Sitting of 5 August 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 4] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [August 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*.
Second Reading—Restriction on Penal Actions and Remission of Penalties* [267]; Department of Science and Art* [283]; Foreign Jurisdiction [284], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Agricultural Holdings (England)* [277]; Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment (No. 2)* [162]; Copyright of Designs* [270]; National School Teachers Residences (Ireland)* [279].
Considered as amended—Unseaworthy Ships [281]; Agricultural Holdings (England) (re-comm.) [277]; Ecclesiastical Fees Redistribution* [282].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Copyright of Designs (re-comm.)* [270]; Public Works Loans* [269], and passed.
Withdrawn—Post Office (Superannuation and Gratuities)* [245]; Metropolis Gas Companies (re-comm.)* [224].

CLASSIFIED BRITISH SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can undertake to lay before the House, at the beginning of next Session, a Return which will show, approximately—1, the number of registered British Ships which are not surveyed and classed either by Lloyd's or by some other registry of like character; 2, how many of these un-classed ships, being yachts, fishing boats, river steamers, &c. do not fall within the category of sea-going merchantmen; 3, how many of the residue of unclassed sea-going merchantmen are already under survey by the Board of Trade as passenger steamers or otherwise?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, that he would have been very glad to give the information required by the hon. Gentleman if it were possible, but he found it was not. He would see during the Recess what could be done. He could give the number of British ships which were not surveyed or classed at Lloyd's; but the hon. Gentleman must know that many were registered in Canada and other Colonies, of which he could obtain no information. He might, however, say, generally, that he should direct his attention to the whole subject.

THE TICHBORNE CASE.—QUESTION.
DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he would state to the House the grounds on which he advised, or who advised, that Hopwood, a witness for the prosecution in the Tichborne case, and who was convicted of felony last August at the Cheshire Assizes and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, has had six months of that imprisonment remitted; and, if he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House any Papers or Documents relating to the said remission of sentence, and the grounds thereof?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that with great respect he must refuse to make any answer to this Question. He should, without the least shrinking from responsibility, object to the Question upon many grounds if it was founded upon a true state of facts; but he objected to this Question entirely upon the ground that it rested upon the assumption that a state of facts was true for which there was not the slightest pretence or foundation. This man never had a remission of punishment; and if the hon. Member wished to have any documents he was prepared to lay upon the Table a certified copy of the record of conviction, which stated that the man was convicted and sentenced to six calendar months' imprisonment; also the warrant of commitment, which stated that he was to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six months, and the certificate of the Governor which stated that the prisoner had served for a period of six months.
DR. KENEALYsaid, he wished to state, in justification of his Question, that every newspaper at the time stated that Hopwood was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
Afterwards—
DR. KENEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman the date when the police authorities at Scotland Yard first communicated to the Treasury that Jean Luie was a ticket-of-leave convict; whether the said Jean Luie is still in this country, and, if confined, in what prison; and, if the said Jean Luie ever reported himself to the police after he got his ticket-of-leave; and if so, when and where?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he thought the time had almost come when Questions of this kind might be stopped, for the privilege of interrogating Ministers was liable, like every other privilege, to be abused. It was not a correct statement of fact to say that the police authorities at Scotland Yard had ever communicated to the Treasury that Jean Luie was a ticket-of-leave convict. On Friday, November 28, 1873, after he had given his evidence for the defence, and after the evidence contradicting it had been given and the case for the prosecution had closed, two persons came into Court and identified Luie. He was now in a convict prison; but it
556
was not the practice—and he (Mr. Cross) would not break through it upon this occasion—to state in what prison a convict was confined. Jean Luie never reported himself, so far as he could learn, after he got his ticket-of-leave; indeed, he immediately went to Liege, in Belgium, and the police knew nothing about him.

REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES ACT—THE WARRANT AND REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Regulations under the Regimental Exchanges Act have been prepared; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the Warrant and Regulations had been prepared and had been approved by him. They awaited the sanction of Her Majesty, after which they would be published in the General Orders, and would receive every possible publicity. If the noble Lord would move for them, there would be no objection to laying them upon the Table.

