Sitting of 27 June 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts Amendment* [216].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Police Superannuation* [207]; Custody of Infants* [93], debate adjourned; Baptismal Fees* [209].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Victoria Park* [201].
Committee—Mines (Coal) Regulation (re-comm.) [150]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Health* [48–215]; Colonial Governors Pensions [176].
Third Reading—Education (Scotland) [210]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [202], and passed.
Withdrawn—East India (Bengal, &c.) Annuity Funds* [182].

PATENT LAWS COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOWRINGasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to take early steps for giving effect to any of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Letters Patent, especially those which relate to the addition of non-official members to the present ex-officio Commissioners of Patents, as contemplated by the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1852, and now unanimously recommended by the Select Committee?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Lord Chancellor has had an interview on this subject with the Chairman and two other Members of the Select Committee. He has informed me that he has undertaken to call together the existing Commissioners of Patents for consultation with him, and he will then be able to decide upon the expediency of appointing an additional number of members.

  ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY HOSPITAL, DUBLIN.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the conviction of Charles Hammond and William Bailey, two of the attendants of the lunatic wards of the Royal Military Hospital, Dublin, of the manslaughter of a patient under shocking circumstances; and, whether, having regard to the opinion of the Jury, that too much is left to the charge of subordinates, he will arrange for an inquiry to be made by the Commissioners of Lunacy into the management of the Hospital?
  MR. CARDWELL: The attention of the authorities has been drawn to this unhappy case, which occurred in the lunatic ward of the Military Hospital at Dublin. The two staff surgeons in immediate charge of the hospital and of the lunatic ward, and the non-commissioned officers concerned, will be removed, and His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief has called upon the General Officer Commanding in Ireland to place the establishment on a better footing in respect of supervision and discipline. The ward is a place of observation for a short time, and confirmed lunatics are removed. The re-
  284
  medy, therefore, which the Question suggests is not the one suited to the case.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS)—DEARTH OF WATER IN BERMONDSEY.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked he President of the Board of Trade, What information he has obtained as to the dearth of water in a large district of London, Bermondsey, supplied by one of the Metropolitan Water Companies; and, what steps are being taken by the Board of Trade and by the Water Company to avert the dangers to health which would result from a continued deficiency in the water supply?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the first intimation which the Board of Trade received of the deficiency of water in Bermondsey was from the report of the proceedings of the Vestry in the public Press. The Board of Trade immediately wrote to the vestry clerk, and on ascertaining that the report was correct he would have sent the same day an Inspector to inquire if he had the power to do so. He found, however, that under the Metropolis Water Act of last year, as it came from the Select Committee, he had power to appoint an Inspector to make inquiries as to the quality, but not as to the quantity, of water. In this case there was no question of quality, because there was no water at all. He therefore fell back upon a previous Act, under which the Board of Trade had power to inquire into the quality and quantity of water, not proprio motu, but upon the requisition of the ratepayers. They informed the Vestry of that fact at once, and, having received the requisite authority, they sent an Inspector, who was making inquiries that day, and he (Mr. Fortescue) hoped to be able to give a full answer to his hon. Friend's Question to-morrow.
  Afterwards—
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, What powers the Board possesses of seeing that the necessary precautions are taken by the sanitary authorities of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe to prevent the use, during the present dearth of water-supply, of water from surface wells and other dangerous sources; if the Local Government Board have not

  285
  such powers, whether any Department is charged with such powers; and, further, whether any Department is responsible for seeing that the local authorities in London perform their duties in the protection of the public health?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that neither the Local Government Board nor any other Government Department had, as far as he was aware, the power to prevent the use of water from surface wells or other dangerous sources either in the metropolis or elsewhere. With regard to the last part of the Question, no Government Department was authorized to exercise any general supervision over the sanitary authorities in the metropolis; but under the Act of 1858 the Secretary of State might, on complaint, direct that proceedings should be taken for the abatement of nuisances committed by the local authorities in the execution of any works or in the disposal of sewage.

  ARMY REGULATION ACT—AID TO THE CIVIL POWER.—QUESTION.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEasked the Secretary of State for War, What local authorities may now apply to the Secretary of State for any Military force to aid the Civil Power; and, by whom can the Yeomanry Cavalry be called out to aid the civil power?
  MR. CARDWELL: First, the Sheriff, or any magistrate, may apply to the Secretary of State; secondly, by the Act of 1804, 44 Geo. III., c. 54, s. 23, the Yeomanry may voluntarily march on being called upon in pursuance of any order from the Lieutenant or Sheriff of the county. The Act of last Session has transferred to the Secretary of State the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, but has not interfered with those of the Sheriff.

  SANITARY REGULATIONS—CARCASES OF ANIMALS.—QUESTION.
  MR. C. S. READasked the Vice President of the Council, If there is any power under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, or under any existing Order in Council, to prevent the carcases of animals which have died of disease being thrown into the sea or into tidal rivers; and, if no such power exists, whether he will issue such an Order as will make such a practice a punishable offence; and, whether the local autho-
  286
  rity of any district has the power to order the burial of any animal which has died of foot and mouth disease, or to prevent the carcases of such animals being thrown into inland rivers?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that as to animals thrown into the sea arrangements had existed for the last seven years by which all carcases washed on shore were buried by the officers of the Board of Trade at the expense of the Veterinary Department. This expense in 1871 was about £147. As to issuing an Order for preventing the carcases of animals from being thrown into the sea, he doubted whether it would be of much advantage, because it was exceedingly difficult to prove who had thrown the animals overboard. He had no reason to believe that diseased animals were thrown overboard, though no doubt the carcases of animals which had died from suffocation or exhaustion were so disposed of. Whenever a vessel arrived an Inspector of the Veterinary Department made a return, showing the number of animals taken on board, the number alive, and the number dead. In the quarter ending March in this year 14 cattle and 564 sheep had been thrown overboard. The local authorities had no power to order the burial of any animal which had died of foot and mouth disease; but if cattle were proved to be unfit for food they might be dealt with under the provisions of the Nuisances' Removal Act. In considering the question of an Order with respect to throwing animals overboard at sea, they should also consider the question with regard to tidal and inland rivers.

ARMY—THE 9TH LANCERS—CASE OF LIEUTENANT TRIBE.—QUESTION.
MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Lieutenant Tribe, of the 9th Lancers, is still excluded from the society of his brother officers; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take to give effect to the decision of His Royal Highness Commanding-in-Chief, in the matter of the late inquiry into the alleged charges against that officer?
MR. CARDWELL: A further complaint from Sub-Lieutenant Tribe's "friend," Dr. Tomkins, has been addressed to me, and, being a matter of discipline, has been placed under the

287
consideration of the Duke of Cambridge, who has determined to institute an inquiry into all the circumstances of the case by officers of the Staff at headquarters.

RUSSIA—MURDERS OF ENGLISHMEN IN THE CAUCASUS.—QUESTION.
MR. EASTWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have been made to the Russian Government respecting the recent murders of Englishmen in the Caucasus?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: The case of Colonel Roundell, who was travelling from India to England viâ Persia and the Caucasus, and who has not been heard of since the 19th of September last, when he was supposed to be on the road between Erivan and Tiflis, has been diligently inquired into by the Governor of Elizabetopol, in the Caucasus, and the Grand Duke has given orders for every possible search to be made. Lord Augustus Loftus has also been instructed to ask for a continuance of the inquiries which the authorities in the Caucasus have already undertaken with readiness and zeal. In the case of Mr. Swinson, a civil engineer, who was murdered and robbed near the town of Poti in December last, instructions were sent by telegraph to Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at St. Petersburg to request the Russian Government to make the necessary judicial inquiries. This was promptly done. Mr. Swinson's servant was arrested on suspicion; a searching investigation was made, but no proofs could be substantiated as to his guilt; and up to the present the police have not been able to discover any clue to the real assassin or assassins.

SCOTLAND—REGISTER OF SASINES, EDINBURGH.—QUESTION.
MR. GRIEVEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to the amount of the Fees charged by the Keeper of the Register of Sasines at Edinburgh, and to the fact that the gross amount levied is about double of what is required to maintain the office; and if the Treasury will take immediate steps to reduce the fees to such an amount as will defray the expenses, and no more; whether he will consider if the whole expenses should not be de-
288
frayed by the Treasury; and, whether he is aware that the printed Abstract of Sasines had only been sent to the sheriff clerk of Renfrewshire up to the end of 1864; and requesting his attention to Copies being regularly furnished up to the end of each current year; and that Index of Names at the Register Office should be copied and sent to the Counties, as well as Abstracts?
MR. BAXTER: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to repeat what I stated the other night in Committee of Supply, when questioned on the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), that directions had been sent to the Lord Clerk Register to prepare a scale of fees so reduced as merely to cover the expenses of the office. That has been done in accordance with the provisions of the Land Writs Registration Act; but there is no intention of making any further alteration which would involve a loss to the State. I am not aware of the circumstances referred to in the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question, but have written to Scotland for information.

INDIA—BANK OF BENGAL.—QUESTION.
MR. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India have taken the necessary steps to prevent the Bank of Bengal from again engaging in dealings in Sterling Exchange, in violation of the terms of its Charter?
MR. GRANT DUFF: The Secretary of State in Council has not yet received full accounts of the irregular dealings on the part of the Bank to which the Question of my hon. Friend alludes; but, whatever they were, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Viceroy has adopted measures to prevent their recurrence.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE NEW REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL C. LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Regulations for the future guidance of the Auxiliary Forces will be issued, and on what day they will take effect?
MR. CARDWELL: As I promised on Monday, the case of the surgeons will be re-considered. It never was intended to apply the new Regulations in any case in which the corps had not had due notice

289
of them. Every commanding officer and every adjutant had a copy sent to him in the beginning of the present month, and inspecting officers have received instructions not to apply the article with regard to inspections to any corps inspected before the 6th of July.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION INQUIRY —MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.—QUESTIONS.
MR. CALLANasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government will be prepared to allow precedence over the Government Orders of the Day to the Motion on the subject of the Galway Election Inquiry which has been fixed for Monday, July 8?
MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot state that on the particular evening, or for the particular Motion to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, we shall be prepared to propose that Government Orders of the Day be put aside. I am aware of the great importance of the subject, and the Government have already signified that we shall think it our duty to facilitate the discussion of that subject when the proper time arrives. But until further progress has been made with the production of the evidence, and some reasonable time has been allowed for the consideration of the whole or the principal part of that evidence, we do not think it would be desirable to ask or invite the House to enter upon the discussion in question. I hope the House will quite understand that my answer does not imply any disposition to obstruct the due discussion of the question at the proper time. Under the circumstances, as there are Motions on the Paper for to-morrow standing in the names of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) and the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) I may venture to express a wish that they will not be pressed at a time when I think they would be premature.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, the Motion which stood for Monday week was of a much, more serious character than the Motions which stood for to-morrow. It declared that Mr. Justice Keogh had abused his position as a Judge of Election Petitions by delivering a violent partizan speech, thereby creating great scandal and shaking the confidence of the people in the administration of justice, and that by reason of such mis-
290
conduct his position on the Bench had become inconsistent with the interests of the public and the honour of the Crown. He wished to know whether his right hon. Friend was using his influence to get this as well as the other Motions postponed till the evidence was printed?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that on July 8 the Government had the control of Business in their own hands. As to the other two Motions, he had made a request which he hoped would be acceded to.
MR. HORSMANsaid, his Motion had no reference to the evidence, nor should he refer to it. But he had found that, however he might limit his remarks, it would be impossible to prevent other Members from referring to the evidence. He thought the most convenient course would be for him to drop his Notice altogether, and leave the question to be discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue).
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he had no intention of withdrawing his Motion. But felt that it would be more convenient to postpone it until the voluminous evidence was in the hands of Members.
SIR JOHN GRAYasked whether, as the right hon. Gentleman would not postpone the Orders of the Day on Monday week, he would fix some day on which this question might be brought on?
MR. GLADSTONEreplied that if it was not in the power of any Member to find a convenient time for the discussion the Government would take care to provide a day.
THE O'DONOGHUEwished to know whether the facilities which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of giving with regard to the Gal way judgment had any special reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt)?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his answer had reference to no special Notice of Motion on the Paper, but to the subject generally.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I am about to say has reference to the course of Business for to-morrow. It may be for the convenience of the House that I should describe in a few words the course

  291
  we propose to adopt with regard to the Ballot Bill when the House meets at 9 o'clock. That time has been fixed for taking the Bill into consideration in consequence of an intimation which we have received from several hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be inconvenient if it should be taken on Monday. It is not, I believe, in accordance with the usages of the House, that in cases where Amendments on a Bill are made, and there arises a discussion upon those Amendments, as between the two Houses of Parliament, notice should be given by the Member in charge of the Bill of the exact course which he proposes to adopt with respect to each of those Amendments, many of which may be merely verbal. But in this case the Amendments are both numerous and very important. I therefore propose to state generally the intentions of the Government with respect to them. We look upon those Amendments as having the most important and vital effect, considered as a whole, on the character of the Bill; and it will be, generally speaking, our duty to advise the House to disagree from those Amendments. I have said "generally speaking;" and, perhaps, I had better explain our intentions as to the main particulars. We could not accept those Amendments as they stand; indeed, we should think it our duty rather to go to the extent of sacrificing the Bill. But before proceeding to examine the Amendments which we cannot accept, I would briefly advert to those changes made in the Bill in the other House which may be either beneficial or allowable, and which changes are, in our opinion, so far allowable as to be less evil, less mischievous, than the loss of the Bill or the postponement of the subject to be dealt with by subsequent measures, whatever they may be. An important question which we have had to consider in this view is the question of a scrutiny; and, although we have for ourselves come to the conclusion that, on the whole, the Legislature would have done better to exclude a scrutiny from the Bill, yet, the House of Lords having introduced it, we feel bound to say that we do not wish to join issue with them with respect to a scrutiny on principle. The particular form of the scrutiny, however, as it now appears on the Bill, seems to us to be so objectionable in connection with the conditions
  292
  attached to it that we think it will hardly bear discussion in detail. I, of course, make no assumption on that beyond saying that we shall propose to the House by way of Amendment of the Lords' Amendment, that we should adopt a scrutiny, but on the basis generally of that which was embodied in the Bill of 1870 by my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the purpose of establishing a system of secret voting. That will be the course which we shall take with regard to the question of a scrutiny. The House of Lords have also struck out of the Bill a provision which was adopted, with the very general concurrence of the House, that school buildings throughout the country should be used as polling-places. We shall, although with some reluctance, propose to defer to the judgment of the Lords in that matter. With respect to the alterations of the hours of polling made by the House of Lords, though I regret that alteration, yet we shall submit to the judgment of the House whether we might not concur in it as it now stands. Those points which we cannot agree to, and which we regard, some if taken alone, and certainly in their collective effect, as essentially altering the character of the Bill, are—first, what is called the optional Ballot; secondly, the permission to get and give information in the polling booths as to the votes; thirdly, the removal of the necessity, on the part of what is called the illiterate voter, to make a declaration before a magistrate; and, fourthly, the provision that the Bill shall be considered to be a temporary Act. Those are the principal points. Of course, I do not enter into any argument as to the propriety of one course or another; the House will be kind enough to consider this as a general sketch and outline which will enable it to form an idea of the course we intend to take.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would place on the Notice Paper the Amendments which he proposed to make in the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: To do so would, I believe, be a departure from usage; but the hon. Baronet will, I think, find no inconvenience resulting from the established usage, because in a very important particular—that relating to a scrutiny—we shall follow the form laid

