Sitting of 8 May 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Canada Loan Guarantee*.
Second Reading—Shrewsbury School Property* [117]; Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [149]; Public Health [99].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment* [81].
Committee—Conveyancing (Scotland) [108]—R.P.; Railways Provisional Certificate (Widnes Railway (re-comm.)* [156]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue [144]; Register for Parliamentary and Municipal Electors (re-comm.) [105–158]; East India Loan* [103]; Superannuation Act Amendment [135]; Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment* [101]; Crown Lands* [140].
Third Reading—Agricultural Children [8]; University Tests (Dublin) (No. 3)* [124], and passed.

BRADFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
[Lords] (by Order)—SECOND READING.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Order for Second Reading read.
Whereupon—
MR. SPEAKERstated that before the Order of the Day was proceeded with, it was right that he should point out that the Bill contained clauses which imposed a tax upon the people, and ought therefore to have been introduced into this House, and not into the other House of Parliament: but that as the Promoters were not responsible for the introduction of the Bill into the other House, and had signified their intention to withdraw these clauses, he submitted to the House that this course would be sufficient, under the circumstances, to repair the irregularity.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Speaker had called attention to a Question of Privilege to which it was not his intention to refer; but as he had given Notice that he should oppose the clauses alluded to, he wished to say that his opposition was founded, not merely on the point of Privilege, but on the fact that the promoters of the Bill had proposed to take power to levy a tax which, in his opinion, the House would not allow any private parties to levy, and which could only be sanctioned on the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. It would have been, in fact, a general tax, which

1677
the House of Commons alone was accustomed to impose. He should, however, be satisfied with the withdrawal of the obnoxious clauses, and would also withdraw the opposition of which he had given Notice.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that as one of the Members for Bradford, his attention had been called to the existence of the taxing clauses after the Bill had passed through the House of Lords, and after the objection against them had been raised. On behalf of the promoters he could only state that they were entirely unaware that the introduction of the Bill in the House of Lords was likely to affect any Privilege of this House. Had they been aware of this they would certainly not have sanctioned its introduction into the other House of Parliament. He undertook, on their behalf that they would do their utmost to have the objectionable clauses withdrawn in Committee, and also any allusion to them which might occur in the Preamble of the Bill. With regard to the opposition raised by his hon. Friend opposite, which affected not only the Question of Privilege but the question of inserting clauses in regard to taxation, it was not the opinion of the promoters that the clauses would have had the effect ascribed to them. He would not enter into the question as to whether it would or would not be desirable that in any public Bill there should be such a provision. He was glad the hon. Gentleman opposite was satisfied with the assurance that the clauses would be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed.

CUSTOMS—TOBACCO—(UNPAID DUTIES).—QUESTION.
MR. BARNETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House of the quantity of tobacco burned, by order of the Commissioners of Customs, at the London Docks during each of the last three years; and, whether a better mode cannot be found of disposing of tobacco, on which the Duty has not been regularly paid, than its destruction?
MR. BAXTER,in reply, said, that the quantity of unmanufactured tobacco burnt in the port of London during the last three years might be estimated at
1678
240,000 lbs., and the quantity of manufactured tobacco destroyed during the last three years was 7,270 lbs. Nearly the whole of the tobacco burnt was unmerchantable, and if offered for sale would bring in a mere trifle—if, indeed, it could be sold at all. Whatever was of the least value was exported, the remainder was mere refuse.

PUBLIC HEALTHS ACT, 1872—ROYAL ENGINEERS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOSEPH BAILEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the responsibilities imposed upon local authorities by "The Public Health Act, 1872," and the local knowledge which would be acquired in their execution, the Government can arrange for the superintendence by the Royal Engineers of the drainage and waterworks required by that Act?
MR. STANSFELD,in reply, said, the Local Government Board had no such powers of superintendence, and if they had, without the assent of the local authorities he should not think it advisable to exercise them. The Local Government Board rendered certain assistance in carrying them out; but it would be very undesirable that they should become responsible for the execution of these works.

POST OFFICE—EDINBURGH POST OFFICE SORTERS.—QUESTION.
MR. MILLERasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received a Memorial from the letter-sorters in the General Post Office, Edinburgh, craving an increase of pay; and, whether he has given any answer; and, if so, to what effect?
MR. MONSELL,in reply, said, he had received such a Memorial, but the subject formed only one part of a large scheme of revision, and he could give no further information upon it at present.

DOMINION OF CANADA—TRANSFER OF ARMS, STORES, &C.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If he would explain to the House the discrepancy between the Return presented to the Dominion Parliament in 1871, and that recently presented to this House, the former showing the sum charged to Canada for

  1679
  arms, ammunition, and stores made over at or about the time of the withdrawal of the Imperial troops to be £168,808 16 s. 10 d., the latter representing it as £92,327 13 s. 8¾d.; why cast-iron guns of an obsolete character were charged for at their contract price when manufactured twenty-seven and twenty-nine years before; if it is not a fact that for a majority of the articles sold, including many of a perishable character, the rates charged exceeded cost price (as laid down in No. 1 Balance Sheet, War Office Price List), and in many cases even the Contract or No. 2 Balance Sheet prices; and whether any inquiry has been or will be set on foot into these matters?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question consists of four parts, which I will deal with seriatim. 1. The Return of 1871 presented to the Dominion Parliament is not in our possession, but I can explain the facts of the alleged discrepancy. The value of the armaments and stores originally proposed to be handed over to the Dominion Government amounted to £168,808 11 s. 3d. The Dominion Government subsequently decided not to take over about 25,000 Snider arms, and a large amount of Snider ammunition. Other modifications were made in the original list, which reduced the final amount to be paid by the Dominion Government to £92,327 13 s. 8¾d. 2. The great majority of the iron guns were handed over at the price of old iron; but a few guns which had never been fired, and were available for conversion, or were of the recognized patterns in the service, wore sold at the contract prices in England, without the addition of departmental charges, amounting to 15 per cent. 3. The instructions as regards the valuation of stores and the prices charged were as follows:—New stores and stores which are as good as new—cost price per Balance Sheet No. 2, Woolwich Vocabulary; used stores—reduction varying from one-third to two-thirds from cost price on Balance Sheet No. 2. The General Officer Commanding in Canada was, on the 5th of June, 1869, instructed to direct the Controller to submit to him the names of two or more officers specially selected for their competency to decide on the value of the stores to be handed over, and a copy of War Office Letter to Colonial
  1680
  Office, June 5, 1869, was also sent for the guidance of the General Officer Commanding, in which it is stated that such portions of the supplies as are likely to be required for the Forces of the Dominion should be offered to the Dominion on repayment of their present value, or at such moderately reduced rates as may be agreed upon by the officers of the respective Governments. 4. No inquiry as to the prices charged has been or will be made, as no complaint has been received from the Dominion Government on the subject.

  BASTARDY LAWS—PROCEEDINGS IN BASTARDY.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, considering that the existing forms of proceedings in Bastardy have been virtually repealed and are to some extent obsolete, he will take immediate steps for issuing new or altered forms in lieu thereof, pursuant to the powers vested in him by the new Bastardy Act of the present Session?
  MR. STANSFELDin reply, said, that he had already given instructions for the framing of now orders, and that as soon as they were framed and approved they would be issued.