THE NEW FOREST.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that several hundred acres of waste land near Stoney Cross, in the manor of Minestead in the New Forest, previously lying open and forming part of the Forest, have recently been enclosed; and, whether the Crown has consented to this enclosure; and, if not, whether any and what means are proposed to be taken to restore to the open Forest the land thus enclosed?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that since the Question had been placed on the Paper he had been made aware of the fact that there had been an enclosure within the last year or two to the extent of 200 or 300 acres, belonging to a private landowner in the neighbourhood of Stoney Cross. The evidence taken before the Committee which had reported this Session was to the effect that any assertion of the forestal rights of the Crown over the property of private landowners would be considered an unwarrantable attack upon private property. He was unable to state whether

557
the Crown thought it right to assert forestal rights over enclosed private property; but the subject would have consideration during the Recess.

CIVIL SERVICE INQUIRY COMMISSION—OUTDOOR OFFICERS OF CUSTOMS.—QUESTION.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to answer the various memorials that have been sent to the Treasury from the Outdoor Officers of Customs at the outports, with reference to an increase of salary and the abolition of classification; and, when the Third Report of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission will be ready for distribution?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the third Report of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission is now ready for distribution, and will be in the hands of Members before the end of the week. During the progress of the inquiry, the consideration of the memorials of the Outdoor Officers of Customs and of the other Civil Servants has been suspended by the Treasury; but the Government intends in the Autumn to deal with the several questions raised in the Reports of the Commission.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT-SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT GRAVESEND.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he received the memorial of a number of ratepayers of Gravesend in March last, calling attention to the deficiency of school accommodation in that borough, and praying for the establishment of a School Board; and, if so, whether he proposes taking any action thereon?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, we have received a memorial from some of the ratepayers of Gravesend asking us to order a school board, but hitherto no formal resolution in favour of a board, as required by the Act, has been sent to us, or, in accordance with our practice, we should at once have ordered an election. The case of Gravesend is somewhat peculiar. We were informed by the Town Council at the beginning of the year that they had been assured that our requirements respecting the schools
558
of the place would be voluntarily met with due despatch; and I may add that we had been also informed by the Mayor that a public meeting was held towards the close of last year, when a proposal in favour of a school board was negatived by a decided majority. The actual buildings are, I believe, sufficient; but the question is whether some schools would be made efficient, and whether others would be re-opened or replaced. Considering all these circumstances, and the apparent dislike of the place to a school board, as shown by the vote of the public meeting summoned to consider the matter, we felt bound to allow sufficient time for the real wishes and intentions of Gravesend to be ascertained. Unless we receive information very shortly that our requirements are in course of being actually complied with, as a matter of course we shall order the election of a school board forthwith, to meet the requirements we have made.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. BRUCEasked the Postmaster General, Whether there is any immediate prospect of direct telegraphic communication with the Channel Islands being restored; and, whether during the interruption of such communication arrangements might not be made whereby messages to or from the Channel Islands could be sent through France, on payment of the French rate above the usual rate charged for the transmission of such messages?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that telegraphic communication with the Channel Islands would be open in a few days. As to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, he did not think it would be advisable to adopt his suggestion.

THE TICHBORNE CASE.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Return of the expenditure in the Tichborne case includes the money paid to Charles Orton; whether in fact the said Charles Orton was paid any and what sum under the name of allowance to him as a witness subpœnaed to give evidence or otherwise; and, whether in fact, though

559
not called as a witness, he was in attendance on the trial on behalf of the prosecution?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that on the 23rd of July last the hon. Gentleman moved for a Return of the sums of money paid by the Treasury to witnesses and to persons brought up to London and not examined. The House divided against the Motion, and negatived it by 45 to 4. Under these circumstances, and without any wish to show a want of courtesy to the hon. Member, he must decline to give him the information he asked for.

