223
  tenant's property until the rent is due; and then, if the rent is due and unpaid, the landlord may seize all movables, with a few exceptions, and may, by statute, distrain upon the growing crops; and if the tenant does not pay the rent within five days, the landlord may sell the goods and crops, and out of the proceeds pay himself the rent, and hand the surplus, if any, over to the tenant, If a tenant, being in arrear, clandestinely removes his goods to avoid a distress, the landlord may, within thirty days, follow and seize the goods, and make thorn available for the payment of the rent in the same manner as if the distress had been on the land; but if the tenant removes his property the day before the rent becomes due in order to prevent the distress, the landlord has no remedy. In Scotland the law is quite different. The law of hypothec, in fact, gives the landlord a security for the current rent; the landlord may retain the property of the tenant on the land, even if-no rent is due; and if the tenant removes the property the landlord may follow it and bring it back on the land. If there is no rent due, he retains it as a security; and if there is rent due, he appropriates it in payment. The hypothec extends to the produce of the year for which the rent is due, and the year is taken to expire three months after the conventional term at which the rent becomes due—namely, on Whitsunday (15th May), and Martinmas (11th November). If the tenant removes the crops after the rent is due, the landlord may follow and seize them in the hands of a bonâ fide purchaser, unless the property has been sold to him in bulk in market overt. If the goods are sold by sample in market overt, or out of market overt, the landlord's remedy remains; and there was a case in which the landlord exercised this right seven years after the removal of the property from the land. Hypothec is a general right of retention or recovery. If a landlord wishes to exercise it over specific objects, he must do it by sequestration, and obtain a warrant of sale from the sheriff. This peculiar law of landlord and tenant in Scotland has at different times undergone discussion chiefly as it affected bonâ fide purchases, and Bills have been introduced upon the subject, which have not been proceeded with. But in the year 1864 a Royal Commission was issued for the purpose of inquiring into the law of hypothec. That Commis-
  1224
  sion made an able Report, and upon the recommendations contained in it this Bill is founded. The Commissioners stated that they sat for thirty days at Edinburgh, and examined 102 witnesses, including landlords and agents, bankers, corn and manure dealers, and tenants, so that they might be informed of the state of the law in Scotland, and they were satisfied that the information laid before them was complete, and had exhausted the subject. Two of the Commissioners thought that the law ought, subject to existing leases, to be abolished, and they dissented from the general Report of the majority of the Commissioners, who thought that the law ought to be retained subject to certain alterations which they recommended, and which were embodied in the Bill. The clause to which he would first direct attention was the third, which gave protection to the bonâ fide purchaser of corn, &c, for valuable consideration, actually delivered, removed, and paid for. The provision was, he thought, a very necessary and proper one, because, in the present day, there were very few bulk markets, crops being generally sold by sample. To the next clause some noble Lords might possibly object, as it provided that hypothec was not to be available beyond three months after the rent was due. He did not think that clause would meet with any very decided objection, provided he consented to protect existing contracts from the operation of the Bill, and he might say that he felt disposed to make that concession. By Clause 5, the stock of a third party taken on a farm to graze was made liable only to the amount of consideration payable for the grazing. By Clause 6, it was provided that in the sequestration for rent of any farm or lands it should not be competent to include any household furniture or agricultural implements, or imported manures; and lastly, the Bill provided that all sequestrations for rent should be entered in a register, to be kept at each court where sequestrations for rent were granted. The Bill was, as he had stated, founded upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which had sat in 1864 to inquire into the matter, and, in his judgment, its provisions introduced a wholesome alteration into the law.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRKsaid, he entertained a very strong objection to the

  1225