  ARMY—CONTRACTS FOR POWDER— BELGIAN AND ENGLISH PEBBLE POWDER.—QUESTION.
  MR. MALCOLMasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether any experiments have been made to test the strength and quality of the Belgian pebble powder; and, if so, with what results, as compared with that made by the Government and by private English firms; and, whether the Belgian pebble powder, contracted for at sixty-nine shillings per barrel, is of the same strength and quality as that marked P. on page 146, Statement C., of the manufacture in the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey, and there stated to cost sixty-three shillings and three-pence per barrel?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the Belgian pebble powder has been proved in the usual way, which consists in firing from one to three rounds, as may be found necessary, from an 8-inch gun with 35 lb. charge of powder and 180-pounder shot, to test the muzzle velocity

  1681
  and pressure within the gun. The velocity should be within the limits of 1,420 feet to 1,480 feet, and the pressure not exceeding 20 tons on any one point. It is also tested for density, size, and appearance of the pebbles and absorption of moisture. If the powder does not fulfil these tests it is rejected. As to the results, the. percentage of rejections of the Belgian powder amounted to 26 per cent on the whole quantity supplied, while that of the private English firms varied from 28 per cent as a minimum to 49 per cent as a mean. As regards our own manufacture, it has to pass the same proofs as other powders supplied by the trade. The Belgian pebble powder, contracted for at 69 s., is delivered under the same specifications as the powder manufactured at Waltham Abbey during the year ending 31st of March, 1872, of which the price by Balance Sheet No. 2 was 63 s. 3d.

  THE TICHBORNE CASE— THE QUEEN v. CASTRO.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the payment of the witnesses for the defence of the Tichborne Case, Whether it is in his recollection that a Motion was made last Session for a Return of Copies of applications to the Solicitor of the Treasury for the payment of such expenses, and that the Right honourable Gentleman did on that occasion specify several of the applications that had been so made; and, whether he adheres to the statement on Monday last that no such application had been made; and, if he do not, whether he will consent to lay Copies of such application upon the Table?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I entirely adhere to the statement I made on Monday, and it is also in my recollection that a Motion was made last Session, to the effect stated by the hon. Member. I referred to certain Memorials received at the Home Office and the Treasury from Hartlepool, Sunderland, and Southampton, praying that the Government would investigate the "incontrovertible evidence in the defendant's favour." There were two more from Newcastle-on-Tyne and Dewsbury, praying that the Government would pay the expenses of the trial. Now, in answer to the Question
  1682
  put to me the other day, I stated that the Home Office would readily undertake to consider, in conjunction with the Treasury, any applications made by the persons really concerned in the defence; but I do not consider that representations made by the majorities of public meetings or suggestions from private Members like my hon. Friend can form a proper basis for forming any decision in this matter.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had one further Question to ask. Assuming that he should feel it his duty, as it related to a question of fact, to publish the Correspondence which had passed between the Treasury and himself, would the right hon. Gentleman deem it his duty to prosecute him? He begged leave to point out, in explanation, that anything that was said, printed, or published tending in any way to influence the mind of the jury during the present trial was regarded as a contempt of court. He begged leave, therefore, to repeat the Question, and to ask, Whether, in the event of his publishing the Correspondence, his right hon. Friend would deem it his duty to prosecute him for contempt of court?
  MR. BRUCE: I must refer my hon. Friend for an answer to the Attorney General, who is the officer of the Government charged with prosecutions in such matters.

MERCANTILE MARINE—CARDIFF MAGISTRATES—MR. PLIMSOLL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a printed paper, dated "111, Victoria St., April 20th, 1873," signed "Samuel Plimsoll," which has been recently circulated among Members of this House, and which contains the following statement—
  "I had heard much of Cardiff and the adjacent ports. A large firm of shipowners told me five years ago that so bad was the system of overloading there (owing to the readiness of the bench to commit men to prison who refused service, and also to the general carelessness of life of seamen) that they had been obliged, very reluctantly, to take all their ships off the station, at great temporary loss, because they would not consent to make profit at the cost of drowning a crew now and then; and, loading their ships fairly, they were placed at too great a disadvantage. The managing partner of this firm

  1683
  told me that ships were constantly sailing from Cardiff certain to founder if they met with rough weather;"
  whether he has any reason to believe that so grave a charge against the bench of magistrates at Cardiff has any sort of foundation in fact; and, whether it is his intention to institute any inquiry with reference to such charge, or otherwise to enable the bench of magistrates at Cardiff to vindicate their conduct in the matter?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I suppose, in common with every other Member of this House, I received the letter which contains the statement referred to; but that statement was so vague and general that I did not think it necessary to refer to the stipendiary magistrate at Cardiff, because I thought it would be putting him in a very unfair position if he were called upon to answer a charge which was not sufficiently specific. I may say, however, that the stipendiary magistrate at Cardiff who deals with these cases had for many years been Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the county of Glamorgan, and stands deservedly high in public respect. I had therefore, primâ facie reason to suppose that he never had committed a sailor to prison without proper reason. I may also add that since this Question was put on the Paper, I have received a letter, not addressed to myself, but written by the stipendiary magistrate, in which he says that a careful inquiry has been made into 60 cases which have occurred during the last year, and in only two of these cases was any defence made of overloading or unseaworthiness, and in only one of these the defence was substantiated, and defendants were released. But I may say that the proper place to investigate these statements will be before the Royal Commission; and I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, who has printed them, has inquired into the trustworthiness of his authorities, and that, when the time comes, he will be prepared to give proof of them.

  ASSASSINATION OF CAPTAIN CHARLES AGNEW.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Major GAVIN,
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that Colonel Stanton had reported on March 30 from Alexandria the death of Captain Charles Agnew, of the 16th Lancers, at Ismailia,
  1684
  after having been wounded at Suez on the evening of the 20th of that month. Both Mr. West, Her Majesty's Consul at Suez, and the Italian Vice Consul would appear to have acted with energy and promptitude, and three men undoubtedly implicated in the affair had been arrested; but, unfortunately, the early departure of the steamship Golconda prevented the evidence of two engineers of that ship being taken as to the identity of two of the men who were arrested. Orders had been sent to the Peninsular and Oriental Company's agent at Bombay to send these two men back to Suez as early as possible for the purpose of giving further evidence in the matter. Mr. Consul West stated, moreover, that the three men were retained in arrest by order of the Italian Vice Consul, Signore de Gayzueta, to whose prompt and energetic action in the matter he bore the highest testimony.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  (Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baxter.)

  [BILL 144.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, before the Speaker left the Chair he wished to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the Conference on the Sugar Duties now sitting in Paris. It was stated by the newspapers in the latter part of last month that France and England were agreed upon the question with the exception of a few matters of detail, but that Belgium and Holland raised difficulties. It had since been stated that Belgium alone was opposed to refining in bond, to which the other three Powers had assented. The trade in this country was very anxious upon these points. Under the present system, the import of refined sugar into this country had increased from, in round numbers, 37,000 tons to 89,000 in nine years, and, at the same time, the number of refiners in London had dwindled from 23 to 3. This was very serious, and was caused, they learnt, by the large bounty given in France to the exporter, amounting to nearly £5 per ton; so that duty-paid French sugar was sometimes cheaper in London than that in bond in Paris. The circumstance that sugar was assessed according to colour led to the