APPOINTMENT OF A PUBLIC PRO-SEQUTOR.—QUESTION.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has any objection to state what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in reference to any measure for the appointment of a Public Prosecutor?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, this was a matter which had occupied a good deal of his attention, and which he was most anxious to bring to a successful issue. He could not give any pledge or make any distinct promise as to next Session; but he would that evening lay upon the Table the Correspondence which had taken place between the Home Office and the authorities for various parts of the country under the late Administration with reference to the subject.

WEST AFRICA—DISTURBANCES ON THE GOLD COAST.—QUESTION.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the newspapers, and especially in "The Globe," of the 24th ultimo, to the effect that an affray had taken place near Quittah, on the Gold Coast, between the natives and police, in which seven out of twelve of the latter had been disabled, and that no medical attendance was available; and, whether it is the case that within the last year an outbreak of small-pox has occurred at Quittah, and that during that period and for the space of nearly one year there has been no medical officer stationed there?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the disturbance referred to by my hon. Friend occurred at a place called Atoko, 20 miles east of Quittah, which is occupied as a revenue station, and has a force of 10 Houssas and one landing agent quartered there. The affair originated through an ill-feeling which appears to have sprung up between the Houssas and some young natives, who made an attack upon the Houssas in spite of their chiefs and elders, who rendered every assistance to the authorities in the restoration of order. The Governor sent a Commission to the spot to inquire into the affair, and fines have been imposed upon the ringleaders. With respect to the latter part of the Question, I am happy to say that nothing is known at the Colonial Office as to any outbreak of small-pox at Quittah, and special inquiries which have been made, since my hon. Friend's Question appeared on the Notice Paper, justify me in expressing the opinion that the rumour is unfounded. As to the absence of a medical officer, my hon. Friend will agree with me that it would be impossible to insure the presence of a medical man at every station of minor importance; but the distribution of the medical staff is a subject which will receive attention.

HIGHWAY LAWS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RODWELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Highways in the next Session of Parliament?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he hoped he should be able to make a proposition to the House on the subject, but could not give any pledge. If the constituents of the hon. and learned Gentleman were particularly interested, their case would be considered on its merits if the hon. and learned Gentleman would communicate with him (Mr. Sclater-Booth) during the Recess.

ARMY—ORDNANCE—HEAVY MUZZLE-LOADING GUNS.—QUESTION.
MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether the vents of heavy muzzle-loading guns cannot now be rendered as enduring as necessary by the application of a simple

561
invention for preventing all escape of gas through the vent, and consequent corrosion thereof?
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Sir, trials are now in progress with this object, and it is to be hoped that the plan under trial will greatly diminish the corrosion consequent on the escape of gas through the vent.

MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. MITCHELL HENRY,
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that there would be 28 vacancies for medical officers in the Army to be filled up at the next examination. If, however, there should not be that number of candidates the number of appointments would be reduced in order that there might be a competitive examination.