  Bill, and his opposition was on behalf of the small tenants in Scotland, whose position would be greatly changed by the operation of the Bill, and not because it was likely to affect the pecuniary interests of the landlords. In 1830 the attention of Lord Brougham, who was at that time Lord Chancellor, was called to the law of hypothec by a case that came before him, and in November of that year he introduced a Bill identical with the three first clauses of the present Bill. But having better considered the question, and having heard strong remonstrances from Scotland, the noble and learned Lord withdrew the Bill, Another Bill was introduced in the same Session by Lord Belhaven, to enable grain to be sold by sample in the open market, but this was also withdrawn, and nothing more was heard of the matter until the year 1848–9, when great numbers of the smaller tenantry of Scotland became bankrupt, and an agitation was got up by the corn-dealers, who were anxious that some alteration should be made in the law which would enable them to secure bargains in grain from bankrupt stock, by transactions which, though they might be considered bonâ fide and legal, partook, nevertheless, of the nature of sharp practice. The matter having again dropped it was not revived until the present Bill was brought in. A great change had taken place during the last few years in the position of the farming class in Scotland in consequence of farms having been much consolidated, and farmers had become divided into two distinct classes, those holding large farms, and those having small holdings. Some landlords were in favour of large farms, and he believed that the effect of this Bill would be to increase the temptation, already strong enough, to further consolidation of the farms, which must injuriously affect the interests of the holders of small farms. If this Bill passed it would very much discourage small holdings in Scotland. In the part of Scotland in which he lived, the usual practice was that rent was payable half yearly, in May and November, but practically it was not collected till August and February. Under this Bill sequestration would be taken away three months after the period at which rent became legally due. The three months' grace now allowed were of infinite value to small tenants, as they were thus enabled to reap their crops and to realize their cattle before they were called on to pay their rents. The withdrawal of
  1226
  this accommodation would, to many small tenants, be almost ruinous, and that would necessarily result from this Bill. He recommended that the Bill should be hung up as Scotch Bills generally were till after the 30th of April, when the county meetings took place, and if strong remonstrances were not made on the subject by the small holders of land, he would take no further step against the measure. But unless he received such an assurance he should make a Motion that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he did not intend to offer any active opposition to the Bill, though he thought it would have been better if this matter had been allowed to rest. Such an agitation, however, had been got up, most unreasonable, as he thought, in itself, that it was wise and prudent on the part of the Government to offer some concession, rather than let an agitation go on, the object of which was to get rid of the law altogether. The law was one which, as the Commissioners stated, they could not trace to its origin. It was founded on the old Roman Law, and was the low of Scotland up to the year 1623, when the term "hypothec" was first introduced into the statute; and a few years after that time, by certain decisions of the Courts in Scotland, the law assumed the form which it had held ever since. It was under this much-maligned law of hypothec that all the improvements in agriculture had taken place in Scotland. It was rather a delicate thing, then, to touch a law which had conferred such great benefits on the country. But the law did not apply to agriculture alone; it protected landlords, in common with merchants and those engaged in commerce; and if they broke down the protection which the landlord enjoyed, other classes must also suffer. His great object in maintaining this law was not that he considered it essential for the benefit of the landlord; it was a law of protection for the humbler class of tenants. At the root of the great agitation against the law was an attempt by the large tenants of Scotland to get rid of the competition of smaller tenants for land and compel landlords first to throw their farms together into large farms, and then be at the mercy of these large farmers who should dictate to them the prices at which they should let the land. He did not think Parliament should encourage such objects. Under the present system a landlord was enabled to do much for his smaller tenants, by giving

  1227
  them credit, enabling them to reap an entire crop, and to turn it into money before paying their rent, but this he would not be able to do if the Bill now before their Lordships became law. He could easily understand the large farmers pursuing this course for their own benefit; but he was sorry to say that a great many of the smaller farmers were so blind to their own interests as to be as clamorous for a change as the large farmers. He did not wish to see the Bill hung up until after the 30th of April; but he believed that the House of Commons would be so much engaged in business of another character when the Bill should go down there, that the measure really would be hung up until after that date. He was glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had consented to give protection to existing rights under existing leases, and he considered that the provision regarding registration had been deprived very much of its sting, in consequence of publication not been insisted upon. The change proposed by the present Bill constituted the full extent to which he could go in modifying the law of hypothec, and any attempt to do away with that law altogether would meet with his most strenuous resistance.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that after the explanation of the noble and learned Lord he was not disposed to offer any opposition to the Bill, but would be glad to see the concession made in the fourth clause extended to the fifth.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.