  1685
  artificial colouring of refined sugar, called by a new term déclassement, the result of which was that sugar thus browned sold for more than white sugar because it paid less duty. The Convention had never worked well, though frequently amended. In this, as in other cases, we had been out-manœuvred by the foreigner. But we should be in a still worse position if the Convention were abrogated altogether, as some hon. Members had suggested. The English refiners were not afraid of their French rivals on fair ground with no favour; hut they could not compete with those who were heavily subsidized out of the national Exchequer; and though the consumer, doubtless, profited for the moment, yet if the English trade was destroyed it did not require much foresight to predict that he would eventually pay dearly for his temporary advantage. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman in what position the negotiations were at present; and whether there was any prospect of some really satisfactory arrangement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman had given him Notice of his Question he would have given him exact information upon the subjects to which it related. The Conference, as he understood it, was at an end, and they had arrived at three resolutions. It had, however, come to no resolution about refining in bond. The Conference had come to a resolution that for the future the colour of sugar should not be the principal test in France for refiners, and that; he apprehended, was favourable as far as it went to the trade. If the Question was repeated to-morrow, he should be in a position to give a more definite reply.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he would repeat the Question to-morrow.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that in some parts of London houses bonâ fide occupied for the purposes of trade had been rated from 6d. to 9d. in the pound, and complaints had been made on the subject to the Inland Revenue. He wished to know whether a clause would be introduced into the Bill to render the liability to rating of such houses clear, and whether the Secretary to the Treasury could give the House an undertaking that business houses should continue to be rated at 6d. in the pound?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he had been assured by the proper authority that it would not be necessary to introduce a clause, as what was necessary could be done by a Government regulation.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he hoped that the House would receive some intimation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the manner in which he proposed to secure the large sum of about £3,000,000 which he would require to pay the Alabama Indemnity. There were already symptoms in the money-market which led the commercial community to apprehend that, possibly, there might be such a disturbance of the market as would place them under severe pressure. It was not a question as to the Bank raising its rate to 6, 7, or 8 per cent, but whether a panic, with all its disastrous results, might not be occasioned. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider the importance of this matter, as it affected the commercial interests of the country, and would let them know his plans in order that they might form their own.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he thought this a convenient time to make one or two remarks in answer to an appeal made to him by the Prime Minister the other night. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him why he had not brought forward the malt tax in opposition to the income tax, and the right hon. Gentleman had answered that question himself. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he (Colonel Barttelot) perfectly well recollected his statement. The right hon. Gentleman asked how it was that he (Colonel Barttelot), who brought forward the malt tax in opposition to the income tax, could vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith)? The answer to that was that no division took place; but with regard to the second point he would venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he (Colonel Barttelot) had brought forward the question of the malt tax in opposition to the income tax the Prime Minister would then, like his right hon. Friend who sat near him (The Chancellor of the Exchequer) have become the poor man's

  1687
  friend, and he would have stated that the income tax pressed very severely upon certain classes, and it would, no doubt, have been a very unwise course to have run the malt tax against the income tax. He had, however, received indications from certain quarters of the House which showed him that the malt tax question was making way. The question having been intrusted to him, he could only say that he should take what he considered a fitting opportunity of bringing it forward in this Session or the next—without entangling it with other questions which some hon. Members might think of as great or greater importance. He should, however, at the proper time do what was necessary to test the feeling of the House on the subject.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Exemptions of hotel keepers, &c., from duty on servants, under 32 & 33 Vict., c. 14).
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the clause related to the exemption of tavern and hotel keepers from duty in respect of servants wholly employed by them for the purpose of their business. He wished to know whether it rendered hotel-keepers who employed occasional waiters liable to pay duty in respect of these occasional waiters? There was a class of waiters who went about from hotel to hotel to do occasional work when any dinner was being given in any hotel where the ordinary staff of waiters was insufficient for the work, and it was to men so taken in for a day or two that this question applied.
  MR. BOWRINGasked for a definition of male servants, because he said that a large number of tradesmen in Exeter had been charged 15 s. for male servants because a porter or an errand boy in their service had occasionally cleaned a pair of boots or had cleaned knives. If the duty was rightly levied in such a case, the evasions were enormous. But as the only category under which such persons could be charged was as pages or waiters, he did not think the interpretation of the Board of Inland Revenue could be correct; he therefore appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devise some words by which such persons would be relieved from
  1688
  duty, as a real grievance was now experienced by their employers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of the clause was to exempt hotel-keepers and persons engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors from duty in respect of persons wholly employed by them for the purposes of such business. Of course, if they were employed otherwise they would not come within the exemption. [Mr. CRAWFORD: Are occasional waiters to be charged for?] That does not seem to be touched upon by this clause at all, inasmuch as he does not serve his whole time.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the understanding on the part of the public certainly was that hotel-keepers and other persons who were obliged to call in an additional number of waiters for temporary purposes were not to be charged. The waiters might be employed once only.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERunderstood the word "wholly," used in the clause, to refer to persons employed in no other capacity. However that might bear on the question of his hon. Friend he did not know. In reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring), he should say that any amount of employment in the capacity of a domestic servant would render the employer liable to the duty on male servants.
  MR. HERMON: Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself gives a dinner party and employs extra waiters, I want to know whether he pays, or do they pay their own taxes?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot say whether they will pay their own taxes, because it is not put upon waiters; but I am quite certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pay.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule A.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to make an observation or two before the Bill passes into law. In the debate which took place the other night the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, at the close of a very eloquent speech, stated broadly that under the present Customs' tariff of this country the luxuries of the poor man are taxed, but that

  1689
  the luxuries of the rich are free of duty. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I said generally.] Yes, generally. Now, I am quite aware that I am entering upon a very wide subject; but I think it my duty to call the attention of the House to the danger indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and, indeed, to a great extent, created by himself. Since the year 1852, according to the Statistical Abstracts, more than £14,000,000 of Customs' duties have been abandoned—that is to say, more than £17,000,000 of these duties have been repealed or reduced—but something more than £3,000,000 of them have been re-imposed. So that, on the whole, £14,000,000 of Customs' duties have been abandoned since the year 1852, and among these duties—and forming a great part of them—were the duties upon the luxuries of the rich, precious stones, articles of decoration and of vertu, silks and other luxuries. Upon all these articles the duties have been repealed, and I hold that this excessive simplification of the tariff is dangerous in the extreme; because, when we have it stated on the highest authority in the House that the luxuries of the poor are taxed, whilst the luxuries of the rich are untaxed, I see nothing to withstand the process which this Bill is carrying out—namely, the gradual abolition of the remainder of the Customs' duties—and nothing in the condition of our financial regulations to prevent an additional aggregation of duties upon property. Years ago I entertained this apprehension, and, by anticipation, expressed this opinion; but now that I find the Legislature taking step after step to reduce the financial condition of this country to the dangerous point to which it is approaching, I think it my duty again to call the attention of the House to these facts.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Schedule B.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, that already a very large proportion of the reduction of duty on sugar had reached the consumers, and very shortly the whole of it would reach them. As to the malt duty, there was a very strong opinion growing in favour of temperance, and he did not think that it would be acceptable to the country that they should lower the duty upon malt or beer.
  MR. BOWRINGpointed out that the proportion which Scotch and Irish farmers paid under Schedule B as compared with English farmers, was not a fixed proportion, but varied with every variation in the amount of the tax. He would like to know, in the case of the present year, how it was that whilst the duty under Schedule B in England was 1½d., in Scotland and Ireland it was only 1¼d.?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that one good reason was that the distinction had existed so long. He believed the reason why Scotland was charged less was that the people there paid higher rents than in England.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  REGISTER FOR PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTORS (re-committed) BILL
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Hilbert.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 9 (Double qualifications).
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEmoved, in page 7, line 19, to insert—
  "It shall not be necessary for a candidate for the office of common councilman of the City of London to be on such list for any particular borough to qualify him for the office of common councilman."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. C. E. LEWISmoved, at end of clause, to add—
  "Provided, That in no case shall the revising barrister erase any such name until he has been satisfied by evidence on oath that the name of the person to be erased is that of a person entered on more than one of such lists."
  He explained that his object was simply that the barrister should not be led by mere observations in court to strike names out of the list.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. The Act of 1867 made it the duty of the Revising Barrister to strike out a name if it should appear in more than one polling district, without receiving evidence upon oath.
  MR. C. E. LEWISremarked that it frequently happened that in large boroughs the same name appeared several