SUPPLY.—REPORT. CRIMINAL LAW—SENTENCE ON COLONEL BAKER.—OBSERVATIONS.
Resolutions [August 4] reported.
DR. KENEALYrose to call attention to the sentence imposed by Mr. Justice Brett on Colonel Baker, at the Croydon Assizes on the 2nd day of August 1875. He did so because he believed that there was a very growing feeling amongst a large class of persons in this country that the law was not administered with that justice which the country and the Constitution demanded. In point of fact, there was a feeling that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor, and that the old Constitutional maxim, that "everyone is equal in the eyes of the law," had been considerably modified. He believed every man in the country who rightly valued the preservation of our laws and liberties would agree with him that in the administration of justice there ought to be nothing like class distinction; but according to the sentence passed by the learned Judge on Colonel Baker it would seem that the rank of a defendant was to be the standard by which sentences were to be imposed—that there was to be one class of sentences for Dukes, Earls, or Marquesses, and an entirely different class of sentences for persons in a lower position of society. It was certainly new to him—and he had for some time studied the history of our country—that a Judge should lay down
562
any such invidious distinction as that which was calculated to introduce discontent amongst the people, and to sap the very foundations of justice itself. He wished to call the attention of the House to the atrocious nature of the offence of which this colonel had been found guilty. He was indicted upon three counts—for an assault with intent, for an indecent assault, and for a common assault. The jury arrived at what seemed to him a very lenient view of the colonel's conduct in acquitting him of the intent. Any person who had at all devoted any portion of his time to a consideration of the evidence given by Miss Dickinson must be satisfied that this colonel had undoubtedly in his mind at the time he assaulted her an attempt to violate her person. ["Oh!"] He did not care for shouts of "Oh" at all. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that he intended to maintain his ground in that House. Shouts of "Oh," and cries of "Order" were not likely to make him change his opinion. He repeated—and any person who had carefully studied the evidence could entertain no serious or reasonable doubt in his mind—that this gallant colonel intended to violate that lady, but was prevented by circumstances over which he had no control, and that although he had not come under the actual purview of the law with reference to the crime, he was as guilty as if he had effected his purpose. The description which the lady gave of the transaction was calculated to excite a feeling of the highest indignation, and that indignation would be increased by the sentence, which was really no punishment at all for one of the most scandalous and atrocious crimes ever committed. [The hon. Member proceeded to read, amid the marked impatience of the House, the evidence of Miss Dickinson.] He must appeal to the Speaker. It was impossible for him to proceed in the execution of what he considered his duty while Gentlemen on all sides were interrupting him. Was he to be heard in his place or not? [Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.] The hon. Member having read the evidence, proceeded;—The young lady described the man—whom she had never seen before—obtruding his attentions upon her, and behaving in a most shocking and indecent manner. He could make every allowance for young men—and particularly

563
young men in the Army; but he did not think it possible that any man at the period of life of this defendant, and filling the rank which he did, could commit himself to such atrocious conduct. The learned Judge had imposed no penalty at all. He had directed that this colonel should be imprisoned for 12 months without hard labour, without being subjected to the rigorous discipline of a gaol, and to pay a fine of £500, which in the case of a prisoner in his position was what the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government once said in reference to our National Debt, "a mere fleabite," He (Dr. Kenealy) was, however, greatly shocked and astonished at some of the remarks of the learned Judge in passing sentence, as he found them reported in The Standard, which gave a very full and most accurate account of the trial. His Lordship said the crime must have arisen from a
"sudden outbreak of wickedness, and he should therefore not pass upon him a sentence which would carry with it all the personal and all the physical degradation which usually accompanied an ordinary sentence for this offence."
Those remarks called for the direct censure of this House. Every one knew that an ordinary sentence for an indecent assault committed on a defenceless young lady in a railway carriage would involve hard labour. But this man, because he happened to be a colonel in the Army and was supposed to be a brilliant ornament in certain circles of society, received a sentence that meant only that the rank and high and fashionable surroundings of colonels in the Army should be allowed to stand between them and justice. The Judge said—" I fear it would subject you to a penalty far greater than it would be to a person differently situated," by which, of course, he meant a person in a lower rank of life. General Steele was reported in the newspapers to have committed the indecency of standing in the dock while this man was on his trial—an act of indecency not only to the Judge, but to the Army, and one of which he hoped the Secretary of State for War would take notice. The colonel by the sentence would be allowed to amuse himself, to receive his friends, and entertain them, to live upon what food he pleased; he would be subjected to no restriction whatever, but he could pass
564
his time as pleasantly as possible, receiving everybody, and no doubt being visited by persons of the same class as those who stood beside him at the trial. It was necessary to draw the line somewhere. An ordinary banker's clerk would have quite as much sense of degradation or sense of honour as this colonel; and if he were convicted of any breach of trust he would be sentenced to hard labour. He never knew a clergyman to be spared hard labour because he happened to be a clergyman; and there were innumerable instances of merchants and bankers whose feelings, he thought, were entitled to as much respect as the feelings of this colonel, being sent to penal servitude and sentenced to hard labour for offences infinitely less in heinousness than that for which this man had been convicted. He read the remainder of the learned Judge's remarks with feelings of the greatest indignation because he insinuated that this colonel, who had outraged every principle of honour and decency, was to be kept in the Army. He had laid down the law to the Secretary of State for War that he was not to interfere with the position of this colonel in the Army—that he was to be allowed to retain his rank and position, and the learned Judge went the length of saying that by some brilliant achievement—military achievement he presumed was meant—he hoped the defendant would regain his rank. He (Dr. Kenealy) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not adopt this suggestion, and that the name of Colonel Baker would not be allowed to sully the pages of the Army List any longer. He now wished to call attention to the kind of punishment inflicted for certain offences. By the Bishop of Oxford's Act, if a man decoyed a young girl under the age of 16 from her home, although he had no improper motive for doing so, and no injury had been suffered by her, he was liable to imprisonment with hard labour, and he invariably got it. He remembered very well a case on his own circuit—the Oxford Circuit—in which a manufacturer was sentenced by Mr. Justice Quain to 18 months' physical degradation with hard labour for having decoyed a girl, between 15 and 16 years of age, from her parents and placed her in a convent. He was a man of the highest respectability, a married man, with a family, and no man stood higher