  293
  down in a Bill of my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1870.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARBITRATORS. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, perhaps the time has arrived when I may venture to say that we have determined to-day that we should be justified, in the existing state of circumstances, in giving a short statement to the House which would place the House in possession, if not fully, yet accurately, as to all the main particulars as to the negotiations at Geneva, with regard to which naturally the greatest interest prevails. Sir, in what I have to say—as I am desirous to be beyond all things accurate, and to avoid everything that could be in the nature of discussion—I shall confine myself, in all material points, to reading extracts from documents. These documents constitute, for the most part, the substance of telegraphic communications that have passed between the parties to the Arbitration at Geneva. They will be laid upon the Table of the House in extenso so soon as the documents themselves will have arrived from Geneva by post—I mean the latest of them. At present we are only in possession of a portion of them. But as it would be wearisome, and serve to distract the attention of the House rather than to concentrate to it, if I were to read the whole of them, I will, with the permission of the House, read what I think are the material parts, and what will be sufficient to convey a clear general outline of the proceedings that have taken place at Geneva. The House will see that, in our making this communication, we give some earnest of our desire to place Parliament in possession, at the earliest possible moment, of the effect of those proceedings, when I mention to it that I have only had placed in my hands within the last few minutes a telegram which gives the account of the meeting at Geneva to-day, and that I have not actually received the conclusion of that telegram, although I believe I have received the conclusion of the material part of it—namely, that which relates to the question of the Indirect Claims. Sir, upon the 15th of June, as the House
  294
  is aware, the Arbitrators met at Geneva, and the Agent of the United States, in conformity with the Fifth Article of the Treaty, presented an argument, showing the points and referring to the evidence upon which his Government relied. The agent of the British Government, on the other hand, put in a declaration stating that in the view of the British Government, it was desirable that further time should be afforded for the purpose of considering and carrying, as we hoped, to a favourable issue, the communications which had been going on between the two Governments with a view to the conclusion of a Supplemental Article, and time being on that account, in our view, desirable, as the only means at our command which offered for the solution of the still subsisting difficulties, the British Agent used the following language:—
  "Under these circumstances, the course which Her Majesty's Government would respectfully request the Tribunal to take, is to adjourn the present meeting for such a period as may enable a Supplementary Convention to be still concluded and ratified by the High Contracting Parties."
  The period of that adjournment was indicated, as has been stated before in this House, with reference to the probable period when both the Congress and Parliament would be sitting; but that was not made an essential condition of the request for adjournment. The Agent of the United States stated that he could not say what would be the views of his Government upon this motion until he should know the time for which the adjournment was asked; and upon knowing that period he said his instructions did not enable him to state to the Arbitrators the views of the Government of the United States upon this motion in full, and he asked for an adjournment until Monday, the 17th. On Monday, the 17th, the Agent of the United States was still not in possession of the views of his Government, and he obtained a further adjournment of the Tribunal until Wednesday, June the 19th. On the 19th of June the Arbitrators made a statement, the material parts of which I will read to the House, as, in fact, the statement contains the gist of the whole matter. I will not read the whole of it, but only the material parts—
  "The Arbitrators wish it to be understood that, in the observations they are about to make, they have in view solely the application of the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, which is

  295
  now before them, for an adjournment, which might be prolonged until the month of February in next year."
  They proceed to state subsequently, with reference to this application—
  "The Arbitrators do not propose to express or imply any opinion upon the point thus in difference between the two Governments, as to the interpretation or effect of the Treaty."
  They then refer to certain considerations of possible inconvenience, or want of effect, that might arise if the Motion for Adjournment were adopted, and they go on to say—
  "This being so, the Arbitrators think it right to state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of these claims, they have arrived, individually and collectively, at the conclusion that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, any good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should upon such principles be wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal in making its award, if there were no disagreement between the two Governments, as to the competency of the Tribunal to decide thereon."
  That "if" I understand to mean "even if." I think I have already read the words—
  "The Arbitrators do not propose to express or imply any opinion upon the point thus in difference between the two Governments, as to the interpretation or effect of the Treaty."
  This declaration having been made by the Arbitrators of their own motion, the President of the Tribunal, having read the declaration, asked the British Agent if he had anything to say, and he replied—"Nothing." He then asked the United States Agent a similar question, and the United States Agent requested an adjournment—this was on Wednesday in last week—in order to enable him to communicate with his Government. The United States Agent received the reply of his Government in time for the Tribunal to be re-assembled on Tuesday, the 25th, instead of Wednesday, the 26th. On the 25th, at the meeting of the Tribunal, the United States Agent made the following statement, which is not very long, and which I had better, perhaps, read in its entirety:—
  "The declaration made by the Tribunal, individually and collectively, respecting the claims presented by the United States for the award of the Tribunal for: 1st, the losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag; 2ndly, the enhanced payments of insur-
  296
  ance; and 3rdly, the prolongation of the war and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war, and the suppression of the rebellion, is accepted by the President of the United States as determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public law involved. The Agent of the United States is authorized to say that, consequently, the above mentioned claims will not be further insisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States, and may be excluded from all consideration in any award that may be made."
  Upon the submission of this declaration by the Agent of the United States, the British Agent said that he would inform his Government of the declaration made by the Arbitrators on the 19thinstant, and of the statement now made by the Agent of the United States, and request their instructions. Then, Sir, the Tribunal adjourned, in order to enable the British Agent to make a reference home, and it has met this day, I believe, at 12 o'clock. I am not sure that I can give to the House a perfectly accurate verbal account of what occurred in reference to the meeting of this day, because I have not had time to examine fully the latest portion of the telegraphic despatch which has arrived; but I will state, first of all, the character of the instructions which the British Government sent to their Agent. We stated—
  "We find in the communication on the part of the Arbitrators, recorded in the Protocol of their proceedings of the 19th instant, nothing to which we cannot assent, consistently with the view of the interpretation and effect of the Treaty of Washington hitherto maintained by us; and being informed of the statement made on the 25th instant by the Agent of the United States, that the several claims particularly mentioned in that statement will not be further insisted on, and may be excluded from all consideration in any award that may be made,"
  we then proceeded, not to request, but to assume that this declaration would be constituted a formal portion of the proceedings, and we said that upon this being done our Agent is desired
  "To request leave to withdraw the application made by him to the Tribunal on the 15th instant for such an adjournment as might enable a Supplementary Convention to be concluded, and ratified between the High Contracting Parties; and to request leave to deliver the printed argument, now in the hands of the British Agent, which has been prepared on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, under the Vth Article of the Treaty."
  He requested leave to do so, because the right of the British Agent to present that document, at least under the title of a summary of argument, could no longer

  297
  be said to subsist under the Treaty. Without giving the exact words of the telegram received to-day, I am entitled to say that declaration has been submitted to the Tribunal; that a question arose upon some words it contained; that other words were substituted with, I believe, a perfectly satisfactory effect by the British Agent with the advice of counsel, and that the matter of this controversy relating to the Indirect Claims before the Tribunal at Geneva may be considered as concluded. Sir, I have said that I desire to avoid explaining any of these proceedings, and to confine myself to a dry statement of facts; but the House will understand what appears to us to be clearly upon the face of the documents when they are considered. In the first place, they will observe that we, having made the request for adjournment, have in no sense prompted, or expressed any desire for this movement on the part of the Arbitrators; it was their own spontaneous act. The House will also observe that the opinion which the Arbitrators have given with respect to the Indirect Claims is not an opinion involving an assumption of jurisdiction, and has not proceeded upon any hearing of the case, or upon any submission of any argument whatever by us to them in relation to the admissibility of those Claims. The Arbitrators stated that they had considered what had been said by the American Government, and thereupon they founded their declaration. The Arbitrators have also, as the House will observe, not entered into the question of the interpretation of the Treaty, but have rather stated that they perceived in the nature and character of those Claims reasons why, even if the two Governments were agreed as to their jurisdiction, it would be impossible that they should be entertained. Further, Sir, with regard to a distinction that was formerly drawn between the question of making a pecuniary award and the question of their entire extinction, the House will perceive that if at any period that distinction really subsisted, it subsists no longer, because the Claims are not to be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever in regard to any award that the Arbitrators may make. Sir, this being so, the House will understand that it was obviously the duty of the British Government to withdraw its request for an adjournment. The question of ad-
  298
  journment was one which we considered preferable to the lapse of the Treaty; but it was one which we are very glad to find ourselves in a position to drop. The request for the adjournment, in view of further negotiations, having been withdrawn, it only remains to say that I believe some adjournment will probably be necessary for the convenience of the Arbitrators, in order that they may put themselves in full possession of the latest documents in the Case before they hear counsel and Agents; but that will be for a practical purpose alone; and, so far as the two Governments are concerned; there is now no longer any obstacle or impediment whatever to the prosecution by the Arbitrators of that high and important function which they have undertaken—undertaken for the immediate benefit of the two nations concerned—but also, I believe, with the hope—I trust a well-founded hope—that in conducting this controversy to a peaceful and friendly issue, they may likewise be conferring a real service upon the mass of civilized mankind.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the Arbitrators had decided against the Indirect Claims not because they considered them inapplicable to the present case, but because they had decided against the principle of Indirect Claims altogether. If that were so, he had but one remark to make, and that was, that in order to tide over our present difficulty we had sacrificed what might prove to be the most valuable rights of this country on a future occasion. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Member that he would be quite in Order in putting to the First Minister of the Crown any question arising out of the statement that he had just made; but that to express an opinion with reference to the matter which had been brought under consideration was not in Order.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, to put himself in Order he would move the Adjournment of the House. His purpose was to ask what would be our position if, in any future war in which the United States were neutral, Fenian raids should take place into Canada. Would not the damage that might result from such raids fall under the head of Indirect Claims? It must be clear to everybody that for

  299
  weeks past the Government of the United States had been trying to lead up to the position which the controversy had now reached. They knew they were in a difficulty, and their only object had been to secure immunity for the future before foregoing the Claims. This they had now secured. These Indirect Claims were undoubtedly unjust in this instance; but a time might come when claims similar in title, but of a just and reasonable character, would be owing to this country, and we should then find ourselves debarred from asserting our rights.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Percy Wyndham.)
  MR. DISRAELI: Did I correctly understand the right hon. Gentleman that the relinquishment of the Indirect Claims by the Government of the United States is limited only to this Arbitration?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the controversy which has prevailed between the two Governments since the month of February has been almost entirely limited to the scope of the Arbitration. The declaration which Her Majesty was advised to make from the Throne related entirely to what was within the power of the Arbitrators. The communications made to the United States Government, in like manner, related to what was within the power of the Arbitrators. On that basis the controversy has been continued, and the request made on the part of the Government of this country—the position taken on the part of the Government of this country—has at all times been that we would not consent to any award or proceeding before the Arbitrators on the subject of these Claims; and that they could not be submitted with our participation to the Arbitrators. The right hon. Gentleman asks, Is the relinquishment of these Claims applicable to the Arbitration alone, or—if I may fill up what I conceive to be the evident meaning of his question—will it be in the power of the Government of the United States to revive these Claims independently of the Arbitration? I must say that that is a matter lying outside the immediate issue which has been in dispute between us and the Government of the United States for the last five months. If the right hon. Gentleman asks me whether it
  300
  would be competent for the United States Government in our view under the Treaty, to raise the question of Indirect Claims now that a Treaty has been concluded, I answer him, in the most unequivocal terms, that it is not competent for them to do so. Neither has there been at any time hinted to us the possibility that they have the smallest inclination to take such a course. But while that subject is an entirely distinct one, which I think it material to point out, we have ourselves the very strongest opinion that the Treaty as it stands—the Claims not being within the scope of the Arbitration, as now decided—the Treaty is an effectual bar to such Claims; if, indeed, the best bar to such Claims should not be found in the nature and conditions of the Claims themselves. But with regard to the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Percy Wyndham), I will not reply to it by argument, but, by calling his attention to the exact words of the declaration of the Arbitrators, which appears to us to be drawn with the greatest care and circumspection. I know it is not very easy, hearing such documents read for the first time, to arrive at once at their full effect; but I think the hon. Gentleman will see that his impression is entirely mistaken, and when he has the Papers in his hands, which I hope will be within three or four days from the present time, he will have an opportunity of maturely considering the subject and testing the effect of the words. In the declaration of the 19th, as I have already said, the Arbitrators first of all describe the Claims—not Indirect Claims in general, but the particular Claims put forward as the Indirect Claims in controversy with the United States—under the three heads of Claims. They are so well known that I need not read them. Having thus described the Claims, the Arbitrators use these words—and now, perhaps, I had better read a passage I did not before trouble the House with—
  "But it seems to them obvious that the substantial object of the adjournment must be to give the two Governments an opportunity of determining whether the claims in question shall, or shall not, be submitted to the decision of the Arbitrators, and that any difference between the two Governments on this point may make the adjournment unproductive of any useful effect, and, after a delay of many months, during which both nations may be kept in a state of painful suspense, may end in a result which, it is to be presumed, both Govern-