  1691
  times upon the Parliamentary list, and if somebody in court said that the name referred to one person only when in fact it was not so, the barrister might strike names out of the list and unwittingly disfranchise persons.
  MR. R. SHAWsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would be persevered in.
  MR. LOCKEalso expressed the same opinion. He knew an instance where the Revising Barrister was told that a man was dead, and was just about striking out the name when the roan walked into the room. There should be evidence on oath in such cases.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, and upon Report he would bring up a clause upon the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Grounds of objection to be specified in notice. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18. Sec. 28 & 29 Vict. c. 36, s. 6).
  MR. RATHBONEmoved, in page 7, line 39, after "objected to," to insert as a fresh paragraph—
  "It shall be the duty of the overseers, in the interval between the publication of the lists of objections and claims in a parliamentary or municipal borough and the revision of the lists, to inquire, so far as may be, into the matter of the several claims or objections."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he had no objection to an inquiry into claims; but he thought it very undesirable that they should have an inquiry into the matter of objections.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. They ought not to impose upon the overseers any duties of this kind.
  MR. C. REEDalso thought it would be putting a very invidious duty upon the overseers.
  MR. GOLDNEYwished to know what the overseer was to do after he had made this inquiry. If he were to report to the Revising Barrister, then what ought to be done? He thought this was a fatal objection to the Amendment.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 8, line 2, at end, to add—"This section shall not apply to lodgers." He said it was very difficult to ascertain whether a person was entitled to the lodger fran-
  1692
  chise or not, and the present Bill originally contained no reference whatever to lodgers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought this Amendment would do away with the effect of the 5th clause by a side wind.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Costs of objection).
  MR. C. E. LEWISmoved, in page 8, line 17, to leave out—"or to any person claiming to be on such list of voters."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. C. E. LEWIScomplained that under this clause they narrowed the discretion given by the present law to the Revising Barristers to award costs.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Proceedings on objection made to voters).
  MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, the clause required a Revising Barrister, previously to hearing any objection, to institute a preliminary inquiry on oath as to the bona fides of the objector. He moved, in page 8, line 29, to leave out all after "require," down to and including "satisfaction," in line 29, and insert—
  "The objector to state the ground of his objection against such person, and unless the revising barrister shall be satisfied that such objection has been made bonâ fide, and that there exists primâ facie some ground for putting the person objected to to the proof of his qualification."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to throwing the duty of preparing the lists of voters on the overseers, who were by the clause required to discharge such duty without additional pay. They all knew that the overseers' lists, if not revised periodically, would become gradually defective and corrupt.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment. The object of the clause was to prevent frivolous objections.
  MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, it would be impossible to carry on a proper system of registration, especially in counties, under the clause.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, the difficulty arose from the clause being made to apply both to the attendance and non-attendance of the voter to support his vote.
  MR. COLLINSthought that the objector ought to be able to state his belief without giving actual personal proof, which in some cases was almost impossible.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Liberal party in Liverpool intended by means of this Bill largely to recruit their strength by putting 1,000 or 2,000 fictitious voters on the register, trusting to the deterrent effect of the 40 s. penalty to prevent their being objected to.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, the intentions of the Liberal party in Liverpool were to have as pure and as good a register as possible. The monstrous assertion of the hon. Gentleman formed part of a delusion.
  MR. W. H. SMITHhoped no difficulty would be thrown in the way of a just and fair objection.
  Question put, "That the words 'primâ facie proof to be given to his satisfaction' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 103: Majority 66.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Successive occupation).
  MR. COLLINSmoved to omit the clause, on the ground that its tendency would be to invite objections. If a man resided only for two or three days at one house his name could be put upon the register, though he might reside elsewhere for the remainder of the twelve months, the present law requiring that he should occupy the same premises for a year to entitle him to a vote. The clause would give great power to the overseer, and throw upon the public a burden of objections.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 66: Majority 61.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Expenses and receipts of town clerks. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 15, s. 55.)
  MR. CAWLEYmoved, in lines 12 and 13, the omission of the words "or overseers," on the ground that overseers were in the habit of making charges against town clerks for the work they did, not as part of their regular duties as "overseers," but as an extra fee altogether for work done in the capacity of
  1694
  individuals. If the words he objected to were allowed to remain, overseers would make one charge against the borough for preparing lists, and also another charge at their own will and pleasure, and as there was no audit in respect of such latter payments there was no control over them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his objection. This clause made no alteration in the existing law. It merely extended the operation of the law to the expenses, whatever they might be, incurred by the overseers in the performance of the duties imposed upon them by the Act.
  MR. CAWLEYrepeated that the charge was made, not as overseers, but as individuals.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,on the suggestion of the hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Mr. Cross), agreed to consider the point before Report.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause (Power to arrange lists by streets).
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. GREGORY(for Mr. LOPES) moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following clause (Suitable places to be procured for revising barristers' courts).
  Clause amended and agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. RATHBONE(for Mr. JAMES) moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following clause (Evening sittings of revision court).
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. H. R. BRANDmoved, after Clause 24, to insert the following clause (List of persons disqualified by parochial relief).
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved the following clause (Power to alter number of revising barristers to be appointed under 6 and 7 Vic. c. 18, s. 28).
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. COLLINSmoved the following clause (Repeal of part of forty-fourth Clause of 5 and 6 Will. 4, c. 76).
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. C. E. LEWISmoved the following clause (Town clerk not to act as agent).
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  On Motion that the first Schedule stand part of the Bill,
  MR. C. E. LEWIScalled attention to the particular dates in the Bill, at which various operations under it were to be effected or carried out as being impossible or impracticable for effecting the objects proposed.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Government had decided to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), and instead of the 24th of June being the qualifying period, the date would be the 31st of May. The advantage of that would be to give more time for all the earlier steps in the preparation of the register. The earlier dates would all be put back just two months, beginning with the 5th of January, which date would be altered to the 1st of November. He thought these alterations would be a great improvement. During the present year everything would go on as it was now with respect to the present law as to the lists. There would be no alteration. They would have to provide for postponing the operation of the register only until next January.
  Schedule amended, and agreed to.
  Second Schedule.
  MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 17, Form A, column 3, to leave out "shed," and insert "building."
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday 16th May, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Winterhotham.)

  [BILL 108.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. GORDONsaid, the Bill had come on sooner than he had expected. As his hon. Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. C. Dalrymple), who had given Notice of his intention to move that the
  1696
  Order for the Committee should be discharged; and that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee was not present, and the Lord Advocate himself was not in the House to listen to what he was about to say, he thought it was desirable that this measure should not be proceeded with to-night. Moreover, the Writers to the Signet in Scotland, a most influential body, had drawn up a Report upon the Bill, which would be in the hands of Scotch Members either tonight or to-morrow morning, and he thought it important that the Report should be seen by the Members of the House before they proceeded any further with the Bill. He knew that the Writers desired that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and that was the proposal of the hon. Member for Bute. They were all agreed as to the object they had in view—that was, that all unnecessary titles should be abolished, and that economy in the granting of the charters was desirable, and the only question was how these things should be effected. He appealed to the Lord Advocate to put off this Bill until next week, so as to afford the House an opportunity of considering the views expressed by the conveyancers of Scotland. He thought this no unreasonable request—especially as there were not more than eight or ten Scotch Members present. However, he should discharge his duty by moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Gordon,)—instead thereof.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had expressed with great repetition his great desire that this Bill should not be proceeded with now, or if that wish expressed by him should not be assented to on this side of the House, that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He agreed with him that the Bill was one of great importance, and that it was a Bill of great detail, such as ought to receive from the House as much consideration as it would receive from a Select Committee; but he could not consent either to delay the consideration now or to refer it to a Select Committee.