565
in the manufacturing department of his county. No one ever suspected that he had improper motives in taking the girl away, yet the sentence imposed upon him was not to be compared with that passed on this colonel. Again, in the case of garroters, the punishment that was invariably inflicted on conviction in a case of that kind was flogging and imprisonment with hard labour; and yet this man, who was guilty of a much more atrocious offence, were allowed to escape as it were scot free. Then, again, there was the case of persons who beat their wives, who on conviction were sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour; and yet the offence of Colonel Baker was of an infinitely graver character. He had done his duty in calling the attention of Parliament to that case, and he would now sit down, hoping that some justification would be offered of this extraordinary sentence.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I will not stop to question the taste with which the details of this case have been laid before the House. But I wish to remind the House of a matter which I think they will recognize as true, and which ought to be considered—that, at all events, this is a legal sentence; and, without saying one single word for or against Colonel Baker, I will remark that there was a long trial before a very competent and experienced Judge. Neither I, as Secretary of State, nor this House, has the slightest power over that sentence. If there is any fault to be found, as the hon. Member seems to think, with a trial by jury, by all means let the hon. Member for Stoke bring forward some Motion to alter—if alteration is needed—the law. If there is any accusation to be made against the learned Judge, the proper course is to move for an Address to the Crown with regard to his conduct. But I do hope that the House will now pass to the Orders of the Day, and that it will never, unless there is such a Motion as I have just alluded to with reference to the conduct of the Judge, undertake to re-hear, or attempt to re-try, a case of this kind. With regard to the matter referred to in relation to the Secretary of State for War, I am quite sure that the House feels that any case which comes before him is perfectly safe.
MAJOR DICKSON: I do not rise for a moment to attempt to condemn the
566
conduct of Mr. Justice Brett, or to offer any opinion on the character of the sentence which that learned Judge pronounced upon Colonel Baker. But I think the hon. Member for Stoke seems to have dealt with this question as though the sentence had no precedent whatever. I have, however, in my mind at this moment two instances of a similar sentence having been pronounced. I shall now trouble the House by referring to only one, and I shall select that case because I think it is of a character that will commend itself to the consideration of the hon. Member for Stoke. In the year 1850 a gentleman was arraigned before the Court of Queen's Bench, charged with an offence of a somewhat similar character. [Dr. KENEALY: "Hear, hear!"] I say of a similar character, because the law jealously protects both women and young children from aggravated assaults. I say of the same character, because the individual who was charged on that occasion, although he was not an officer in the Army, was a gentleman belonging to another honourable profession—a gentleman learned in the law. That individual was charged with a gross and aggravated assault upon a young child, and that child his own son. He was found guilty—not by a common jury or at an ordinary Assize Court, but by a special jury sitting in Westminster Hall, in the Court of Queen's Bench—and the Judge pronounced upon that man sentence of one month's imprisonment, without hard labour, no doubt feeling, as Mr. Justice Brett felt, that to a man in his position the physical degradation of hard labour would be a far greater punishment than it would be to an ordinary criminal belonging to those ranks of society from which criminals generally come. That individual benefited by the leniency of the celebrated Judge—Lord Chief Justice Campbell—who sentenced him, who spared him the physical degradation of hard labour, and gave him an opportunity of rehabilitating himself in the eyes of his fellow-barristers. How far he has succeeded in doing so I know not. That is for the country to say. I will only remark that I should have thought that the last man in this House, and one of the last men in the country, who ought to rise up in his place to find fault with the sentence of Mr. Justice Brett is the hon. Member for Stoke.
SIR WILLIAM FRASER: I should not have risen but for one statement which the hon. Member for Stoke has made which refers to a member of the aristocracy, and which has not the slightest foundation. I heard him make the statement that the Commander of the Troops at Aldershot placed himself in the dock beside the prisoner at the trial. Now, I happen to know upon good evidence—the evidence of my own eyesight—that Sir Thomas Steele was in the public gallery, and never was near the dock until he was called to give evidence as to character in favour of Colonel Baker. He was in the public gallery the whole of the trial excepting at this time, and from first to last he never had any sort of communication with Colonel Baker. One other point. It has also been stated by the Member for Stoke that Colonel Baker was a man of fashionable or aristocratic connections. I have had no means of judging whether Colonel Baker was a man of fashion—I never saw him before the other day when he was in Court; but, as regards aristocratic connections, neither of the parties in this regrettable affair is connected, I think, with what are conventionally called the upper classes. As to the heroine of this unpleasant romance—["Oh, oh!"] I do not use those words in an offensive or disrespectful sense—she certainly does not belong to the upper classes: and as to the prisoner, I think that no one can accuse him of being in any way connected with the aristocracy.
DR. KENEALY: Sir, I hope that, as a personal attack has been made upon me, although it may not be quite in conformity with the Rules of the House, I shall be permitted to answer the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it is in accordance with the character of this House not to allow attacks of this nature to be made without permitting the person who is attacked to make his defence. I must first of all call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the extreme inconvenience of the precedent he is endeavouring to form—namely, that the private incidents and events in the lives of Members of this House should be brought forward here on account of their performing a public duty. I submit that is a very inconvenient precedent to lay down. ["Order." "Chair."]
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the House has
568
extended its indulgence to him in allowing him to make a personal explanation, and that the observations he is now making are not of the nature of a personal explanation.
DR. KENEALY: I shall then, with the permission of the House, give a personal explanation with reference to that matter, upon which I certainly did not expect that I should be interrogated to day. It is perfectly true that in the year 1850 I was brought before Lord Campbell in the Court of Queen's Bench charged with an assault. As to that indictment I need not characterize it or the way in which it was framed; but I am entitled to say what the learned Judge told the jury—that it contained charges which were not only not true, but were disproved by the evidence. It is perfectly true that, in the exercise of what I thought was right, and for the purpose of correction, I did administer chastisement to a child of mine. I myself was chastised over and over again when I was a boy. I should not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have themselves been chastised when they were boys, and probably hence guilty of the same offence of correcting the erring propensities of their children. Now, the learned Judge sentenced me, and I should be extremely glad if the hon. Gentleman who brought this matter forward would read the sentence which was imposed upon me by that Judge; for I should not care if it were blazoned in the House of Commons or in any Assembly in the world. The learned Judge, instead of speaking of me in the language which the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to use, spoke of my kindness to my child in the most feeling and affectionate terms, and he expressed the greatest and, I believe, the most profound regret that technically he was called upon to sentence me because I had violated the law. He imposed upon me a sentence of a month's imprisonment. That imprisonment I suffered, and I left the prison without, I think, having suffered in the opinion of any man who ever knew me. Her Majesty several years afterwards, on the recommendation of one of the most illustrious Lord Chancellors this country ever had, did me the honour to nominate me to the rank of Queen's Counsel; and I am quite sure that he would never have advised Her Majesty to do that if he had thought