  301
  ments would equally deplore, that of making this Arbitration wholly abortive."
  Then they say—and this passage I formerly read to the House—
  "This being so, the Arbitrators think it right to state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of these claims, they have arrived, individually and collectively, at the conclusion that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should upon such principles be wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two Governments as to the competency of the Tribunal to decide thereon."
  I think, Sir, that is decisive. Of course, the Government of this country must always act in honourable consistency with the principles involved in conducting any particular controversy; but as to any abstract declaration I think the hon. Member will see that there is no foundation for the remarks he has made.
  MR. MUNTZ: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman this Question—Are we to understand from these documents that we are now in the same position we should have been in if the Indirect Claims had never been made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As regards the prosecution of the Arbitration, I apprehend that we are certainly in the same position, and exactly in the same position. As regards the general considerations applicable to a great controversy of this kind, I will not undertake to say that there may not be divided opinions; but it appears to me that not only we, but likewise America and all countries, will derive considerable advantage from the full and searching discussion which this question has undergone during the negotiations.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEcalled attention to the 20th Order, which was thus entered on the Paper—"Monastic and Conventual Institutions Commission Bill—Adjourned Debate on Second Reading, 26th June." He begged to state that he had not last evening raised any debate on the second reading, and, indeed, could not have done so at 9
302
minutes to 6 o'clock, when, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Matthews) had given Notice to oppose, and controverted matter could not be taken. He had merely proposed that the second reading should be fixed for the 5th of July, at 2 o'clock, in order to try the question whether Members not connected with the Government were prevented by the Rules of the House from placing their Orders first when the House met at 2 o'clock. He wished to ask the Speaker whether the 20th Order was rightly entered on the Paper? He also wished to ask whether the Resolution of the House forbidding Opposed Business being taken after half-past 12 o'clock would preclude the House to-night from considering the proposal whether he could fix the Order for the Morning Sitting on July 2?
MR. SPEAKER: On the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Commissions Bill being read yesterday the hon. Member proposed that the second reading should be postponed to Friday week, at 2 o'clock. That Motion was opposed, and as at the time at which it was made no Opposed Business could be taken, according to the Standing Orders of the House, the debate was adjourned to this day. In answer to the first Question of the hon. Member, I must, therefore, state that the entry, which was made by the Clerk at the Table in putting this down among the Orders of the Day as an adjourned debate upon the second reading, is perfectly accurate. The hon. Member further asks me whether the Resolution of the 15th of March, in reference to not taking Opposed Business after half-past 12 o'clock, applies to this particular Order of the Day. I am bound to consider that the Amendment standing in the Notice Paper, that this Bill should be read a second time this day three months, applies to the Order of the Day whenever it is called on. Therefore, I consider that the Resolution to which the hon. Member refers does apply.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Allow me, Sir, to ask you to what day I can postpone the Order?
MR. SPEAKER: When the Order of the Day is called on the hon. Member may make such Motion as he thinks proper, and the House will decide the matter according to its discretion.
Afterwards, on the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on Motion that the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Commission Bill be now read the second time—
MR. NEWDEGATE, having again called Mr. SPEAKER'S attention to the position of his Order in relation to this Bill, said, that he believed the best course for him to take—as he did not acknowledge the Notice which stood in his name—was to allow the Order to drop. He would then give a fresh Notice so as to revive the question.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 210.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. William Edward Forster.)

THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
MR. GORDONrose to state that there were several provisions of the Bill in which he did not acquiesce, and, therefore, he hoped he should not be understood as concurring in them, although he did not take the sense of the House on the third reading of the Bill.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEconsidered it his duty to protest against the third reading of this Bill for the following reasons:—because the Bill abandons the position hitherto occupied by the Legislature, which was solemnly adopted at the Reformation—that the Word of God should be incorporated with the education of Scotland; because the education of the people of Scotland is to be taken out of their own hands and governed by a Board in London, whose decisions will regulate and override the temporary phantom Board which it is proposed to establish in Edinburgh; because the appointment of school boards in every parish is calculated to create difficulties rather than to improve the education imparted at the parish schools; because it will be difficult to avoid applying the same regulation to Ireland, the result of which will be to throw the whole education of that country into the hands of the priesthood; because the Bill will tend to impair the independence of the masters by making them the servants of—it may be—illiterate and penurious boards; because it introduces a new
304
burden on occupiers of land from which they have hitherto been practically exempt; and, finally, because there is every reason to believe that the principle of the Bill is opposed to the feelings and wishes of the vast majority of the people of Scotland. In support of the last objection he referred to the contest for the city of Aberdeen. There were three candidates before the constituency, and not one of them dared to approach it without in the first place supporting the Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gordon) that the Scriptures should be read in the schools, expressing agreement with the principles on which Scotch education had hitherto been conducted, and to that extent expressing disapproval of a portion of this Bill. He would further adduce the result of the divisions in the Established and Free Church Assemblies on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gordon) and on the Bill itself. The Amendment of the hon. Member was supported in the Established Assembly by the majority, which consisted of 247, and in the Free Church Assembly by the minority, which consisted of 156, making a total for the Amendment of 403. The Lord Advocate's Bill received in the Free Church Assembly the support of the majority of 325, and in the Established Assembly the support of a minority of 43, making a total of 368. Taking the two Assemblies together, the totals were—for the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, 403; for the Lord Advocate's Bill, 368; showing a majority of 35 against the Lord Advocate. These facts were, he thought, a sufficient justification for the course he had taken in opposing the Bill.
MR. M'LARENbelieved, from all the information he had been able to obtain, that no measure had ever passed the House of Commons which would meet with more general acceptance in Scotland than this Bill. With one exception, relating to the enlarged charge to be made upon the heritors, the great mass of the people looked upon the Bill as an admirable one, and one which would work wonders.
MR. R. W. DUFFwished to state, in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Elphinstone), that one of the candidates for Aberdeen had distinctly stated that he entirely approved this Bill,

305
and especially the provisions with regard to religious instruction.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

MINES (COAL) REGULATION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Wages.
Clause 15 (Payment of wages at public houses, &c.).
MR. BRUCEsaid, that, in consequence of communications he had received from both sides of the House, he proposed to postpone the clause.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, while anxious for the discussion of an Amendment of which he had given Notice, would not lay himself open to the charge of impeding the progress of the Bill; but he could acquiesce in the postponement of the clause only on the understanding that the other Bill by which it was proposed to deal with this question would be persevered with.
MR. BROWNcould assent to the postponement of the clause only on a sufficient assurance that the subject should be dealt with by the Government at the earliest opportunity.
Clause postponed.
Clause 16 (Payment of persons employed in mines by weight).
MR. STAVELEY HILLannounced his intention of waiving his Amendments allowing payments by measure also, the masters being willing to submit to the inconvenience involved in weight being the only standard.
MR. PEASE, while personally in favour of weight, thought measure should be permitted; but would not press the matter if the Committee generally took another view.
MR. FOTHERGILLwished for the adoption of the standard which would give the greatest satisfaction to the men. In South Wales, where measure was not used, all the work of a mine was often stopped in order to see that the coal was correctly weighed; and his own workmen frequently tested the weighing machine, a practice which was satisfactory
306
to him, for the masters' hands were quite clean in this matter.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN moved, in page 7, line 20, at end, add—
"Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall preclude the masters and men from agreeing that deductions shall be made in respect of stones or material other than that contracted to be gotten, which shall be sent out of the mine with the mineral contracted to be gotten, or in respect of any tubs, baskets, or hutches being improperly filled; such deductions being determined by the banksman and check weigher (if there be one), or, in case of difference, by a third party to be mutually agreed on."
MR. BROGDENproposed to insert in page 7, line 20, in Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN'S Amendment, if carried, after "improperly filled" the words—
"In those cases where they are filled by the getter of the mineral or his drawer, or by the person immediately employed by him."
MR. BRUCEassented to the Amendment, remarking that the reputation of a mine owner depended on the coal sent to market being free from stone or shale. It was, therefore, necessary to protect him against baskets being filled with rubbish.
Proviso, as amended, agreed to.
MR. BRUCEproposed an Amendment which would affect not only this clause, but other parts of the Bill. The concluding paragraph of the section raised the important question which was discussed the other day, and having received information as to the sort of opposition which these points would receive, he had endeavoured to frame an Amendment which, while giving due effect to the object of the Bill, would meet the legitimate objections which had been raised. He proposed to omit the last paragraph and to insert the words—
"Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act; and, in the event of any contravention or failure to comply with the provisions of this section, the owner, agent, and manager shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act unless he can satisfy the Court that he has used due diligence to secure the execution of such provisions."
These words were taken from the Factory Act.
MR. LIDDELL, while grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his attention to this important matter, and for the earnest he had just given of the manner in which he would deal with it, was of opinion that Notice ought to be

307
given of the Amendment in order that its terms might be very carefully weighed. He would suggest that it should be postponed until the bringing up of the Report.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the words he had proposed were of a less stringent character than the words in the original clause, to which no Notice of Amendment had been given.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYobserved that, notwithstanding the opposition of the Government to the insertion of the word "knowingly" in a clause discussed at the sitting on Tuesday, the Home Secretary, in effect, now proposed to insert the word "knowingly," because he felt it to be due to this clause. But full Notice ought to have been given of his intention to amend this clause.
MR. RODENsaid, he hoped the Home Secretary would postpone his Amendment, of which he had not given Notice, until the Report—that was to say, until the Committee had a fair opportunity of discussing the whole question. According to the Amendment, the owner, agent, and manager might all be sent to prison for the same offence.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the Amendment followed the words of the Factory Act, but he had no objection to the clause standing it its present form.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had read the Factory Act carefully, and found that in every case not only knowledge but personal knowledge was required before any person could be punished. He took exception to the construction put upon the matter by the right hon. Gentleman, and maintained that the words had a very different effect in the Factory Act from what they would have there.
MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had not studied the Factory Act so successfully as his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, otherwise he would have seen that the obligation which it was now proposed to place on the mine owner, if not identical with that imposed under the Factory Act, differed only in being less severe. The clause proposed by the Home Secretary was to this effect—that if the rules were contravened the mine owner should be held responsible, but he might free himself from responsibility if he could show that he had used due diligence. Under
308
the Factory Act the owner or occupier would be primâ facie liable, but would be able to exonerate himself if he showed that he had used due diligence, and also pointed out who the culpable person was. In the present clause the latter obligation was not required, because in case of an explosion it might not be possible for the mine owner to show who had been culpable, though he might be able to prove that he had himself employed due diligence. Therefore, under this Bill the owner, agent, or manager of a mine would be placed in a more favourable position, because he would have exonerated himself the moment he had shown the Inspector that he had shown due diligence.
LORD ELCHOsaid, the speech of the Under Secretary was an unanswerable argument in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) to postpone the clause. An hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill) on one side had brought forward a legal argument which was met by another legal argument by the Under Secretary. That showed that it was extremely desirable to proceed with caution, and if his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wished to make progress with the Bill it would best be done by postponing the clause without entering further into a legal discussion, which might be prolonged with very little advantage.
MR. PEASEalso appealed to his right hon. Friend to postpone the clause, for they were being asked to legislate on a new Amendment, the legal bearings of which it was extremely difficult for them to follow.
MR. BRUCEdid not deny the reasonableness of this request, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that there had been no want of due diligence on the part of those in charge of the Bill. As objection had been taken to the insertion of the words, he was perfectly willing to postpone them until some later period, or the Report, when it would be his duty to propose them again upon giving due Notice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
MR. NEWDEGATE, as a person interested in the subject, wished to state that the difference between the Amendment suggested and the substance of the

309
Bill and the Factory Act was this—that the Factory Act made the occupier primarily responsible as the person in possession. The owner was not in possession when he had let his mine to another, and to make him responsible for what was done under the occupier was altogether unjust. ["Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANinformed the hon. Member that the Amendment had been withdrawn.
MR. FAWCETTrose to move that the clause be omitted from the Bill. The hon. Member said, he had sat upon a Committee the Report of which formed the basis of the present Bill, and he had listened to the evidence given by various persons relative to the payment of wages by weight or measure. He wished therefore to enter his most emphatic protest against the legislation contained in the clause, which was also to be traced in various other Bills. It was the beginning of an evil course, which, if persisted in, would bring great disaster on this country. It would intensify the very evils it sought to cure, and he was convinced it would inflict the most serious blow upon industry, because it would teach working-men not to rely on themselves, or their own efforts, but to seek the miserable and demoralizing assistance of repeated Acts of Parliament. He would have occasion, when the Government brought on the Truck Bill, to raise this question on a broader basis. But what he wished now to point out was this—if it were better to have the men paid by weight than by measure, could not the House of Commons leave the question to be decided by the masters and the men themselves? The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Fothergill), who spoke with great practical experience, had told the House, what they knew to be the truth, that the men had quite as much power as the masters. The men had worked wages up to the market point, and, when the circumstances of trade justified, they were able to obtain an advance of 10, 20, or 25 per cent. They had fought out the question of wages successfully, because, happily, this House had not encouraged the baneful doctrine of interfering between employer and employed. Would not half the same force of combination, similarly directed, enable working men to say that they should be paid by weight and not by measure? You could not legis-
310
late in this way for every trade, or even for every mine. Whenever you attempted this trade interference you were forced to allow the Home Secretary the power of making certain exceptions. The result would be to spread over the whole country a great network of Government interference, under which trade would suffer more even than it would from onerous taxation. You had not the courage to carry out this very clause consistently, and what was your weak resort? You inserted a proviso that the Home Secretary might suspend its operation, allowing men to be paid by measure and not by weight. Would the practical men of England really say that the Home Office was to decide all these difficult and delicate questions? Had not the Home Office enough to do at present? Did it do its work so well that it could undertake, in adddition, to look into every mine, every level, every shaft, and say that wages should be paid according to measure in one case, according to weight in another? He said nothing against the Home Secretary. The Home Office did not fail because of any personal faults in his right hon. Friend, but because it undertook 50 times more than a Government Department could do. If this tendency were not checked, the Home Office would not only have 50 but 100 times more than it could properly do, and it would be far worse done than it was at present. No doubt, these would be called the theoretical opinions of doctrinaires; but they were really opinions based on common sense, and he believed that a great majority of the House would be anxious to make the same avowal, if they were not deterred by the false and mistaken philanthropy which had grown up. He was strongly in favour of certain kinds of Government interference; but there was an important distinction between interference on behalf of children and interference on behalf of grownup men. "Oh," said an hon. Friend, to whom he used this argument, "but workmen must be treated as children." If so, why did not the supporters of this childish legislation say so, when they were going to give the franchise to working men? The very men who advocated this meddling, mischievous legislation, and who now said—"You must legislate for working men as if they were children," talked then, in Parliament and