  1697
  As to the Report of the very important body—the Writers to the Signet—to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, he (the Lord Advocate) had received a copy of that document; as no doubt his hon. and learned Friend had also; and he had to say in answer, that he did not propose to pass any of the clauses of the Bill to-night to which that Report particularly referred, or that he should pass them until an opportunity had been had of considering the suggestions it contained. He must resist, and ask the House to decide on the Motion which had been submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman on behalf of the hon. Member for Bute—namely, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It had been before the House substantially as it now stood for three years—lie might almost say four years—and therefore he held it quite reasonable that they should proceed to the consideration of it now in the ordinary way. They were now in the position to do so, if they ever could be. No doubt the Bill was of a very technical character, and was therefore well suited for discussion in a Select Committee. But the same might be said of any other Bill relating to a technical subject, and the Bill having been before Parliament at least three years, he thought they were not likely to get much more assistance from the professional bodies in Scotland. He must therefore ask in the interest of progress that there should be no further obstruction or delay, and that they should proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
  DR. BALLsaid, there was no subject which could be more appropriately referred to a Select Committee than a subject of Scotch law. The Prime Minister recently denied that Irish Members should deal alone with an Irish question, even when they were unanimous, and said that Scotchmen and Englishmen had a right to be heard. He claimed the same right with regard to Scotch subjects. So singular were the terms in Scotch law, so extraordinary were its peculiarities, that no lawyer of the Irish or English Bar could of himself, without some assistance, arrive at the meaning of them. Further, few persons, even of legal experience, could understand many of the terms used in this measure, and therefore he thought the best means of dealing with it would be
  1698
  to refer it to a Select Committee. In Ireland prolixity in conveyancing had been much diminished, owing to the example and practice of the Encumbered Estates Court. You might carry in your waistcoat pocket a deed of that Court conveying a large estate, and upon which you might raise money safely. He desired to establish in England and Scotland the same cheap and expeditious system of conveyancing which had been introduced in Ireland. It was desirable that a Select Committee should consider the measure, with the view not of delaying it, but that it might be well considered by legal minds before being passed by a majority who did not understand its provisions.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that as he understood the remarks of the hon. and learned Lord Advocate on the recommendations of the legal and professional bodies in Scotland, he was not inclined to press that part of the Bill on which there might be any expectation that the House would receive any suggestions from that quarter. He had himself seen in confidence the Report of the Writers to the Signet which was not yet complete, and he might say that difficulties would arise on some details, particularly in reference to the third clause. He was also informed that the legal body in Glasgow had the subject under consideration. The Bill was now changed for the better. It was a moderate Bill, and he for one was disposed to support the going into Committee, though in some parts there might be considerable difficulties to overcome. Hitherto, when the Bill had been brought on, it had been brought on at such an hour that it was impossible that it could be fairly considered, and he thought it might be fixed for a time when the House would pay some attention to it. If Her Majesty's Government would listen to the suggestion for going into Committee and reporting Progress, he hoped they would be able at a future stage to get a morning sitting, and to discuss the Bill with advantage.
  MR. CHARLEYthought the Committee of the Whole House at a morning sitting on this Bill, would be a very Select Committee indeed, and he hoped the country would take notice that there were only six Members on his side of the House when the Lord Advocate proposed to go on with the Bill. It was

  1699
  said to be a good Bill, but he gathered from one or two Memorials which had been sent to him on the subject, that it was anything but a moderate Bill. One of its provisions proposed to attack property acquired by the Church of Scotland under Sir James Graham's Act, of the value of £400,000, and he trusted that if the Amendment were not acceded to, Progress would be reported as soon as they got into Committee.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was not going to discuss the merits of the Bill. He thought the suggestion for reporting Progress as soon as Committee was got into was a fair one, but what he rose to say was, that he objected to the proposal of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) to take the Bill at a morning sitting. That course had been taken before with something like this result—that English and Irish Members did not attend, and they might just as well allow the Government to carry the Bill in any way they liked. Besides he could not but think it disrespectful to shove off the business of Scotland into a Committee in order that the business of the other parts of the Empire might be transacted. They had, he thought, the same right to have their business considered in the early part of the evening as English and Irish Members.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he quite agreed with what had just been said, and thought it would be most convenient that they should go into Committee and that Progress should be reported, in order to give time for expression of opinion by those learned bodies, and also to give an opportunity to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball) to master those legal laws which were so strange to him. No doubt when he had accomplished this the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to afford valuable advice. At the same time there was no disposition on the part of the Government to proceed further than reporting Progress.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he would draw attention to what took place with regard to the English Bill 40 years ago. The Bill for improving English conveyancing in the reign of William IV. was referred to a Committee of lawyers, with Mr. Carr at their head, and on their recommendation a Bill was passed by the House which, though it might need amendment now, had stood the
  1700
  test of 40 years' working. He suggested the propriety of adopting a similar course on the present Bill.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. William Henry Gladstone, Mr. Baxter.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Baxter.)
  MR. BAXTERrose to explain that the object of the measure was to repair an accidental omission on the part of the heads of one or two Departments of State, especially of the War Office. Under the Superannuation Act of 1859 a certificate of qualification from the Civil Service Commissioners was a necessary condition for obtaining a pension. It had been discovered, however, that a considerable number of persons had been going on for years working at lower salaries than they could have got elsewhere, under the conviction that they would be entitled to receive pensions; but when the Treasury refused to grant them they stated that the heads of the Departments had not told them of the necessity of procuring certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners. In 1871 pensions were refused to no fewer than 225 artificers employed at Woolwich under the War Office. They had all entered the service after 1859; but the authorities had failed to inform them of the necessity of obtaining a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners. The same thing occurred in the case of other employés under the War Office. Two sergeants in the Military Hospital at Chelsea and two officials in the Convict Department in Tasmania were likewise refused pensions. All these, believing they would be pensioned, had served at lower salaries than they would otherwise have received, and

  1701
  the Bill simply proposed to put them in the same position as they would have occupied if the heads of Departments had told them immediately what it was necessary for them to do.
  MR. J. FIELDEN,in rising to move the rejection of the Bill, said, it was a very remarkable thing that neither on its introduction nor on the occasion of its second reading was the slightest reason adduced for it by any Member of the Government. He was unavoidably absent at the time of the second reading; but he had read the reports in The Times, which, he supposed, was generally looked on as an authentic record of what occurred in Parliament. The measure professed to deal with certain cases which did not come under the operation of the Superannuation Act of 1859; but it was most extraordinary that the omission referred to by the right hon. Gentleman had not been found out till the year 1873. He could not understand such negligence on the part of heads of Departments. The Superannuation Fund was rapidly increasing, and he intended to do what he could to strike at the root of the system. He was satisfied it led to a class of men being employed who were very inefficient public servants. Again, when a Government was hardly pressed there was such an inducement to abolish old offices, in order to pension off the holders of them, and then to create new ones for the hangers on of the Government that the system became most demoralizing in its operations. The Bill of 1859 was warmly discussed, and Sir Henry Willoughby strongly objected to it, predicting what its effect would be. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), whose name was on the back of the Bill of 1859, stated that the increase caused by that Bill would not be more than £70,000 a-year at the outside; and, in reply to the late Mr. Wilson, who estimated the increase would be £100,000, the right hon. Baronet expressed his belief that it would be nearer £50,000 than £70,000. In 1859 the superannuation allowances in the Civil Service were, in round figures, £167,000. They increased to £256,000 in 1869, to £338,000 in 1870, to £399,000 in 1871, to £415,000 in 1872, and to £416,000 in 1873; while the estimate for 1873–4 was £424,000. These figures, he thought, would justify
  1702
  the House in resisting any measure which tended to increase superannuation allowances; and he therefore would conclude by moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on that day six months.
  MR. MELLORseconded the Motion, on the ground that an examination of the Estimates for a series of years showed that the superannuation allowances added to the non-effective services showed a total of £5,250,000.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Joshua Fielders,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL BARTTELOTpointed out that, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, the Government were paying lower salaries to men than they would otherwise receive by holding out to them the hope of obtaining pensions. This was a most mischievous system, which ought not to be tolerated by the House, and he should therefore vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Fielden).
  MR. WHITWELLconcurred with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in thinking this a most mischievous system, which they ought not to tolerate. These superannuations caused a regular annual increase of the National Debt. The Government ought to pay their servants properly, and not throw the burden of their superannuations upon posterity.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid, the explanation of the circumstances which rendered this legislation necessary had just been stated for the first time, but could not be declared satisfactory. Was the House dealing with cases before or after 1859? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: After 1859.] It was said that these public servants had been appointed inadvertently, and he admitted that it would be unfair to visit the fault of the heads of Departments upon their subordinates. But it would only be reasonable first to show that they were competent for the work they undertook to perform, and before they got their pen-