569
that a single stigma of dishonour rested on my character. I therefore make the hon. Member who introduced this matter—I do not know who he is—a present of this contradiction; and I hope I have done quite enough to satisfy everybody in this House that nobody who had the spirit of a true gentleman would ever have thrown this in my teeth.
First Seven Resolutions agreed to.
Eighth Resolution—
"That a sum, not exceeding £72,105, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &;c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies,"
—read a second time.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONraised an objection to the grant of £40,000 proposed to be made to Fiji. The previous day had been remarkable for speeches made by the late and the present Prime Minister. In the House of Commons the former right hon. Gentleman rather reproved—and very properly reproved—the House of Commons for being extravagant, and of stimulating rather than controlling expenditure. As an humble portion of the legislative machine he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished not to stimulate, but to check expenditure. But then there was the speech of the other right hon. Gentleman who, at the Mansion House on the previous night, gave a very glowing description of our Colonies, and said we should "assimilate not only their interests, but their sympathies to the Mother Country," and that they would "prove ultimately a source, not of weakness and embarrassment, but of strength and splendour to the Empire." However this might be, he thought it right that they should have an explanation of how the money he referred to was to be expended. He had no doubt the Under Secretary for the Colonies would give an explanation which, if not satisfactory, was plausible. Perhaps the grant was proposed on account of the sad epidemic which had been raging in Fiji. His hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. M'Arthur), in advocating the annexation of the Fiji Islands, used to describe their beauty and excellence, and among
570
his reasons for annexation was their value as a coaling station, and as a field for the cultivation of cotton and coffee. They had also been told that New South Wales and New Zealand had offered to take their fair share of any burden the Islands might impose on us; and he wished to know whether any communications had taken place between the Government and these Colonies on that subject, and what was the result? He and a few other Members had opposed the annexation of the Fiji Islands, on the ground that they did not think that we were called upon to set up a Government for the good of the 2,000 Whites who had established themselves there. In one of the debates which the House used periodically to have about Fiji, the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Sir James Elphinstone)—who was not heard so often now as then—spoke of these 2,000 Whites as the "most unmitigated ruffians "in the world. They had been told also that there were a few savages—cannibals—living in those Islands, and that it was desirable to annex them also. We had taken over a considerable debt which, but for that, would never have been paid, and we had, moreover, pensioned off the King. In what respect we were the better for all this he was at a loss to perceive. It was all very well to talk of the "strength and splendour" of the Empire. That did very well at the Mansion House. Anything did very well there. The result, so far, of our dealings with the people of Fiji, seemed to him simply to be that we had given them the measles and they had given us a war-club. In a paper he was reading when coming down to the House he saw a paragraph about a new industry which marked the progress of Fiji. A man had got an elaborate still from some distant country, and was now turning out 200 gallons of rum per day for the few whom the measles had spared. It had been said by a prominent speaker at a meeting in the City that, now we had begun a connection with the islands of the Pacific, there would be no limit to the extension of our Empire in that quarter of the globe. This meant that wherever 200 or 300 "unmitigated ruffians" settled down we were, after a certain time, to put up an expensive government to look after them. That was what we called adding to the strength of the Empire. He did