311
upon endless platforms, about "the enlightened working classes," and declared that every working man in the country ought to have a vote. He, too, thought that every working man should have a vote, and it was because he thought so that he was of opinion they should be left to manage their own affairs. If he believed that workmen must continue to pass their lives on crutches, and to be treated as though they could not settle their ordinary transactions, he should be the first to say—"For Heaven's sake do not extend the suffrage. Let us even retrace the fatal step we have taken in entrusting political power to a class who are so childish that they cannot take care of themselves." This clause raised an important principle, one against which he should protest whenever it was introduced into an Act of Parliament. He meant to do it on the Truck Bill. He did not care how much he might be misunderstood, or what unpopularity he incurred; but if he received the slightest encouragement, though he did not desire to delay the Bill, he should ask the House to express its opinion on the policy contained in the clause.
MR. PEASEsaid, the clause compelled every colliery proprietor after August, 1873, to pay his men by weight instead of by measure, except in certain cases where the Secretary of State had power to vary that arrangement. Like his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett), he objected to place such an unnecessary power in the hands of the Home Office. From some practical experience on this subject, he believed that there was no difficulty in paying the men accurately by measure by providing a standard measure at the mine. If that were so, there need be no dissatisfaction with the system of paying by measure, and he objected to the House of Commons dictating between masters and men.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he had heard with astonishment the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), which, if it meant anything, meant that the Bill was unnecessary, and that masters and men were perfectly qualified to settle their own arrangements without interference from this House in the matter of mines, manufactories, and workshops. The cheers from both sides of the House during the speech of the hon. Member
312
were not very encouraging to those outside who were looking to that House to render life in mines more secure, and to place the relations of masters and men on a better footing. If that House accepted the doctrine that working miners were perfectly able to make their own arrangements with their masters, as to the rules and regulations for the working of mines, it would thereby transfer to the trades unions the power of regulating these relations; or the argument of the hon. Member would, in effect, allow the weak to be ruled by the strong. When, some years since, great complaints arose respecting the frauds and dishonesty in the coal trade, when coals were sold by measure, Parliament did not say that was a question between buyer and seller, with which they had no concern, but it passed an Act compelling coal merchants to sell their coals by weight, and also to provide scales and weights to enable the consumer to test the weight. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the clause.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought that the hon. Alderman had entirely mistaken the question, and that if all questions of rates of wages and modes of payment were settled by a paternal Government there would be a much greater outcry than there was now. To compel coal merchants to sell their coals by weight to the public, and make them provide scales and weights to test the weight of the sacks, was a totally different thing to compelling the miners to change a system to which they had been accustomed. The men could easily settle this question for themselves; they could see whether the skips were full; and if they were, they knew that they would receive a certain rate of payment.
MR. GOLDSMIDcordially supported the views expressed by the hon. Member for Brighton, and protested against the system of having a paternal Government interfering on all occasions between masters and workmen. He had recently paid a visit to the mining districts, and had conversed with several miners, and he had come to the conclusion that there was not a more intelligent class of men in this country, or men more capable of making an arrangement for themselves.
MR. ELLIOTentirely concurred in the principle which had been enunciated by the hon. Member for Brighton, and thought that the less interference be-

313
tween masters and men the better. British workmen were very well qualified indeed to take matters into their own hands. The system of computing by measure had, however, he could state from his own experience, given rise to more disputes and difficulties than anything else connected with the management of collieries; and while fully recognizing the principle that the less interference tools place the better it would be, thought that for the sake of expediency, it would be well to enact the adoption of the weighing system.
MR. LANCASTERalso supported payment by weight, and said it was well known that there was generally a large percentage of over-weight in favour of the masters as compared with the estimated weight of the coal as measured. He also stated that it was the custom of the banksman at the pit's mouth to declare the whole of the tub or skip forfeited if, in his opinion, it was not the proper measure, which was a great grievance. Of course, in cases of short weight the deduction was only made of the amount it was short.
LORD ELCHOtrusted the Committee would allow the clause to stand. The hon. Member for Brighton said it was not right for the State to interfere between masters and men in such matters; but the Irish Land Bill was an interference on the part of the State, and the hon. Member's conduct in reference to that measure was inconsistent with the principle which he now enunciated. When, as in this case, the representatives of the employers and of the workmen were agreed, that principle, though generally sound, might be departed from in the present instance.
MR. RODENobserved that nothing had caused greater irritation than the question as to the way in which the men should be paid; and though he agreed with the statement that the men ought generally to be left to settle such matters for themselves, yet all interested in the subject declared that the clause was necessary. He, however, was of opinion that the discretion proposed to be given to the Home Secretary should be left out of the Bill.
MR. BRUCEconceived that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had done good service by raising this discussion. The subject was one of great difficulty, and it was not without a great
314
deal of reluctance that he complied in this matter with the general wishes of the mining population. He knew the danger of interfering between masters and men in anything which could be fairly settled between themselves. But Parliament had already interfered in respect to weights and measures in order to prevent disputes and the suspicion of fraud. Parliament had interfered to cause coal to be sold by weight all over the country. It was found that that was the only way to establish confidence, and that was the justification for the introduction of the present clause into the Bill. With respect to the interference of the Secretary of State, he should be glad if that matter could be omitted from the clause; but great hardship would be entailed if the proposed change were carried out in all cases without exception.
MR. FLETCHER, as one practically connected with the management of collieries for many years, expressed himself as being strongly in favour of the system of weight, and he thought it should be adopted absolutely, without any power being given to the Home Secretary to grant exemptions.
MR. PEASEwas in favour of payment by weight, but on the principle of non-interference, he should vote with the hon. Member for Brighton. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Elliot) had stated that great dissatisfaction arose among miners from the practice being enforced of paying their wages by measure. All he could say, as the result of his own experience in the matter, was, that he had never known a strike occur from disputes on that point.
MR. FAWCETTremarked that he was usually not disinclined to carry a question to the test of a division; but he should not take that course on the present occasion, because he had not given Notice of his intention to oppose the clause. Again, this Bill was, to a great extent, the result of a compromise, and many hon. Members who thoroughly agreed with him in principle would not be prepared to vote against the clause. He should, however, take an opportunity of raising the same principle on the Master and Servant (Wages) Bill, which he intended to oppose.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 (Appointment and removal of check-weigher on part of men).
MR. BRUENsaid, this clause, which related to the appointment of a check-weigher on the part of the men, provided that if in any mine proper facilities were not afforded to the check-weigher, the owner, agent, or manager of such mine should be guilty of an offence against the Act. He proposed to change into the positive what was put by this provision in a negative form, and therefore he moved in page 8, line 6, to leave out from "proper," to "section" in line 7, inclusive, and insert—
"Any inconvenience or obstacle be placed in the way of such check-weigher calculated to interfere with his taking in an efficient manner such account as aforesaid, as required by this section, or to encroach on all reasonable and proper facilities for his so doing, then and in such case."
MR. BRUCEopposed the Amendment, because he thought the Bill should insist on proper facilities being given to enable the check-weigher to perform his duties.
MR. BRUENremarked, that as the facilities to be given were not defined by the Bill, the owners might be placed in a difficulty.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 (Inspection of weights and measures) agreed to.
Single Shafts.
Clause 19 (Prohibition of single shafts).
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, this clause provided that in communication with every seam of each mine for the time being at work, there should be at least two shafts, or outlets, separated by natural strata of not less than ten feet in breadth. This distance, in his opinion, was not sufficient, and he therefore moved, in page 9, line 28, to leave out "feet," and insert "yards."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had taken the opinion of Inspectors on this clause, and none of them suggested any departure from the Act of 1862, in which the same provision appeared. Therefore, unless the hon. Member had stronger reasons than he had adduced for his Amendment, the Government must object to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BRUENpointed out that the Proviso at the end of the clause stated—
316
"That the separation between the shafts should not be deemed incomplete by reason only that openings through the strata between the two shafts or outlets had been made for temporary purposes of ventilation, drainage, or otherwise."
In no times in Ireland had any inflammable gas been discovered, and the retention of the word "temporary" might be prejudicial to them. He therefore moved in page 9, line 41, after "otherwise," insert—
"Or in the case of mines where inflammable gas has not been found within the preceding twelve months, such separation shall not be deemed incomplete by reason only that openings through the strata between the two shafts or outlets have been made for purposes of ventilation, drainage, or otherwise."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he did not think the Amendment would give any additional security.
MR. BOUVERIEthought the introduction of the words proposed would restrict the Proviso, since its effect would be to exclude from the operation of the clause all mines where no inflammable gas had been found within the preceding twelve months.
MR. ELLIOTthought the communication provided for by the clause would frequently be required in a mine where inflammable gas had been found within twelve months.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, the weight of authority appeared to be opposed to the Amendment. He would, however, suggest that the matter be considered before the Report was brought up.
LORD ELCHOsaid, the difficulty of the case might be met by omitting the word "temporary" from the clause.
MR. BRUCEpromised, if the Amendment were now withdrawn, to consider the question before Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
Certificated Manager.
Clause 24 (Appointment of manager to mine).
MR. LIDDELL MR. LIDDELL moved in page 11, line 41, after "manager," insert "or managers," the object being to meet the case of mines having more than one manager.
MR. BRUCEopposed the addition, on the ground that by it the responsibility of the management of the mine would be divided. In his opinion, one of the

317
greatest benefits that could arise in mines would be the introduction of certificated managers.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsupported the Amendment, remarking that in his district there was a general manager, with a separate manager to each pit, and that the clause as it stood would make only one of these responsible.
MR. CANDLISHsuggested that the Amendment might be adopted subject to the insertion of qualifying words on the Report.
MR. FOTHERGILLpointed out the impossibility of a single man personally supervising enormous collieries.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that what was required was a man to be engaged in the daily supervision of a mine who should possess intelligence, vigilance, and assiduity, inasmuch as so many lives depended on the exercise of those qualities: and it was deemed desirable that the person so engaged should be required to have a certificate. Unless the Bill were to increase responsibility it could scarcely be called an improvement on any of its predecessors, and if that responsibility were diffused among several persons it would be to that extent weakened.
MR. ELLIOTpointed out that there were some mines of such magnitude that they would require half-a-dozen managers. If security, protection, and responsibility were the objects which it was sought to attain the more managers there were, he contended, the better.
MR. PEASEwas of opinion that the result of requiring a certificate would be to produce a higher standard of education among the men.
LORD ELCHOsuggested that the introduction of the words "of active certificated managers" would meet at once the object of the Home Secretary and the framers of the Bill, and ensure the direct responsibility which his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment desired to attain.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANwas of opinion that the security of a mine did not depend more on the manager than on the chief agent, who had the control of the general working of it. He suggested, therefore, that the chief agent should be subjected to a practical examination, and should be certified as well as the manager.
MR. LANCASTERcompared a mine to a ship with its captain, who directed
318
its general course, and its mate, who was responsible for seeing that the sailors did their work and for the lifting and lowering of the sails. He, for one, did not think it was necessary that there should be a certified manager for every compartment of a mine.
MR. LIDDELLreplied that there was a vast difference between the area of a ship and that of a colliery. It was impossible, he maintained, for any single manager to do the work involved in the daily supervision and control of many miles of mine. He must take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the captain of a ship was always on board, while the agent of a mine might be many miles away. He should be glad if the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell) would allow the matter to be further considered on the Report. The hon. Member had made out a case for more than one manager in some instances, and that case might be met without breaking in upon the principle of the Bill.
MR. HENDERSONsaid, that in all the well-managed collieries there was a proper staff appointed, who were really responsible for every hour of the day, and there was not a single operation in one of the large colleries which was not under the supervision of officials who were responsible both for the safety of the mine and for the lives of the workpeople.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. ELLICE MR. ELLICE moved the insertion in page 12, line 2, after "be the" of the words "agents and," his object being that the owner of the mine should be required to give notice to the Inspector of who the agent of the mine was, and that that agent should be subject to examination and have a certificate in the same way as the manager.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that this Amendment, thus suddenly started upon them, would alter the whole structure of the Bill. There was no reason why the agent should not be the manager if it was the desire of the owner that he should be; but there were cases in which an owner might have one agent and a great number of managers. The person invested with the responsibility should be the manager. The point raised by the Amendment could be better dealt with on the Report.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he did not like leaving these things till the Report. A long experience had taught him how unsatisfactory that was. The agent was the person on whose control the safety of the mine really depended.
Amendment negatived.
MR. BRUEN MR. BRUEN moved the addition of words in the clause giving power to the Secretary of State to exempt, in special cases, mines from the operation of the Act in which more than 10 persons were employed, as he thought that that restriction might sometimes prove inconvenient.
MR. BRUCEthought that it was better that the limit fixed upon—namely, mines with not more than 10 persons employed in them—should be retained.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 (Grant of certificate of competency).
MR. LIDDELL, in moving that this and the following clause relating to the appointment of examining Boards and the grant of certificates of competency to managers should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting other clauses at the proper time on the same subject, said, that for the first time it was now proposed that all managers of mines should hold certificates of competency, thereby relieving owners and agents from a material portion of the responsibility which had hitherto attached to them in the choice of their servants, and also conferring an official title upon all future managers of mines. The constitution of these examining Boards ought, therefore, to be carefully considered. What he objected to was that not the Home Secretary, but "a" Secretary of State was to take upon himself the duty of appointing the examiners, framing regulations for the future conduct of these examinations, and granting certificates to candidates. Even the Home Secretary had not the requisite local knowledge, either for the choice of persons to conduct these examinations, or for ascertaining the qualifications and general fitness of men for these most important duties. He, therefore, desired to introduce the representative principle, adopting an analogous machinery to that by which certificates were conferred on masters and mates in the Mercantile
320
Marine, and substituting local knowledge versus official theory. The present Secretary of State had a practical knowledge of mining, but a successor of his might be crotchety, dogmatic, theoretical, or quite ignorant of the subject. What was necessary in the case was an examining Board whose decisions should inspire public confidence, and he desired that the Board should be elected by men whose local knowledge would enable them to say who were qualified to act as examiners. A practical, not a theoretical, examination was necessary. It was requisite not so much to ascertain the scientific attainments of candidates, but to elect practical men with a certain knowledge of elementary science, for if you got very highly educated young men as managers, they would not submit to the drudgery of the pit. He desired to have a practical rather than a theoretical examination, and to obtain this it would be necessary to have a Board composed largely of practical men, with a mixture of the working-class element, which, in the examinations, would bring out the moral qualities, the courage, and the powers of endurance which were so necessary in the successful conduct of mining operations. When the proper time came he would explain more at large the plan he proposed to substitute for the clauses he now desired the Committee to strike out of the Bill.
MR. NORWOODsaid, he entirely disapproved the plan in matters of this kind of granting certificates fixing standards of merit. The effect of such a policy had been very injurious, as exemplified under the operation of the Merchant Shipping Acts, for the result was that few men endeavoured to get beyond the legal standard of merit, and the work in which they were engaged suffered considerably. He felt sure that, taking the Bill as far as it had progressed up to the present, the rules laid own were less stringent than those already in force in the best regulated collieries; and the further effect of vesting the appointment of examiners in the Secretary of State would be largely to remove responsibility from the shoulders of the colliery owners, on which it ought to rest, and so tend to the injury of the public interests.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsuggested that the practical portion of the Board of