  1703
  sion they should obtain their certificate. He could not see the propriety of granting pensions after only 12 years' service. In Committee he should move a clause that the persons concerned should only be entitled to their pensions on receiving the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 43: Majority 67.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Amendment of Superannuation Act, 1859).
  MR. DICKINSONmoved the introduction of the words "Civil Service," with the view of subjecting to examination and to the necessity of obtaining a certificate the persons already in Government employ who had not undergone examination.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that an Act of Parliament had been passed requiring persons to pass a Civil Service examination before they were admitted to the Civil Service, but a number of persons had been working for many years in the different Departments without having, through inadvertence, submitted themselves to examination and obtained the requisite certificate; and by this Amendment, after 10 or 12 years of meritorious service, they were to be tested to see if they were fit. He thought that was a gross injustice.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, this was an attempt to whitewash the heads of Departments, and pay pensions to persons who had been improperly appointed by them. If the Act of Parliament were a wise one, the House should uphold it, and insist that gentlemen who had not fulfilled the conditions it imposed should either forfeit its advantages or bring themselves within its provisions by submitting to the necessary examination.
  SIR HENRY STORKSexplained that the Bill referred chiefly to workmen employed in the gun factory at Woolwich, and as far as the War Office was concerned the amount at issue was inconsiderable. These persons having been
  1704
  appointed through inadvertence on the part of the heads of Departments, they had an equitable claim to consideration; and, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for War, the Treasury had agreed to provide for their claim in this Bill.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he thought the wording of the Bill too general. If it applied only to artificers at Woolwich he should have no objection to the Bill; but for all that appeared on the face of the Bill, there was no limitation, and it would apply to the whole Civil Service.
  MR. O'REILLYbelieved the Bill applied also to warders in prisons and to some appointments in the Post Office. If some words were introduced into the Act rendering it clear to whom it was to apply the opposition to the measure would disappear altogether. Why not, instead of several public Departments, say certain public Departments? He did not think it would be well to compel the men to submit to the examination now. He did not think that he could pass the examination which was required of him years ago.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid, it might have been proper to insist on the examination with regard to the men appointed between 1859 and 1861, but perhaps not with regard to the other hands. He thought that before the Bill was passed a list of those who were to be benefited by it ought to be laid before the House.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the best course which the Committee could pursue would be to report Progress, so as to give the Government an opportunity of introducing words into the Bill limiting its application to the persons to whom it was intended to apply.
  MR. BRUCEcontended that the language of the Bill expressly limited its operation to certain persons.
  DR. BALL,having the greatest confidence in Her Majesty's Government in all matters of finance, would vote for them on the present occasion, especially as he was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have sanctioned the introduction of a Bill to pay money merely from motives of generosity of benevolence, nor indeed unless he had been forced to it by considerations of inexorable justice.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it desirable that the words of the Bill should be sufficiently wide to include all those whose cases ought to fall within its operation. The second recital of the Bill limited its operation to the case of those who, being perfectly innocent themselves, by the default of their superiors had not obtained the necessary Civil Service certificate. Was it the wish of the House of Commons that in consequence these persons should be deprived of the pensions which they had fairly earned?
  MR. R. SHAWread the first section of the Bill to show that under it Her Majesty's Government would have the power of applying its provisions to the case of any person they chose, and that they would, therefore, have an unlimited power of pensioning. He should vote for the Committee reporting Progress.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the Bill should be left as it stood, and that the responsibility for carrying it into effect should be thrown upon the heads of Departments.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to restrict the Bill to the artificers mentioned by the Surveyor General; whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer would open the door to pensions being given to persons in higher positions. He had no confidence in the heads of Departments, through whose neglect of duty many thousands of pounds had been unnecessarily charged on superannuation funds. If other cases came to light, the Government could bring in a second Bill. He would support the Motion for reporting Progress.
  MR. J. FIELDENsaid, he thought that the persons for whom the Bill was intended should be placed in a Schedule, so that it might be known definitely to whom it would apply.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANexpressed surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was usually represented as a close-fisted economist, should now be described as a lavish spend-thrift. If the Bill were restricted, as suggested, an accidental omission would necessitate the introduction of another Bill.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, he did not see why the Bill should not include all classes of Civil servants, who by inadvertence of their superiors had omitted to obtain their certificates.
  MR. WHITWELLagreed that the Bill should be more strictly limited in its operation.
  Mr. GLADSTONEsaid, he was sure the Committee were anxious to do justice to public servants, and in any case of doubt to give them the benefit of it. His right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated that he could not undertake to give the names beforehand, it being impossible to tell precisely who would be found to come within the scope of the Bill, and it was undesirable that Bills should be brought in to include one individual after another in the benefit of the measure. The Government had no objection, within a reasonable time, to lay on the Table of the House the names of the persons to whom the Bill should apply, such list to be completed by the next Session.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he did not understand why the limit of time in the Bill should extend as far as 1875. If the names were submitted to Parliament for consideration, there could be no objection to the measure, but their decision should be final.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought that the House should not have the function of deciding on each individual case; but he would agree to limit the time for making known the claims under the Bill to three or six months.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,thinking the right hon. Gentleman had fairly met the difficulty, would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Dickinson), by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANmoved, in page 2, line 12, after "Commissioners," to insert—
  "A certificate from the Civil Service, Commissioners shall not be deemed to be necessary to entitle any officer of the High Court of Chancery, or of any judge thereof, who shall have been appointed prior to the passing of this Act, or on his subsequent promotion to any compensation, pension, retiring annuity or superannuation allowance, to which he may be entitled by virtue of any Act or Acts of Parliament now in force; but it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, to require any person to be hereafter appointed an officer of the Court of Chancery, or of any judge thereof, to pass such examination as they may deem necessary."
  His Amendment was required as an act

  1707
  of justice to those who had been appointed prior to the passing of the Act.
  MR. BOWRINGpointed out that such an Amendment was not within the scope of the Bill according to its title.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANadmitted that the objection was fatal, and would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexpressed a hope that the clause promised by the Prime Minister would be brought up on the Report.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it should be so brought up.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the clause ought to be discussed in Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if any difficulty requiring minute discussion should arise upon it the Bill should be re-committed.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL— [BILL 99.]
  (Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Francis Sharp Powell, Mr. Whitbread, Lord Robert Montage, Mr. Stephen Cave, Mr. Richards)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [7th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to add to the duties at present imposed upon sanitary authorities constituted by the Act 1872, until their powers are better defined by a consolidation of the statutes, and appointments have been completed in conformity with the intention of the Act,"—(Mr. Corrance,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTcomplained that the Government had not fulfilled the promise they made last Session, when they were hurriedly pressing forward a Bill on the subject of the public health, that they would this Session propose a measure for the consolidation of the statutes on the subject of the public health. He objected to the
  1708
  second reading of a Bill of this importance—for which the House was indebted to his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley), and not the Government—after midnight. He hoped ample time would be allowed to discuss this important measure in Committee.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to proceed.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he hoped opposition to the Bill in its present state would be withdrawn, and that the Bill would be carefully considered in Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN BILL.
  (Mr. Clare Read, Mr. Pell, Mr. Akroyd, Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth, Mr. Kennaway)