571
not deny that annexation was very popular. It was popular in that House and in the country; but, for his part, he objected to all those wild expeditions, enterprizes, and annexations. Bach seemed to him to be more senseless than the other. In Abyssinia, after spending millions of money, we managed to get the crown of King Theodore; in Ashantee we secured an old umbrella; and he wished to know whether the war-club of King Thakombau was worth the £40,000 which it was now proposed to give. He moved to reduce the Vote by that amount.
Amendment proposed, to leave out "£72,105," and insert "£32,105,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)—instead thereof.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, his hon. Friend had not only made the inquiry as to the expenditure of this sum of £40,000, but he had entered into a review of the general policy openly avowed by the Government of maintaining the integrity of the Empire.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONexplained that he had referred only to the policy of annexation.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had understood the hon. Baronet to require him to justify the annexation of Fiji. He need hardly remind the House that, although the annexation was carried out on the entire responsibility of the Government, without Parliament being asked in any way to share that responsibility, it nevertheless happened that on a Motion which was brought forward in that House a very general approval was expressed of the policy of that annexation. That approval was not rendered the less valuable on account of the arguments in a contrary sense having been most ably put before the House—as any arguments coming from his hon. Friend always were—by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle himself. Therefore the House had not decided ex parte upon this matter. As to the special point now raised he had to state that the £40,000 was required, in the first instance, to promote the erection of buildings, the construction of roads and telegraphs, and other works, which might fairly be classed under the head of capital account. But owing to the terrible visitation of measles a decrease in the revenue of the colony had unfortunately occurred; and further, the
572
death of some of the leading inhabitants and chieftains, on whom the Government had, in the main, depended for carrying out the measures connected with the annexation of the Island, had thrown additional burdens upon the Executive Government. He should add that this grant was to be repaid at some future time. [A laugh.] His hon. Friend seemed to be incredulous; but he might observe that only the other day £10,000 was repaid on behalf of the Settlement of Lagos, which showed that better days were in store as regarded colonial loans. He thought the House would see that in regard to an extraordinary outlay of this character they could not fairly call upon the Governments of New South Wales and of New Zealand to contribute any portion of it; but those Governments had rendered very valuable assistance in various ways with respect to the annexation. The assistance of the Governor of New South Wales and some of his judicial staff had already been placed at the disposal of the Government. He hoped his hon. Friend would not feel it necessary to press his Motion.
DR. KENEALYsincerely hoped that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle would press this matter to a division. He found that annexation was invariably followed by this unhappy consequence to the islanders annexed—that there was an influx of European vices and demoralization which tended to destroy their primitive innocence and simplicity. They pretended to be actuated by the highest motives of Christianity when they annexed these countries; they sent out missionaries there who really were like the gentlemen mentioned by the hon. Baronet, simply rum merchants in disguise; but the real object of all their annexations was to give more patronage and power to the holders of office at the Treasury, who cared not what might be the result so long as they were able to provide for their own friends in these distant countries where they could do exactly as they pleased. The hon. Member for Carlisle was engaged in a crusade of most glorious and honourable description, and he certainly would add to the respect which was felt for him wherever the English language was known if he would adopt in his programme of reform a resolution against the system of taking possession of Islands like Fiji