321
Examiners hereafter to be proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) should be composed of two colliery owners, two practical miners, and two underground colliery managers. He attached great importance to the presence of these last-named persons upon the Board of Examiners.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he was of opinion that the practical result of the clauses now under consideration would be to prevent a great deal of the good which without them the Bill was calculated to effect. It was true, as had been said, that the present Home Secretary had much practical knowledge of mining operations. He might, however, be succeeded by a Gentleman destitute of such knowledge, who—perhaps through the agency of the School of Mines in Jermyn Street—might adopt such means for the examination of managers as would result in the selection not of practical men, but of those persons who could write the best essays, or give the best vivâ voce answers to questions relating to theoretical mining.
MR. PEASEsaid, there was very great force in the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland. The character and requirements of mines varied considerably in different districts, and it was, therefore, desirable that the examiners should be acquainted with the localities. In his opinion, it would be of the greatest advantage to put working miners on the Board of Examiners.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to know whether, supposing a certificated manager did not answer his purpose, the Home Secretary would be placed in the position at present occupied by the owners? If an owner appointed a manager he incurred certain responsibilities as to penalties; but if the Home Secretary undertook the duty of certifying the manager, he could not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not bear the owner's responsibilities. He felt convinced that under the system proposed by the Bill the services of the best and most practical men would not be obtained. He knew instances in which persons of the highest character and of long experience utterly failed to pass an examination which was rather suited to young men fresh from school, and both the mines and the miners suffered through these failures, because otherwise the can-
322
didates were perfectly competent. There were, moreover, few men of comparatively advanced age who would like to have all their knowledge sifted to the bottom. He doubted whether the Home Secretary should take upon himself so grave a responsibility, as well as the policy of removing that responsibility from the owners, managers, and agents, and putting it on the Government. In doing so they were going far out of their way to interfere with business.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he agreed that it would be advantageous to have a local examination conducted by persons conversant with the wants of the different districts, and also that the object of the examination should be to ascertain not whether a man was fit to hold a professorship in a mining college, but whether he possessed all the practical knowledge which was necessary for the proper management of a colliery. He should be extremely glad to discover a mode more satisfactory than that proposed in the Bill of appointing a Board of Examiners. The hon. Member for South Northumberland had been bold enough to propose a scheme which, he said, was founded on the Merchant Shipping Act. No doubt, the owners of vessels did select the examiners; but he believed the sailors had no voice in the matter, and he might remark that it would be impossible to collect the votes of the colliers in the various districts in the manner now proposed. He was as desirous as his hon. Friend that the working men should have a share in the election, and, if proper machinery could be devised to bring about that result, he should be most happy to adopt the suggestion. The proposals of his hon. Friend, moreover, were in substance those made by the joint committee of masters and men. He had carefully considered them when, they were first brought under his notice; but it appeared to him that they did not afford a practical solution of the question. It was necessary to get practical men, and not men of science; and he admitted he took refuge in the Secretary of State, not knowing where else to turn. It had been recently suggested to him that in most, if not all, of the districts there were associations of mining engineers, gentlemen who took the greatest interest in their profession, who were well acquainted with the wants of their respective localities, who stood, as it were,

323
between the masters and the men, and who, without pitching their standard too high, would not fix it too low. Perhaps by intrusting this body of men with the selection of a certain number of examiners a solution of the difficulty might be found. The suggestion had only been made to him recently, and, therefore, he had not been able to give practical effect to it; but if it should be the opinion of the Committee that the Secretary of State was not the proper authority to appoint the examiners, and also that his hon. Friend's scheme was too cumbrous and expensive, it might be possible to secure in the way he had just indicated the appointment of an efficient Board of Examiners.
MR. HERMONtrusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland. In most cases in which mines were concerned there were men who had risen out of the ranks by their own ability, and who had shown the proof of practical merit.
MR. ILLINGWORTHremarked that the adoption of the clauses as proposed in the Bill would probably result in a state of things quite opposed to the practice generally existing at present, for a straightforward, sober, courageous man selected from the staff might probably be rejected by the examiners, though he would be the best man, and though the master would wish to consult the feelings of the men in the appointment.
MR. FOTHERGILL, referring to his own experience, said, that in his own mines there had been raised 6,000,000 tons of coal during seven years, and that without the loss of a single life; but he should tremble for the consequence if the new system were adopted, as he considered it a miserable "come-down" from that which now existed. He objected to the owner being relieved from responsibility at the expense of risk to the lives of the miners; but, submitting to some such scheme as inevitable, he preferred that of the hon. Member for South Northumberland.
MR. ELLIOTtestified from experience to the consideration and judgment required in selecting underground managers. The thickness of seams, the modes of working collieries, and other conditions varied so much in different districts that a man fit for a manager in one locality might be unfit for another. More-
324
over, knowledge of mankind was an essential qualification. He contended, therefore, that the examinations should be local.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that having been an Inspector of Schools of Navigation and a Government Commissioner to inquire into mine accidents, he could bear testimony to the satisfactory working of the system of certificates in the Mercantile Marine, though, when proposed, it excited the objections now urged against mine certificates. It was true that examiners could not test practical aptitude, but they tested the intelligent application of science to practice. A shipowner's responsibility had not been lessened by his being required to appoint a certificated captain, and the latter was not the less practical for understanding cyclones and land breezes. In the same way, a mine manager should know something of air, choke-damp, fire-damp, and the barometer and thermometer. He therefore differed from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), and he would remind him that his own town did not depreciate technical studies, for it had a most excellent school of navigation to prepare young men for passing the necessary examinations. Unless the hon. Member for South Northumberland wished to exclude technical subjects from the examination, his proposal and that of the Government had the same object—the securing an intelligent, practical manager. The objection to local Boards was that their standards of qualification differed, while the proposal of the Home Secretary was more likely to secure uniformity in this respect. Scientific principles, consciously or unconsciously applied, underlay and formed the root of all practice. That was now admitted in all practical professions, and mining was a most important profession. Managers of mines should not exercise mere rule of thumb, but possess some intelligence to guide their practice.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that looking at the importance of establishing a competent Board of Examiners, he thought it was impossible for the Committee to arrive that night at any decision on either of the propositions that had been made. The Home Secretary had abandoned his own proposition, and it would be expedient to postpone the clause to give the right hon. Gentle-

325
man an opportunity of bringing another clause.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, there was evidence that the mining interest was not at all satisfied with the proposition of the Home Secretary that he should nominate the Board of Examiners, while as to the proposition of the hon. Member for South Northumberland, it seemed to him that the carrying out of that plan would be impossible; he therefore thought the Committee were not in a position to adopt either one or the other. In that state of things he would suggest that the Committee should fall back upon some such plan as that laid down in the 9th clause—namely, that where an Inspector complained that a manager was incompetent, an inquiry should be directed by the Secretary of State, and, in the event of the charge being sustained, the manager should be removed. There was this presumption in favour of the old system—that it had been conducted with great success, and that the accidents, which everyone deplored, were not due to bad management or the incompetence of managers, but to other causes. He thought the postponement of the clause desirable.
MR. A. EGERTONsaid, he approved of the constitution of a Board consisting of three examiners, and thought that the Inspector should be one member of the Board, and that the other two should be nominated by the Secretary of State.
MR. RYLANDSobserved that the Home Secretary had said it was most important that managers should be required to obtain certificates. But if certificates were desirable in the case of managers they were at least equally desirable in the case of agents, who controlled managers, and who had a great deal more to do with the administration of the mines than managers had. His own opinion was, that it was a mistake to suppose that accidents would be lessened if there were certificated managers, and that was the opinion of the Select Committee of 1867. The miners saw that we should not stop at managers, and therefore they asked that all agents, overmen, and chief managers should be required to have certificates. The men trusted to scientific acquirements; they had a blind confidence that if all these people passed a scientific examination they would be able to protect them from dangers of all sorts. The
326
men were, in fact, relying upon the machinery of Government, upon which there was too great a disposition at present to rely for everything. But hon. Members knew very well that the protection of the men rested very much on the good sense and care of such owners as his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Fothergill), who had told the Committee that he had carried on his mine for seven years without an accident. The men ought also to depend on their own care. He feared that too many accidents were owing to men going down into the mine with their hands unsteady and their brain disordered. He believed that a course was now proposed which, if taken, would not only not put a stop to accidents, but would increase them.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he gathered from the discussion that what was required was that the managers should be men of ascertained practical ability, and well acquainted with the district for which they were examined. The hon. Member for South Northumberland had spoken of the moral qualities necessary for the managers. Of course, it would be requisite for the employers in selecting their managers to see that they had the necessary experience and the necessary knowledge. The proposal of the hon. Member, however, was surrounded with insuperable difficulties; but he thought a solution of the problem might be arrived at in this way—Words to the following effect might be added to the second of those clauses which it was proposed to strike out:—
"The examination shall be conducted locally by not less than three examiners, and of these not less than two shall be mining engineers practically acquainted with the mining district in which the examination is held."
That would secure the examination being held by persons of local knowledge.
MR. RODENthought this a very wide proposition, and one that tended in the direction of centralization. In the first place, he did not know who was to appoint the examiners. [Mr. BRUCE: The Secretary of State.] He objected to the Secretary of State having any such power. He much preferred the scheme of the hon. Member for South Northumberland, which appeared to be a practical one. The plan of the hon. Member for South Northumberland was that there should be an Examining Board of

327
nine members—one to be appointed by the Secretary of State, three to be practical mining engineers, three mine owners, to be elected by the mine owners of the district, and two to be miners, to be elected by the miners of the district. He did not see any difficulty in electing such persons, but he had no faith in nominations of any sort or kind. He should vote for the rejection of the clause.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he objected to nomination by the Secretary of State. A serious objection to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was, that it provided no means for the representation of the men. There were practical points absolutely in dispensable in the managers, which the men of all others were best qualified to ascertain.
MR. ELLIOT, in reference to a remark which had fallen from the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), begged to say, speaking from a long and intimate experience, that in the whole course of his life he had never known of two men who had gone down into the pit in a state of intemperance.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he did not think the ordinary run of mining engineers were qualified to examine men as to the practical working of mines underground; and, further, he had even known Inspectors of districts to whom he should be sorry to intrust the selection of such men. A long experience of both in mining led him to attach greater importance to practice than to science; and he thought the Motion of the hon. Member for South Northumberland afforded a good basis on which to found a Board of Examiners.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was sorry that obstacles should have been thrown in the way of the Bill by persons who, to say the least, were not disinterested, who depreciated science, and said, in effect, that they preferred ignorance and the rule of thumb. ["No!"] What was science? It was knowledge. He always suspected the opposition of those who were personally interested in a question, whether mine owners, bankers, shipowners, or any others.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he must deny that any slur had been cast upon science in the course of the debate. The Home Secretary had himself admitted by his last proposition that there was great difficulty in a purely scientific examination; but you could not suddenly accept
328
words such as had been proposed for insertion in the clause, and the best plan was not to postpone clauses which were condemned even by their author, but to strike them out altogether, and give time to the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell), to frame other clauses which would meet the views of the Committee. He should regret to see the representation of the men given up. Such a representation would ensure practical knowledge at the Board; it would establish the principle that employers and employed might meet amicably together, and it would tend as much as anything to bring about kindly relations between them. He hoped, therefore, that the Home Secretary would not be deterred by formal difficulties from attempting to secure on the Board representatives of the working miners.
MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, of the two plans, he should prefer that the inspection should rest with the Home Secretary, and what was now wanted was that there should be some decision as to the way in which the selection should be made. No doubt, in some parts of the country, Boards selected in the way which had been recommended might be very well adopted; but in others, such a plan would leave things just as they were, and it would be just as well if no examiners were appointed at all. Anyone who knew anything of the Reports of Inspectors of Mines from year to year would see how widely the different districts of the country varied in practice. He should vote with the Government on the question.
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 156: Majority 49.
Clauses 26 and 27 struck out.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 (Inquiry into competency of manager, and cancellation of certificate).
MR. LIDDELL MR. LIDDELL moved as an Amendment, in line 22, after "or," to insert the word "employer," the effect being to permit a representation to be made by employers as well as Inspectors or otherwise to the Secretary of State, that any manager holding a certificate under the

329
Act is by reason of in competency or gross negligence unfit to discharge his duties, whereupon the Secretary of State is empowered to make an inquiry into the conduct of the manager with a view to the cancelling, if necessary, of the manager's certificate. He had a further Amendment to move—namely, the omission of the words "or otherwise," in the same line, which gave too wide an opening for the making of representations to the Secretary of State.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that an employer had it in his power to discharge the manager if he was unfit, without the necessity of any such inquiry. The Amendment would excite great dissatisfaction.
LORD ELCHOsaid, if the words "or otherwise" were struck out, it would exclude representations from the men.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsuggested that the Amendment should run "through an Inspector, or by an employer," which would obviate the latter objection.
MR. GOLDNEYurged that the clause was introduced for the protection of the men. The insertion of the word "employer" was, therefore, an absurdity, and power should be left to the men to make a representation if they saw fit.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30 (Costs and expenses of inquiry).
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to call attention to the novel principle which seemed to be sanctioned in this clause of giving compensation to a person who had been prosecuted, but the charge against whom had been dismissed. Why should the public pay expenses and give compensation in such a case? It was a new principle in English legislation, and ought not to pass unchallenged by the Committee.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he was of the same opinion. He contended that the expense of these prosecutions and of inspection should be borne not by the public, but by the particular interest they were now dealing with. Moreover, he did not understand on what ground the proposal was made, that compensation should be given to Inspectors who had been prosecuted under the Act and acquitted. The clause would add con-
330
siderably to the Vote for Inspection, and some explanation ought to be offered of it.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the question whether collieries should pay for their own inspection or whether the State should pay for it, was one well worthy of attention; but the point was not exactly such as had been described. It only proposed that if a manager was brought up under the Act on a charge that could not be substantiated, he should be allowed a certain sum for his expenses; and it did not seem to him that that was an unreasonable proposition.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate the force of the objection taken by his right hon. Friend. It was that when a charge was made against an individual, and he was acquitted, the Bill proposed that compensation should be given to him. Well, but compensation was never given to other persons who were charged with offences, and acquitted. It was a new principle to be introduced into an Act of Parliament, because when any charge was made, there was always a primâ facie presumption that it was not made without grounds; and it was for the interest of society that the examination should take place, but it had never hitherto been held that compensation out of the public funds ought to be granted to the person if the charge were not sustained. The new principle laid down by the Bill was rather a surprising one.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the question was not one of compensation, properly speaking, to a person because a charge had been made against him; but it was only that an allowance should be made him for the expenses to which he had been put. The circumstances would be altogether novel. The Bill created a new tribunal and a new description of offence; and it seemed to him to be only fair that in the case of a manager against whom the charge made could not be sustained, he should be allowed some compensation for the loss of time and the expenses of his attendance.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that if the prosecution was a malicious one, there was a remedy at law against the person who started it, but that was a different thing from the proposal in this clause. The words were that any person prosecuted under the Bill might at-