  [BILL 8.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Clare Read.)
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose this Bill, coming as it did from the other side of the House. The Bill provided no means of inspection, and no local authority for carrying it out. The Bill, if carried in its present shape, would be utterly valueless—it would be a dead letter. What he wanted was that the Bill should be made operative. If the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read) would say that he would accept inspection and make some other necessary amendments, he would be happy to withdraw his opposition. Unless the hon. Gentleman would accept this proposal, he would move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he would support the rejection of the Bill for reasons diametrically opposite to those of the hon. Member for Sheffield. It was difficult to cultivate the land advantageously at the present prices of labour; and if

  1709
  boys were to be kept off until they were 13 years of age, they would never come on the land at all. On these grounds he asked the House if it was prudent to allow this measure to go further.
  MR. BEACHsupported the third reading of the Bill, as a Bill calculated to produce a considerable advancement in the interests of the country.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was sure the agricultural labourers of the country were thankful to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Road) for having placed his name on the Bill. He would suggest the recommittal of the Bill, that certain Amendments which he had formerly p1st on the Paper, relating to the number of attendances at school, and the age at which children might be allowed to commence work, might be considered.
  MR. BRUCEagreed with much that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Munciella) had said; but did not think it fair when the measure had gone through discussion, and various Amendments had been disposed of, that they should be asked to consent to its being referred again to Committee.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, he thought it better to take the Bill as it was than to run the risk of having no Bill at all.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Home Secretary had misunderstood the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he would suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw his opposition and let the debate be adjourned to some other night, when they could discuss the question of the Amendments which should be introduced in it.
  MR. CLARE READdeclined to accede to that suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order Confirmation* (95); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (96); Fairs* (97); Vagrants Law Amendment* (98); Marriages Legalization, St. John's Chapel, Eton* (99).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee Canonries (83).
Committee—Registration of Births and Deaths (49–100).
Committee—Referred to Select Committee—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) (68).
Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (69); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3)* (78); Land Drainage Provisional Order* (70).
Third Reading—East India Stock Dividend Redemption* (67); Fulford Chapel Marriages Legalization* (82), and passed.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL—(Nos. 49–100.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERwho had given Notice of a series of Amendments, explained that his object was to render the provisions of the Bill less onerous on the poorer classes of the population without imparing its general efficiency. He believed the Bill as it stood provided for a needless multiplicity of informants in the cases of births and

1667
deaths. There was no principle better ascertained than that the division of responsibility weakened the feeling of individual obligation; and having regard to the trouble to which poor people would be put in complying with the provisions of the measure, he believed it would be wise to modify some of the clauses. The right rev. Prelate then moved the omission of words in the first clause, restricting the obligation of giving information of the birth of any child to the father or mother, or the person having charge of the child; and inserting in Clause 10 words limiting the number of persons bound to give information concerning a death.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the object of the Bill being to secure a complete registration of births, for which the law did not at present provide, and to bring into a consistent system the indirect and imperfect method in which deaths were at present registered, every person had been included who it was at all probable would be competent to give information. The right rev. Prelate should observe that the obligation was placed upon strangers only in default of the parents or near relatives. He could not approve of the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not think the obligations imposed by the Bill were so onerous as the right rev. Prelate seemed to believe, and were not at all more so than was necessary to secure efficient registration.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Friday the 16th instant; and Bill to be printed as amended.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL—(No. 68).
(The Lord President.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had an Amendment to move which, though it might appear a small matter in itself, really involved an important principle. When Parliament passed the Elementary Education Bill three years ago, a compromise was adopted between the two kinds of education—that termed denominational and that carried on under
1668
the School Boards. Now it was absolutely necessary if that compromise was to continue and to be fairly carried out that the School Board should keep their hands off the denominational schools. If the School Board, with unlimited means supplied out of the pockets of the ratepayers, were allowed to shut up the denominational schools, it was obvious that the compromise was at an end. Now, he wished to bring before their Lordships a case in which this compromise had, he considered, been flagrantly disregarded by the London School Board. The present Bill was the necessary consequence of a provision in the Elementary Education Act, inasmuch as the School Board proposed a compulsory taking of land in the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, for the purposes of a Board school. It was proposed to build this school in a district where there was already sufficient provision for education, and on a spot around which at a radius of 500 yards there were eight denominational schools. The district within which these schools stood was on the south side of the river running from Vauxhall to Lambeth Palace, and embraced the parishes of St. Peter, Vauxhall, and St. Mary, Lambeth. The population was 19,086 persons. The utmost calculation of the Education Department was that there should be school accommodation for one out of every six of the population. Accordingly, on that calculation, the district to which he was referring required school accommodation for 3,140 children; but at the present time there was school accommodation for 3,298, being in excess of what was required, and though schooling was to be had in those parishes for a penny a week, there were 800 vacancies. The existing schools belonged to different denominations, and he thought the result of such proceedings as these would be to discourage the efforts of individuals for the education of the young, and would put an end to the foundation of denominational schools. He believed it would be urged in favour of what was asked for in this Bill, that though school accommodation was not required within the limits of which the Board school was the centre, it was required for an adjoining district; and as it was difficult to get sites for schools in London, the Education Department thought it was desirable to secure this piece of

1669
ground in the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth. As he had already explained, there was a piece of ground with numerous denominational schools on each side of it. Now if a person got possession of a tongue of land with coverts on either side of it, and if he put food for pheasants on that tongue of land and said he had obtained the land merely for the pheasants on his own estate, people would still have a suspicion that his object was to draw the pheasants from the woods on either side. He hoped he would not be misunderstood as seeking to cast any reflection on the distinguished President of the London School Board, whose whole life showed his devotion to religious education; but, as was shown by the case at Nottingham, School Boards sometimes acted very recklessly, and if the compromise entered into three years ago was to be upheld, a proposal such as that before their Lordships ought not to be adopted. Moreover, the School Boards did not now represent the ratepayers. They were near the end of their term, and the ratepayers were beginning to awaken to the fact that they were exercising their powers in a very reckless manner. Be that as it might, here was a very flagrant wrong proposed, and their Lordships might well interpose and prevent the adoption of this scheme until a new election had taken place. His proposal was to omit from the Schedule the words giving power for the compulsory taking of the land on which to erect the new school.
Amendment moved, in pages 11 and 12, to leave out the words—
"A piece or parcel of ground situate in or near Albion Cottages, in the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, being on the east and west sides of Albion Cottages, and containing 18,510 square feet, or thereabouts, together with all the messuages, tenements, and buildings now standing thereon."
[Then the names of the owners and occupiers are set out.]
LORD LAWRENCEsaid, he would address their Lordships, not as the Chairman of the School Board, but as a Member of their Lordships' House, and would intreat their Lordships not to accede to the proposal of the noble Marquess. The truth was that the question was not a denominational one or a religious one, but one of meeting what the School Board knew to be a real deficiency in respect of education on the
1670
south side of London. When the question of dividing London into areas for School Board purposes was under consideration it was determined that it would be inconvenient to adopt the existing parochial divisions; and therefore London was mapped out into 10 large divisions, which were again sub-divided. The noble Lord, holding in his hand a map, explained the "blocks" into which the south side of London had been divided, applying the Returns of school accommodation and deficiency to the several "blocks," referring particularly to two "blocks," which embraced the localities and schools alluded to. The noble Lord proceeded to say that it was sometimes found more convenient to deal with two blocks as one large one, rather than to have two small schools; and it was therefore resolved to erect one large school for the two blocks in question. There were in the neighbourhood nearly 4,000 children; the existing school accommodation was sufficient for 2,732, leaving between 1,100 and 1,200 children to be provided for by Board schools. It was therefore at first determined to build a school sufficient for 1,000 children; but upon further scrutiny the plan had been altered, and it was now proposed to provide for the present for only 500, leaving a deficiency of 500 places. He thought this was a question which must be left to the Board, who had no object in supplying school accommodation which was not really required. When a few years had passed he was confident it would appear that the Board had been by no means extravagant in expending the ratepayers' money. They were erecting schools only in cases which had been clearly made out, and not in cases which were doubtful. He could understand and sympathize with the feelings of the supporters of voluntary schools; but it must be remembered that the Board was created for the very purpose of supplying deficiencies. In cases in which the supporters of voluntary schools felt themselves aggrieved they had often appealed to the Board and had had interviews with committees; but, in this case, instead of adopting that course, the gentlemen went to the Education Department, which referred them to the Board, who gave their reasons for what they had done. Had these gentlemen gone to the Board at first, they might, perhaps, have adduced arguments which