331
tend "by himself, his counsel, attorney, or agent," which opened a wide field of expense. He must insist that the prosecution would afford a man the means of investigation, as in the case of the ordinary Courts of Law, in which no one dreamt of recompensing a person accused, except in so far as he had a right of action against anyone who had maliciously prosecuted him. In fact, the new principle proposed in the clause was a dangerous one, and, if once introduced, the Committee might depend on it that it would soon be extended.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, in order to show its absurdity, that on the principle of this clause they ought to compensate a man who was charged with negligent driving in the public streets.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, much could be advanced in favour of the abstract proposition that a person unjustly accused of an offence should be compensated for the trouble he had been put to in defending himself; but it was inexpedient to introduce so novel a point in a Mines Regulation Bill. But this clause was being discussed without any real foundation, and he submitted that it was impossible to deal with it satisfactorily until the Committee had settled the nature of the certificate with which the clause dealt.
MR. GOLDSMIDasked in what position the Home Secretary would be if Parliament refused to grant the money to pay the compensation in any case?
MR. BRUCEsaid, that seeing the provision under notice was so objectionable to the Committee, he was prepared to omit the words giving compensation, but was not prepared to make any fresh proposition relating to the certificate at present.
MR. PEASEsaid, it was idle to suppose that the coal owners would bear the penalty. The whole cost of the Bill would fall on the consumers of coal, and the effect of the measure had been felt already in increased prices, the result of shorter hours of labour.
On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Clause amended, by striking out the words relating to the compensation and costs of inquiry.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Returns, Notices, and Abandonments.
Clause 33 (Expenses and fees).
MR. HERMONestimated that the taxation which would be rendered necessary by this Bill would amount to £6,000,000 a-year, and that it would raise the price of coal 4s. per ton on 120,000,000 tons.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 39 (Plans of abandoned mines).
MR. PEASEproposed an Amendment providing that such plans should be on a scale of not less than that on which the plan, if any, of the mine was last kept. The original words of the clause fixed the scale at not less than two chains to one inch.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. STAVELEY HILLproposed, in line 16, to leave out "ten," and insert "twenty." The object of the Amendment was to provide that no person except an Inspector under the Act should be entitled without the consent of the owner of the mine to see the plan sent in to the Secretary of State, until after the lapse of 20 years from the date of its abandonment.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he trusted that if the limit of 10 years was to be altered at all, one year would be substituted. The clause would be of no use if 20 years were inserted.
MR. WOODSthought 10 years was rather too short a time within which to restrict the knowledge of a disused mine to the Inspector alone, and he hoped the Secretary of State would accede to an enlargement of the period.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he could not see what right anybody had to know what was going on upon another man's property, either above or below ground, provided the mine was not dangerous to the public.
MR. ASSHETONsaid, he could not see why, if the maps were to be made, they should be locked up.
MR. BRUCEsaid, there was opposition on the part of owners of mines. Under the Bill, a plan could be seen by the Inspector of the district or with the consent of the owner of the mine, and there was no reason to suppose that permission to inspect plans would be refused by the owners to any person who had good reason for asking to see them. He had

333
experienced no opposition on the part of the mining interest to the clause as it stood; but he was bound to consider the objections of owners to any greater amount of publicity.
MR. BROWNsuggested that the prescribed term should be five years.
MR. ASSHETONsaid, he must persist in asking for an explanation of the object of locking the plans up at all.
MR. HERMONsaid, an error in the tracings would subject an owner to a penalty or imprisonment for an offence under the Bill, and that would be rather hard for an inadvertent mistake committed in an effort to assist the Secretary of State.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

COLONIAL GOVERNORS PENSIONS BILL— [BILL 176.]
(Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Mr. Baxter.)

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEproposed in page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert "twelve," with the view of enabling an annual increment of pension to be given to Governors after 12 years' service.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "fifteen," in order to insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane.)
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. The Bill passed in 1865 gave Colonial Governors a maximum pension after 18 years' service, and a minimum after 12. There was a jump from 12 to 18, but no intermediate step. Now, it seemed to the Colonial Office that if a man had served 15 years, it was rather hard that he should still receive only the minimum pension, and, therefore, it was now proposed to give an annual increment after 15 years' service, but calculated in such a way as to throw no additional charge
334
on the public Revenue. But his hon. Friend's Amendment, by proposing to reduce the terms of years, would at once impose an additional charge on the public.
MR. RYLANDS, in opposing both the Amendment and the clause, said, he must maintain that the result of the scheme proposed by the Government would be to entail on the public an additional charge.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he failed to see how, if this measure was intended to confer a pecuniary benefit upon Colonial Governors ceasing to be employed, it could fail to be a charge upon the public funds.
Question put, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 8: Majority 126.
On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
MR. RYLANDSsaid, the observations which had been offered had proved so clearly that the Bill was one which would increase the public charge that he proposed to divide against the clause.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that the clauses of the Bill had been carefully considered by the authorities at the Treasury, who thought them quite satisfactory.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, in that event, some explanation ought to be given by the Treasury. He should move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Rylands.)
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 111: Majority 91.
On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 22: Majority 86.
Clause 4.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he proposed to negative the clause, because he doubted whether it did not create a charge on the Imperial Exchequer, reserving the right, if it did not, to introduce a clause on the Report.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, there was very little good in the Bill before, and that if this clause were taken out the Bill would be worthless.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he regretted the course of the discussion, because it indicated a "shabby" disposition towards an important service.
Clause negatived.
Preamble agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

VICTORIA PARK BILL.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions presented during the present Session against the Bill be referred to the said Committee; and such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the said Bill against the said Petitions.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. Ayrton.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING AND PASSENGER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Passenger Acts.
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 216.]
House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Registration of Births and Deaths* (179), Boundaries of Counties (Ireland)* (180).
Second Reading—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2)* (172).
Report of Select Committee—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment* (15); Debtors (Ireland)* (52).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (134).
Committee—Report—Review of Justices' Decisions* (164).
Committee—Report—Referred to Select Committee—Church of England Fire Insurance* (102).
Report—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment* (15–175); Debtors (Ireland)* (52–175); Union of Benefices Act Amendment* (167).
Third Reading—Appointment of Commissioners for taking Affidavits* (133); Prisons (Ireland)* (108); Local Government Supplemental (No.2) and Act (No. 2, 1864) Amendment, now Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (130), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [35 & 36 Vict. c. 20]; Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal [35 & 36 Vict. c. 22]; Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 21]; Irish Church Act Amendment [35 & 36 Vict. c. 13]; Isle of Man Harbours
260
[35 & 36 Vict. c. 23]; Alteration of Boundaries of Dioceses [35 & 36 Vict. c. 14]; Royal Parks and Gardens [35 & 36 Vict. c. 15]; Cattle Disease (Ireland) Acts Amendment [35 & 36 Vict. c. 16]; Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 17]; Pacific Islanders Protection [35 & 36 Vict. c. 19]; Board of Trade Inquiries [35 & 36 Vict. c. 18]; Juries Act Amendment (Ireland) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 25]; Charitable Trustees Incorporation [35 & 36 Vict. c. 24]; Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads [35 & 36 Vict. c. xlix.]; Local Government Supplemental [35 & 36 Vict. c. xlv.]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental [35 & 36 Vict. c. xliii.]; Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental [35 & 36 Vict. c. xliv.]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxiii.]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxiv.]; Elementary Education (Provisional Order Confirmation) [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxv.]; Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxvii.]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxviii.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxix.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. lxx.]

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARBITRATORS. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I wish, in the first instance, to acknowledge my sense of the reticence which this House has preserved. Since the meeting of the Arbitrators on the 15th of June at Geneva, your Lordships have abstained from putting any question which might embarrass the Government; and this abstinence makes me the more anxious to give you what information I can at the earliest possible moment. I could not have given you any at an earlier period; for it was only at half-past 4 o'clock this afternoon that I received a telegram from Geneva, in which I am informed that the Tribunal is no longer desirous of any secrecy as to the proceedings that have hitherto taken place before them. My Lords, your Lordships are aware that the Tribunal met on the 15th of June—the day to which they adjourned three months ago. The Agent of the United States (Mr. Bancroft Davis) at that meeting presented a printed Argument showing the points and referring to the evidence on which his Government relied. The British Agent did not present a written or printed Argument, but delivered to the Arbitrators a Note in the following terms:—

  261
  "The Undersigned, Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, is instructed by Her Majesty's Government to state to Count Sclopis, &c., that they regret to be under the necessity of informing the Arbitrators that the difference between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States referred to in the note which the Undersigned had the honour to address to Count Sclopis when presenting the British Counter-Case on the 15th of April last, has not yet been removed. Her Majesty's Government have, however, been engaged in negotiations with the Government of the United States, which have continued down to the present time, for the solution of the difficulty which has thus arisen; and they do not abandon the hope, that, if further time were given for that purpose, such a solution might be found practicable.
  "Under these circumstances, the course which Her Majesty's Government would respectfully request the Tribunal to take is, to adjourn the present meeting for such a period as may enable a Supplementary Convention to be still concluded and ratified by the High Contracting Parties.
  "Having lodged the present application, the Undersigned is instructed to withhold the written or printed Argument which the Undersigned, as Agent of Her Majesty, is directed to put in under the Vth Article of the Treaty, although that Argument has been duly prepared, and is in the hands of the Undersigned.
  "The Undersigned is further directed to say, that Her Majesty's Government (while they would consider the Tribunal to have full power to proceed at the end of the period of adjournment, if the difference between the High Contracting Parties should then have been removed, notwithstanding the non-delivery on this day of the Argument by the Undersigned) continue, while requesting this adjournment, to reserve all Her Majesty's rights, in the event of an agreement not being finally arrived at, in the same manner as was expressed in the note addressed by the Undersigned to Count Sclopis on the 15th April."—[North America. No. 10 (1872)].
  The noble Earl proceeded to read a Minute of the further proceedings before the Tribunal, as follows:—
  "The Conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the Arbitrators were present.
  "Lord Tenterden and Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis attended the Conference as Agents of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States respectively.
  "Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis then delivered in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators and to Lord Tenterden, the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, a printed Argument showing the points and referring to the evidence on which his Government relies.
  "Lord Tenterden then, on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, presented the note of which a copy is annexed, requesting an adjournment of the Tribunal for the reasons therein stated, for such a period as might enable a Supplementary Convention to be concluded and ratified between Her Britannic Majesty and the United States.
  "Mr. Bancroft Davis stated that he could not say what would be the views of his Government on this motion, until he should know the time for which the adjournment was asked.
  262
  "Lord Tenterden slated that Her Britannic Majesty's Government believed that in order to afford time for the consideration of a Supplementary Convention by the Senate of the United States in their session commencing in December next, and for its subsequent consideration by Her Britannic Majesty's Government and for its ratification by the High Contracting Parties respectively, it would be requisite that the adjournment should be for a period of eight months, but that power might be reserved for the Arbitrators to meet at any earlier date, upon being convened for that purpose by the Secretary of the Tribunal upon the joint request in writing of the Agents of the two Governments.
  "Mr. Bancroft Davis said that his instructions did not yet enable him to state to the Arbitrators the views of the Government of the United States on this motion in full. He said that he was in telegraphic communication with his Government and he asked an adjournment until Monday, the 17th instant.
  "The Tribunal decided that the Protocols should be signed by the President and Secretary of the Tribunal, and the Agents of the two Governments."
  The Conference was then adjourned to Monday, the 17th day of June, at 2 o'clock.
  When the Conference met on the 17th, pursuant to adjournment, Mr. Bancroft Davis, the United States Agent stated that he was still without definitive instructions from his Government regarding the request of the British Agent for adjournment, and suggested a further adjournment of the Tribunal until the 19th inst., and Lord Tenterden making no objection, the Conference was adjourned accordingly. At the meeting on the 19th, Count Sclopis, on behalf of the Arbitrators, made the following statement:—
  "The application of the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty's Government being now before the Arbitrators, the President of the Tribunal (Count Sclopis) proposes to make the following communication on the part of the Arbitrators to the parties interested.
  "The Arbitrators wish it to be understood that, in the observations which they are about to make, they have in view solely the application of the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty's Government which is now before them for an adjournment, which might be prolonged till the month of February in next year; and the motives for that application, viz., the difference of opinion which exists between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States as to the competency of the Tribunal, under the Treaty of Washington, to deal with the claims advanced in the Case of the United States in respect of losses under the several heads of:—(1) the losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag; (2) the enhanced payments of insurance; and (3) the prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion; and the hope, which Her Britannic Majesty's Government does not abandon, that if sufficient