1671
would have induced the Board to modify its plans; but they had done nothing of the kind, and there was no course open to the Board but to do what it had done. As for postponing the question until after the next election of School Boards, he did not see any reason for it. If it was good in this it was good in every other case; and their Lordships must remember that the Board had hitherto been chidden, not for doing too much, but for having done so little.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, so far as he understood, the noble Lord (Lord Lawrence) appeared to admit that the want of school accommodation was not in that part of the district where it was proposed to erect the schools, which were to be built in the centre of a district well supplied, and for which more had been done during the last 20 years than for many other districts in the metropolis. There was already accommodation for near 3,000 children and in the interest of the ratepayers they ought to resist an expenditure of some £15,000 or £20,000 for a school that was not wanted, The noble Lord said the London School Board had not wasted the means of the ratepayers. He would not suggest that they had done so, but if they did what they now proposed to do they would, in his opinion, be wasting the means of the ratepayers. Now, as the School Board must be re-elected in November next, he thought this matter might well wait till the election was held, when the ratepayers would be enabled to give their opinion as to the scheme by re-electing those members who would carry out their views, and if they were of opinion that this £15,000 or £20,000 ought not to be spent, they would be able to prevent it.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that the question their Lordships really had to determine was one of fact. He thought the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had misunderstood what had been stated by his noble Friend the Chairman of the London School Board. It was proposed to erect a school in the centre of block 89, where there was, as stated by his noble Friend, a deficiency of accommodation for 1,000 or 1,100 children; but the school proposed to be erected was only to supply accommodation for 500 children. The London School Board came into operation under exceptional circumstances—it was the only School
1672
Board which came into operation entirely by authority of Parliament, and the Act of 1870 threw on the School Board the duty of at once supplying the deficiency of accommodation that might be found to exist for the education of children in the metropolis. The gentlemen who had made the inquiries and inspected the particular district had assured the Department that the figures were as had been stated by his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence). He, therefore, believed there was some mistake in the figures of the noble Marquess. The London School Board had very carefully investigated the matter, and he hoped their Lordships would not take for granted that the unauthenticated statistics of the noble Marquess were correct.
LORD DE ROSsaid, he knew the district well, and did not believe the school proposed was necessary for the extent of the population. He should support the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought the question should be referred to a Select Committee, which would be enabled in a very few minutes to come to a conclusion that would be satisfactory to all parties.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think it would be wise to refer the Bill to a Select Committee on this single point. If the Bill were referred to them at all it would be necessary to refer it in its entirety, and that would oblige the London School Board to prove each case before the Committee, which would be a rather large undertaking. Besides, this was not a permanent, but only a suspensory decision. The ratepayers were the best Select Committee to refer the matter to.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was rather surprised that the noble Marquess should shrink from any inquiry into the facts—he ought to have fully ascertained the accuracy of his facts before bringing on his Motion. He (Earl Granville) would take the responsibility of the figures of the London School Board. They had been looked into by men of different opinions, and there was hardly any difference among them in relation to this matter.
LORD LAWRENCEsaid, he was not aware of any difference of opinion in the Board on the subject.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there could be no doubt the Board was justified in finding school accommodation where a deficiency existed. The noble Marquess had only ascertained one portion of the facts; on that portion of the facts he had made a statement to the House, and many noble Lords had come down to support him. But his noble Friend had proposed the fairest thing possible—to refer it to an impartial Committee of five to report merely as to the facts in question. If that proposal were rejected the conduct of the House would not recommend itself to the public mind.
EARL GREYsaid, he did not think it necessary to refer the whole Bill to a Select Committee—it would be sufficient to suspend the proceedings on the Bill, and in the meantime to appoint a Committee merely to consider this one point—whether a proper site was chosen for this school or not. On the one hand, his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) proved that there was a deficiency, and that there ought to be a new school; but he also stated that the proposed site was in the centre of two blocks, in which, taken together, there was a deficiency. If he understood the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) correctly, he admitted that there was a deficiency in the two blocks taken together, but contended that in one of the blocks there was none. If the noble Marquess was right in that contention, it would not be satisfactory to place the new school in the centre of the two blocks taken together, but rather in the centre of the block which was deficient in school accommodation. There was so much doubt as to whether the site was properly selected that it would be impossible for the House to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the point, therefore he hoped the suggestion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) would be adopted, and that these small points would be referred to a Select Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he preferred that the Bill as it stood should be referred to a Select Committee, which he trusted would not be a large one.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONalso recommended that the whole Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The proposed site was not the only thing to which objection was taken. The ma-
1674
nagers of the existing schools and the ratepayers of the adjoining districts considered that the prosperity of those schools was endangered by the Bill.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he did not think it would be in Order to refer particular points only and not the whole Bill to a Select Committee. In his opinion, it would be a fair consideration for Parliament whether, unless there was a general consent, Bills affecting the property of the metropolis, ought to be accepted as a matter of course, and ought not rather to go through the ordeal of a Select Committee in the same way as all Private Bills were examined.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, it would involve a very unnecessary delay to refer the whole Bill to a Select Committee. Their Lordships might have the utmost reliance on the energy and sagacity of the noble Marquess to find out all the weak points of the case.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had heard a great deal from noble Lords opposite as to the necessity of inquiring into the accuracy of the statements made in reference to this question. The accuracy of the statements made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) had been impugned, and the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) said, that the question of site was not the only point to which objection was taken. It was only fair to the right rev. Prelate that an opportunity should be afforded him of verifying that statement. The Bill had come up from the House of Commons, and if there was no objection to the various Schedules no time would be lost in considering them, because they would not be considered at all. But it was due to those who had any objection to any of these Schedules to have as full an opportunity of stating their case as the noble Marquess. He hoped, therefore, that the whole Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
House resumed; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.
And, on Tuesday, May 13, the Lords following were named of the Committee;—

D. Cleveland,

L. Bp. Winchester.

E. Harrowby.

L. Kesteven.

E. Beauchamp.

L. Lawrence.

V. Eversley.

CANONRIES BILL—(No. 83.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained that the object of the Bill was to amend the Act of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, for the Regulation of Cathedrals, and to facilitate endowment of Canonries by private benefaction. By the 20th section of the Act referred to it was provided that a plan might be laid before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for re-establishing any canonries which should be suspended under the Act by assigning towards the re-endowment of any such revived canonry a portion of the capitular revenues, not exceeding £200 per annum. The present Bill proposed that any plan for reviving a canonry need not necessarily propose to appropriate any portion of the capitular revenue; and authorized the revival of old canonries and the establishment of new ones from private endowment. The Bill contained some provisions assigning the duties, fixing residences, &c., for the new canons, and regulating their position in the Chapters of the cathedrals and collegiate churches.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
And, on Friday, June 13, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

Abp. Canterbury.

E. Ducie.

M. Salisbury.

V. Portman.

E. Carnarvon.

Bp. Winchester.

E. Powis.

Bp. Lichfield.

E. Nelson.

L. Blachford.

MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION, ST. JOHN'S CHAPEL, ETON, BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to render valid marriages heretofore solemnized in the Chapel of Ease called "Saint John-the-Evangelist" Chapel, Eton, in the parish of Eton, in the county of Buckingham—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of OXFORD; read 1a. (No. 99.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.