  263
  time were given for that purpose, a solution of the difficulty which has thus arisen, by the negotiation of a Supplementary Convention between the two Governments, might be found practicable.
  "The Arbitrators do not propose to express or imply any opinion upon the point thus in difference between the two Governments as to the interpretation or effect of the Treaty. But it seems to them obvious that the substantial object of the adjournment must be to give the two Governments an opportunity of determining whether the claims in question shall, or shall not, be submitted to the decision of the Arbitrators; and that any difference between the two Governments on this point may make the adjournment unproductive of any useful effect, and, after a delay of many months, during which both nations may be kept in a state of painful suspense, may end in a result which, it is to be presumed, both Governments would equally deplore, that of making this Arbitration wholly abortive. This being so, the Arbitrators think it right to state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of these claims, they have arrived, individually and collectively, at the conclusion that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should upon such principles be wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two Governments as to the competency of the Tribunal to decide thereon.
  "With a view to the settlement of the other claims to the consideration of which by the Tribunal no exception has been taken on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the Arbitrators have thought it desirable to lay before the parties this expression of the views they have formed upon the question of public law involved, in order that after this declaration by the Tribunal it may be considered by the Government of the United States whether any course can be adopted respecting the first-mentioned claims which would relieve the Tribunal from the necessity of deciding upon the present application of Her Britannic Majesty's Government."—[Ibid.]
  There will be some little difficulty for your Lordships in following a statement of this character, read for the first time; but I think it will strike your Lordships who have listened to it that in this declaration the Arbitrators avoid saying anything which might be objectionable to the Government of the United States or to the Government of Her Majesty. They do not assume jurisdiction, or propose now or hereafter to make any award or judicial deliverance. They make the principle of the Declaration extend not only to the disallowance, but to the exclusion from consideration of these Claims. They avoid, in the statement of their view, the use of language which could be cited hereafter as laying down any larger principle than that
  264
  really involved in the immediate controversy, or which could be made use of in the progress of the Arbitration itself as to any of the other Claims, as implying anything in their favour. They did not throw in any way upon Her Majesty's Government the burden of taking the action which ought to follow upon the Declaration. After the President of the Tribunal had read the Declaration, he asked Lord Tenterden if he had anything to say. Lord Tenterden replied—"Nothing." He then asked the United States' Agent, who requested an adjournment, to enable him to communicate the Declaration to his Government and get instructions on it. The Tribunal adjourned until the 26th of June; but, as the American Agent received his instructions somewhat earlier than he had expected, the Chairman of the Arbitrators, Count Sclopis, convened a meeting for Tuesday last—the day before yesterday. At the meeting of the Tribunal on the 25th inst., the United States' Agent made the following statement:—
  "The declaration made by the Tribunal, individually and collectively, respecting the claims presented by the United States for the award of the Tribunal for: 1st, the losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag; 2ndly, the enhanced payments of insurance; and 3rdly, the prolongation of the war and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war, and the suppression of the rebellion, is accepted by the President of the United States as determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public law involved.
  "The Agent of the United States is authorized to say that, consequently, the above mentioned claims will not be further insisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States, and may be excluded from all consideration in any award that may be made."—[Ibid.]
  When the United States' Agent had made this statement, the British Agent said that he would inform his Government of the Declaration made by the Arbitrators on the 19th inst., and of the statement now made by the Agent of the United States, and request their instructions. The Tribunal then adjourned till Thursday (this day) at 11 A.M. At the meeting of the Tribunal to-day the British Agent read the following statement:—
  "The Undersigned, Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, is authorized, by Her Majesty's Government, to state that Her Majesty's Government find in the communication on the part of the Arbitrators, recorded in the Protocol of their proceedings of the 19th instant, nothing to which they cannot assent, consistently with the view of

  265
  the interpretation and effect of the Treaty of Washington hitherto maintained by them; and being informed of the statement made on the 25th instant by the Agent of the United States, that the several claims particularly mentioned in that statement will not be further insisted upon before the Tribunal by the United States, and may be excluded from all consideration in any award that may be made; and assuming that the Arbitrators will, upon such statement, think fit now to declare that the said several claims are, and from henceforth will be, wholly excluded from their consideration, and will embody such declaration in their Protocol of this day's proceedings; they have instructed the Undersigned, upon this being done, to request leave to withdraw the application made by him to the Tribunal on the 15th instant for such an adjournment as might enable a Supplementary Convention to be concluded and ratified between the High Contracting Parties; and to request leave to deliver the printed Argument, now in the hands of the Undersigned, which has been prepared on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government under the Vth Article of the Treaty, with reference to the other claims, to the consideration of which by the Tribunal no exception has been taken on the part of Her Majesty's Government."
  I have only just received the concluding portion of these proceedings, to this effect, that—
  "Mr. Bancroft Davis said, that he made no objection to the granting of the request made by Lord Tenterden, to be permitted to withdraw his application for an adjournment, and to file the Argument of Her Britannic Majesty's Government.
  "Count Sclopis, on behalf of all the Arbitrators, then declared that the said several claims for indirect losses mentioned in the statement made by the Agent of the United States on the 25th instant, and referred to in the statement just made by the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, are, and from henceforth will be, wholly excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal; and directed the Secretary to embody this declaration in the Protocol of this day's proceedings.
  "He at the same time informed Lord Tenterden that the Tribunal assented to his request for leave to withdraw his application for a prolonged adjournment, and also to his request for leave to deliver the printed Argument which had been prepared on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government.
  "Lord Tenterden then presented copies of the Argument in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the United States."—[Ibid.]
  Count Sclopis then read a paper about the importance of the functions of the Tribunal. The question of adjournment and further arguments by counsel is being considered. My Lords, I ask for no judgment on the statement which I have made—briefly, but with, I believe, complete accuracy. I thought it right to put your Lordships in possession as soon as possible of what has passed; and I cannot help expressing a
  266
  hope that when the Papers are presented to your Lordships—which will be as soon as we have received the written Despatches—and when those Papers are fully considered, your Lordships will be of opinion that not only do they meet the views of Her Majesty's Government and of the American Government, but that they are perfectly consistent with the honour and interest of the two countries. And I trust, further, that they will afford some evidence that the friendly relations between these two great and kindred nations will prove to be so sound that not only will they maintain harmonious feeling when things go smoothly, but that they can also resist the shock of those differences of opinion which must occasionally arise between two countries so constantly in contact in so many ways and on so many subjects. My Lords, I beg to thank you for your kind attention.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be glad to have heard at the earliest possible moment the document which the noble Earl has just read. So far as I have been able to gather their import, it would rather appear—speaking in simple language—that the result of the whole is, that the Arbitrators at Geneva have decided the particular and special point which I thought we had all agreed they should not be allowed to decide—namely, the scope and extent of the Treaty, and the question of what should properly come under their cognizance by virtue of that Treaty. As well as I can gather, the American Government have taken this decision of the Arbitrators on the Indirect Claims as a decision they have all along said they wished to be arrived at by the Arbitrators. I must congratulate your Lordships that, as things have turned out, that decision has been in favour of this country; but we should have been in a very awkward position if it had been the other way.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the discussion; but I utterly deny that we should have been in any false position whatever by a spontaneous declaration of the Arbitrators, whatever might have been their decision.
  LORD BUCKHURST: After the most important statement just made by the noble Earl, I will, with your Lordships' permission, withdraw my Notice on the Paper of this evening.

ARMY—THE PURCHASE AND THE SCIENTIFIC CORPS.

  THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE LORD STEWARD (The Earl of BESSBOROUGH)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of this House, of the 18th instant, as follows:—
  "I have received your Address praying that a Commission may be issued to inquire into the alleged injustice towards the Captains of the late Purchase Corps, occasioned by their supposed supersession by the first captains of the Scientific Corps, and further to inquire whether the intended advancement of the first captains of the Royal Artillery and Engineers to the rank of field officers would have the effect of removing the slowness of promotion in those corps, and as to the best means of remedying the same, and that in the meantime, until the Report of the Commission, the publication of the Royal Warrant may be delayed."
  "I have been advised that the establishment in the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers of the rank of major, already existing in the other branches of the service, having been decided upon, after full consideration, and provision having been made for carrying the arrangement into effect, the revocation or delay of that arrangement would be inexpedient."
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought this reply so unsatisfactory that he begged to move the adjournment of the House in order to give their Lordships an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the noble Earl was hardly in order in taking so unusual a course on the occasion of an Answer by Her Majesty to an Address.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas of opinion that his noble Friend was quite in Order, and that there was no rule of the House to prevent such a course.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsubmitted that he was quite in Order in making the Motion for adjournment. A Motion for inquiry had been carried as to the complaints of a certain class of officers with respect to promotion. They asserted that their interests had been seriously prejudiced by recent arrangements. It was clear that the case required further consideration. A Committee had recommended an inquiry, and Her Majesty's Government had advised the Queen not to grant a Commission. He should, therefore, persist in his Motion that the House do now adjourn.
  Moved, "That the House do now adjourn."—(The Earl of Longford.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, nothing was further from his purpose than to express an opinion on the abstract question as to the circumstances under which it was or was not the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to give effect to an Address of their Lordships' House; but he did say that if ever there was an occasion when a Government was justified in advising Her Majesty not to give effect to such an Address, it was in the present instance. The whole question of the position of the Scientific Corps had been debated for several years, and had been fully and fairly considered by the public and Parliament—so that there could be no allegation of surprise, or that what had been done had been done without consideration. For six years the subject had been under the consideration of successive Governments, and at the commencement of the present Session Notice of the intention of the Government with respect to it was given by the Secretary of State in his speech in moving the Army Estimates on the 22nd of February, in no ambiguous language; and on the 11th of March, when the Vote of the number of men was passed, the attention of the House of Commons was drawn to the matter, and the Secretary of State repeated again in language as unmistakable his intention to adhere to his plan. All this had given rise to expectations which, he thought, it would be extremely unwise to disappoint at the last moment. On the 31st of May the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Abinger), for the first time, called attention to the subject in their Lordships' House; and then, at the eleventh hour, when the Government was prepared to give effect to the intention of the War Department, the noble and gallant Lord brought it forward a second time. This was on the 18th of June, and on that occasion, after a discussion, a division was taken in a House of 83, and the Motion of the noble and gallant Lord for an Address to the Crown was carried by a majority of 3. He should have hesitated to call attention to the composition of that majority—indeed, he did not think he would have done so—but for a statement of a noble and gallant Lord to the effect that the Scientific Corps was too well represented in the War Department.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDbegged to interrupt the noble Marquess. He hoped the noble Earl who led that House would confine the noble Marquess to the question of adjournment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEcould not but think he was in Order and perfectly justified in alluding to the composition of the majority after the reference that had been made to the supposed influence of the Scientific Corps at the War Department. If the Scientific Corps were too well represented at the War Office, how were they represented in their Lordships' House? It was not too much to say that they were almost unrepresented, while of the majority by which the Address had been carried in their Lordships' House, he found that 19 had been officers in the Guards or in the Line, 7 had brothers in the Guards, 5 had brothers in the Line, and 2 had near relations in the Guards—so that out of the whole number of 42, only 9 were unconnected with the Guards or the Line. Under these circumstances, and considering that the other House of Parliament had expressed its opinion on the subject in the most deliberate manner, and had made provision for enabling the Government to carry the plan of the Secretary for War into effect, he submitted that Her Majesty's Ministers had had no other course open to them than that of advising Her Majesty not to give effect to the Address of their Lordships' House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, this is one more illustration of the manner in which any claim for justice on the part of the Army is likely to be met by Her Majesty's present Ministers. I do not think that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has succeeded in making out any case to justify the conclusion at which the Ministers have arrived. I venture to repeat what I said on a former occasion—that the arguments used in support of the Address to the Crown proposed by my noble and gallant Friend were left wholly unanswered, and I am surprised, astonished, and grieved to hear the noble Marquess assert that the wishes of the majority of your Lordships ought not to have any weight given to them in a matter of this great importance. The noble Marquess has taken the trouble to analyze the division on that Motion, and has attributed motives to the noble Lords who composed the majority on that oc-
  270
  casion. Now, if there be the smallest foundation in fact for the insinuation conveyed by the noble Marquess, I say that not one of those noble Lords to whom the noble Marquess so pointedly referred is worthy of a seat in this House. I assert that the noble Lords who had been officers in the Guards or in the Line were the most competent to deal with this subject. The noble Marquess, however, imputed to them having voted in a particular way through having either served in the Guards or the Line themselves, and through having relatives who have so served. My Lords, I am proud to think that I have relations in both those corps, and I deny that that fact should furnish any reason against the expression of my opinions upon this question when it arises. If the noble Marquess meant anything by his references to the connections of noble Lords, he must have meant that the noble Lords alluded to were actuated by interested motives in voting with the majority in favour of the Address to the Crown. If the noble Marquess did not mean to convey such an imputation he should not have mentioned the matter at all.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he saw no occasion for the introduction of any acrimonious tone into this debate, and should be careful himself to add nothing to it. He would venture to remind their Lordships of the advice given by the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief on a former occasion—that nothing should be said or done which might be calculated to array the Guards and the Line on one side and the Scientific Corps on the other, in a question relating to the welfare of the Army. He was happy to acknowledge that during the greater portion of the debate on the Motion for the Address, the tone of moderation in which that Motion had been introduced by the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Abinger) had been maintained by their Lordships; but he must say he thought it was a bold assumption on the part of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) to say that the arguments were all on one side, that being the side which the noble Duke himself advocated. Now those who took the other side held exactly the same thing with respect to their views. He did not mean to say who was right; but he thought the attack made on his noble Friend the Under Secretary for

  271
  War was a most unfair one. A noble and gallant Lord (the Earl of Longford) had stated that the Scientific Corps were very strongly represented at the War Office—the object of that assertion evidently being to lead their Lordships to the conclusion that in arriving at a conclusion on this question the War Department had been swayed by the Scientific Corps. In reply to such an argument, it was quite legitimate for his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) to refer to the composition of the majority who voted in favour of the Address. He had not heard a single word from his noble Friend imputing unworthy motives to the other side; but when the noble Duke said it was monstrous to suppose that the views of noble Lords could be influenced in the slightest degree by their connection with the Army, or by their having relatives in the Guards and the Line, he must observe that, after all, human nature was human nature, and that esprit de corps not only existed but was very strong in the Army; and when a question like the one now before their Lordships was made the subject of discussion it was impossible that there should not be some bias imported into it. He was quite sure, however, that on reflection the noble Duke would be the last to suppose that the noble Marquess would charge any of their Lordships with being actuated by unworthy motives.
  LORD SANDHURSTsaid, he would not enter into any question as to the composition of the majority—he proposed to go into the character of the Motion itself, and to ask what was the question involved in the Motion. That question was twofold. The first question put to their Lordships was, not whether it was desirable to do away with the measure of the Secretary of State for War, but whether it was desirable to have an inquiry into the grievance which it was alleged would be suffered by between 500 and 600 officers. The second question proposed to their Lordships was, whether the objects which had been suggested by the Committees of 1867 and 1869 would be carried out by the plan of the Secretary for War. On both these points the greatest doubts had been expressed, and from Returns which had been referred to in their Lordships' House in proof of those grievances—so far as a superficial examination of them enabled him to judge, he was of opinion that they had been established. Seeing,
  272
  then, that there was this difference of opinion, were they to be told by the noble Marquess the Under Secretary for War that they were actuated by interested motives in voting so moderate a demand—because he must accept the interpretation put on the remarks of the noble Marquess by the noble Duke opposite? If the noble Marquess had no intention of attributing motives to certain noble Lords when he said they had served or had relatives in the Guards or the Line—then he was at a loss to know the meaning of his words. Again, their Lordships had been told that this plan had been debated for six years. If any debate such as that referred to by the noble Marquess had been held, it must have been held behind the official curtain. The question of promotion—especially in reference to the Royal Engineers, was one demanding the most serious consideration, and Committees had sat and reported upon it; but he was not aware that the particular measure which now formed the subject of debate had been recommended by a Committee or had been put before their Lordships in a practical shape. So far as he knew, the other side of the question was never really stated until the other night. He had often heard the matter mentioned in private conversation, but he never recollected that the question as to whether or not this particular means of promotion in respect to the Ordnance Corps had ever been brought distinctly forward—certainly, he had never heard of the scheme till last February, and he was not now aware that this measure had ever been debated in public before that period. It had long been admitted that promotion in the Ordnance Corps should be guaranteed—that it should not be of a temporary or provisional character; but he did not think it had been intended that the promotion of the officers of the Artillery and the Engineers should interfere with that general flow of military promotion which had been the object of inquiry and consideration by the Committees.
  LORD ABINGERsaid, he could quite understand that the decision of this question must be a matter which caused considerable trouble. The Artillery and the Engineers were strong and compact bodies, and they did surround the War Office with very great power—there could be no doubt of it—and he thought that they would eventually have to re-

  273
  cede from the step they had taken. His main object in bringing forward the Motion for the Address was that the officers in the Army should have an opportunity of making their case known. He thought that the remarks which had been made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) reflected unjustly upon those who were connected with the Army, and who disclaimed any wish to do injustice to the rest of the Army. No doubt the majority of noble Lords upon his side of the House were connected with the Army, many of them being soldiers themselves; but so far from that being a ground for impugning the credit of the majority who voted for the Motion, it simply furnished a reason for supposing that they knew something of the matter they were talking about. If the majority were to be spoken of as they had been, then it might be retorted that the minority was composed mainly of the Members of the Government, or those who were under great personal obligations to them. On the other hand, the majority contained a number of noble Lords who sat on the Ministerial benches—indeed, if the noble Marquess looked into the matter, he would find that the majority had resulted from disaffection in the ranks on the Ministerial side. It was an inconsistent thing that the Government should take away the privileges of the Guards at the same time that they extended the privileges of the Ordnance Corps. The Artillery Corps was as much a privileged Corps as the Guards, and the latter thought it hard that their lieutenant and ensign privilege should be taken away—for it was granted in consequence of the gallantry displayed upon the field of Waterloo. Taking away this privilege would seem to imply that they never had any good title to possess it. Some years ago all the majors of the Artillery were made lieutenant-colonels, and now all the first captains were to be made majors. The Artillery officers would average 16 years' service before they were majors; but the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) had stated that the average length of service in the Line before a promotion to majority would be 18 years.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONbegged to interrupt the noble and gallant Lord. He had done nothing more than repeat the declaration of Mr. Cardwell. He had said nothing about the Artillery or
  274
  the Engineers. What he had said was that it was thought right the promotion in the Line should be maintained at what was called the "standard rate."
  LORD ABINGERsaid, that of 279 officers who would be superseded by the first captains of Artillery not one had less than 18 years' service. He thought, therefore, that, even in accordance with the pledge of the Government, a preference should be given to those 279 officers before the first captains of Artillery were promoted.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that with the permission of their Lordships, having had the honour of serving Her Majesty in both Cavalry and Infantry of the Line, and commanding a regiment of the latter (Infantry of the Line), he was induced to address a few words to their Lordships. It appeared to him (Lord Ellenborough) that Her Majesty's Government had overlooked, if not ignored, the claims of the British regiments lately belonging to the late East India Company, now incorporated in Her Majesty's Army, as regiments of the Line—namely, the 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th British regiments, which contained several captains of 27 years' service, and one an infantry regiment of the Line (59th), a subaltern officer of 18 years' service. In conformity with what had fallen from the noble Lord behind him (Lord Abinger), he stated it was some source of heart-burning the rank held by captains and lieutenant-colonels of the Guards; but there was no such feeling in reference to the rank of ensign and lieutenant, as they were not brought much in contact with officers of the Line. With respect to the uncalled-for observations of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) impugning the motives of noble Lords forming the majority who voted the Address, it sufficed to say that two of those noble Lords had commanded an Army—one, a noble and gallant Lord on this side of the House (Lord Strathnairn), and the other, the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Sandhurst), at the present moment in command of the Army in Ireland, to show that there were grounds for inquiry, in respect to the promotion in the Artillery, in common with that of the Army at large.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

  (NO. 172.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to remedy certain defects in the Land Act of 1870, so far as related to the purchase by tenants of their holdings. The new regulations proposed by the Bill would enable a tenant to make application to the Board of Works for an advance after as well as before he had made his bargain for the purchase of his holding, and the Board might advance two-thirds of the value; when a tenant purchased his holding through the Landed Estates Court, that Court and not the Civil Bill Court was to charge the annuity payable in respect of the advance of the Board; and thirdly, the Board were authorized to make advances to the tenant on purchases effected through the Landed Estates Court; and fourthly, it was declared that the letting of portions of an agricultural holding for the purpose of building necessary cottages, with land not exceeding half an acre in each case, should not be a cause of forfeiture.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, the Act of 1870 was very difficult of comprehension, and would require many amendments before it could become clear. He would point out two or three doubtful points in the present measure. In future, if the landlord and tenant agreed upon the terms of the sale, and the Solicitor to the Board of Works was satisfied, it would be unnecessary for them to apply to the Landed Estates Court; but in that case the purchaser would not obtain a Parliamentary title to the land he bought. Again, under sub-section 4, a tenant was empowered to sublet a portion of his holding for labourers' cottages—a power that he was afraid would give rise to many abuses.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEpromised, on behalf of the Government, to consider bath the suggestions of the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND FIRE INSURANCE BILL—(No. 102.)—COMMITTEE.
(The Lord Egerton.)
Order of the Day for the House to be put in Committee, read.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYpresented a Petition from the Church of England Assurance Institution, praying that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The Petitioners alleged that if the measure passed it would institute a monopoly in reference to insurance, and would be injurious to companies which had already started in the business. He hoped that their Lordships would reject the Bill.
LORD EGERTON LORD EGERTON moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not but think that every Member of their Lordships' House was liable to some share of blame for having allowed this Bill to be read a second time without a protest. The Bill proposed to establish a compulsory system of insurance of all ecclesiastical buildings capable of being destroyed or injured by fire; it compelled all ecclesiastical persons in receipt of income from any see or benefice to insure the buildings attached to their benefices and to pay the premiums. Further, they must be insured in one particular Office, and not in any other:—so that this was, in fact, a Bill to take away all fire-insurance business in the case of ecclesiastical buildings from existing Offices. The new Office which was to enjoy so high a system of protection was to consist of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, who were to have an entirely new set of duties cast upon them, because they were to become directors of a fire-insurance company—a business which they would find it very difficult to manage. Fire insurance was a trade which might result in profit or in loss, and if there should be loss on their fire-insurance business the Governors were to be "at liberty to employ any funds in their hands for the purposes of this Act:"—that was to say, they were to pay these losses out of Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. It was quite possible that the whole of the Fund might

277
be swept away. Further, the Bill provided that there need be no policies, but the fact of insurance was to be entered on a register specially provided by the Governors—so that no stamp would be required.
LORD EGERTONsaid, that as to the noble and learned Lord's objection that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty might exhaust that Fund in paying losses on their fire-insurance business, everyone knew that the premiums were always paid in advance, and that therefore there were always funds in hand: so that the chance of coming upon the Fund at all, much more of exhausting it, was very remote. It was only to be expected that the existing Insurance Offices would object to the Bill; but representations had been previously made to those Offices that they should insure that class of buildings at lower premiums than were charged in other cases, in consideration of the smaller risks to which they were generally exposed:—for the insurance of those buildings had formed a most profitable part of the business of the Insurance Companies:—and it was only after their refusal to accept that offer, and at the earnest request of the clergy of the Church of England in Convocation assembled, that this Bill had been brought forward. The promoters of the Bill were fortified by the authority of eminent actuaries and other experienced persons, and the Regulations to be framed by the Governors for the purpose of carrying on this business were to be approved by the Lords of the Treasury and published in The London Gazette. The Governors were, moreover, to keep separate accounts, and lay before Parliament annually a report and balance-sheet. The Governors were, further, to frame every three years a scheme for the application of any profits arising from their insurances, which was to be laid before Parliament before acted upon. Most probably the application would be to the reduction of premiums.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in opposing the Bill, pointed out that, under the 6th clause of the Bill, the principle of compulsory insurance was extended not only to the clergy, but to all the laity who held Church leases.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to say that he could not see on what ground Queen Anne's Bounty
278
should be made liable for possible losses in connection with fire insurance transactions.
LORD DINEVORsaid, that the Bill was compulsory, and the clergy were bound to insure: but, unfortunately, many of the clergy had very small incomes, and they ought not in all cases to be required to insure to the full amount of the value of their houses. On the other hand, he did not think it would be quite fair to the Insurance Companies to establish the proposed monopoly, nor could he exactly see why those Companies should have been expected to insure a rectory at a cheaper rate than a layman's house.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDurged his noble Friend not to press his Motion to a division, for he thought the Bill was one which the House ought not to sanction. His noble Friend had stated as one of the reasons for the Bill that the clergy were extremely anxious that such a measure as this should become law; but he had omitted to tell their Lordships what the reasons were which had actuated the clergy in desiring that such an arrangement should be made. He had also spoken of the advantage it would be to the poorer clergy; but he (the Duke of Richmond) could not see how that advantage would arise, because the clergy would not be able to insure at much less than at present. The clergyman would be able to insure his house on exactly the same terms with the Sun and other Offices as with Queen Anne's Bounty. It would be wrong to compel the clergyman to insure with any Office against his desire, but should be at liberty to go to any Office from which he could obtain the best terms.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, there was some misunderstanding in the minds of some of their Lordships as to the objects of the Bill. A noble and reverend Lord (Lord Dinevor) had spoken as if the Bill for the first time made it compulsory on the clergy to insure. But it was not the present Bill, but the Dilapidation Bill of last year, which introduced the obligation on a clergyman to insure his house. Insurance was therefore compulsory already. Parliament had put upon the body of the clergy, many of whom were poor, a liability in that respect which rested on no other persons in the land, their houses being regarded in a certain sense as public property.

279
Yet these persons were compelled to lay out their own funds in insuring them against fire. Under those circumstances, the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty were strongly urged by the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury to invent a mode by which the new pressure thus occasioned to the clergy might be in some degree lightened. With this view the Governors were ready to undertake this business of fire insurance in the hope that they might be able considerably to reduce the charges now made for insurance, and also out of their profits to aid the poorer clergy in other respects. The money saved would go, therefore, first to diminish the cost of insuring; and, secondly, to the directly eleemosynary purposes of the Bounty Fund. The whole peculiarity of this Bill was that it required those insurances to be effected with the Governors, and not in any other Office; and the question was whether there was a sufficient reason for such exceptional legislation. It had been thought that Parliament having enforced the peculiar liability, might be expected to give a peculiar benefit as its correlative. Experience proved, on a very large inquiry, that the houses of the clergy were far less exposed to the risk of fire than the ordinary insurances taken, by the Companies; and insurance being now for the first time made obligatory upon the clergy, it had been supposed that the existing Companies might consider whether they would not insure that particular description of buildings at a cheaper rate, but they had declined. The best possible advice had been taken on the subject, and this advice amounted to an assurance that a certain gain of several thousands a-year might be made for the benefit of the poorer clergy, and that the Board might undertake the duty without the smallest risk to the Bounty Fund. The question as to whether the leases of Church property should be included was a question of detail, which with other similar matters might be fairly dismissed from consideration for the present.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYstated that the Company whose Petition he had presented against the Bill made an allowance of 10 per cent on the premiums paid by clergymen.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, if the Bill were rejected, a serious injury
280
would be done to the poorer clergy. The only persons who could have the slightest interest in opposing the Bill were the Insurance Companies, whose profit, as far as it arose from policies issued to clergymen, would be taken away and divided among the clergy themselves—who, in fact, would become their own insurers. It was well known that it paid a man to become his own insurer if his property was sufficiently large. It was bad policy for a large landed proprietor to insure his farm buildings; why, then, should not the clergy, on the same principle, combine to insure themselves?
LORD CAIRNS LORD CAIRNS moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill this day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Cairns.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsuggested, as an alternative course, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORconfessed that, on the first aspect, the Bill had been unpalatable to him, and he had considered what could possibly be the view which could induce the promoters to bring forward a Bill which, on its first aspect, appeared so unreasonable. It was unreasonable that there should be compulsory insurance at all; it seemed unreasonable that there should be compulsory insurance with a particular body; and it appeared unreasonable to expose a body like the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to the risks of this business. But, on the other hand, it appeared that the clergy having been placed under an obligation to insure would be placed in a difficult position. In the first place, they would naturally seek the offices which took the lowest premiums, and therefore offered the worst security. Under these circumstances, it seemed reasonable that they should have means of insuring with perfect safety at a low rate. The Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty would offer that perfect security, and they would in regard to this matter have only one object—to give the clergy the full benefit of the system, without profit to themselves. Rather than that the Bill should be lost, he would support the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 14: Majority 2.
Resolved in the Affirmative: House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; Amendments made; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.
And, on Tuesday, July 2, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

L. Abp. York.

L. Bp. London.

M. Salisbury.

L. Bp. Manchester.

M. Bath.

L. Dinevor.

E. Belmore.

L. Portman.

E. Chichester.

L. Stanley of Alderley.

E. Powis.

L. Egerton.

E. Nelson.

L. Penrhyn.

E. Harrowby.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of Correspondence between Lord Redesdale, as President of Cheltenham College, and the Secretary of State for the War Department in relation to the times appointed for the examinations for admission to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, said, that his reason for moving for the production of this Correspondence was that it had been complained the examinations were so fixed that boys desirous of passing them had to prepare for them during their holidays. He hoped that some satisfactory arrangement might be arrived at?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the desire of the Government to meet the convenience of the public schools as far as possible was expressed in the correspondence to which the noble Lord referred, and to the production of which there was no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
  Motion agreed to.

NAVY—GUNNERY EXPERIMENTS—H.M.S. "HOTSPUR" AND "GLATTON."

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEasked, Whether, during the forthcoming trials at Portland, it is proposed to test the effect of a shot striking the pilot tower? His object was that it should be ascertained whether the human frame could stand the shock of the concussion such as the Glatton was about to be subjected to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the sole object of the trials about to be made at Portland was to ascertain whether the turret of the Glatton would become jammed, and so be prevented revolving, by being struck with a 600 1b shot fired from the Hotspur at a range of 200 yards. It was not intended to make a general test of the ship's vulnerable points, and therefore the experiment desiderated by his noble Friend could not be tried on the present occasion.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEexpressed a hope that the important experiment to which his Question referred would be tried at the earliest possible opportunity.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Births and Deaths in England—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 179.)

BOUNDARIES OF COUNTIES (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to the fining of Boundaries of Counties and other divisions and denominations of Land in Ireland—Was presented by The Marquess of LANSDOWNE; read 1a. (No. 180.)
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.