573
without the slightest regard to truth and justice, and keeping them up at great expense to the taxpayers of this country.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that if he was to understand that the Vote was a loan, and that steps would be taken to get the money back, he would not trouble the House to divide.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXOHE-QUERexplained that when the annexation of the Fiji Islands was first resolved upon, his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies went rather carefully with him into the position of the Colony, and assured him that he was fully persuaded it would not be necessary for the Colony to ask for any Imperial assistance whatever. Then came that great visitation of the measles, and in consequence of that his noble Friend officially asked for some assistance from the Treasury. The original suggestion was that it should be an Imperial guarantee for a loan to be raised by Fiji itself. He, however, preferred, and the Government preferred, that what was granted should not be given in the form of a guarantee, because, although a guarantee looked very little, it meant a great deal more than it looked; and thought it far better that they should show at once how far they intended to go, and should give £40,000, on the understanding that it should be repaid, if possible. They expected that it would be repaid.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked what portion of the expenditure was to be of a permanent nature, and what would be merely temporary? It was hard to see how the measles had effected expenditure on roads and bridges.
MR. J. LOWTHERrepeated that the revenue of the Island had decreased in consequence of the ravages of the measles.
MR. P. A. TAYLORremarked that his hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had deprecated our colonial policy altogether, saying that wherever we had gone we had made great mistakes. But he could hardly have meant to go so far in view of our noble dependencies of Australia and New Zealand. The policy of going to Fiji had been settled by the House and the country, and they ought to make the best of it, and not seek to starve the colony by miserable economy.
MR. WHITWELLtrusted his hon. Friend would not divide. Since the annexation
574
a considerable amount of English machinery had been forwarded to Fiji with a view to the manufacture of sugar, which would not have been sent out if no annexation had taken place.
MR. M'ARTHURhoped that the hon. Baronet would divide.
MR. MUNTZ, to show the unanimity which prevailed on that (the Opposition) side of the House, expressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would not divide. This amount of £40,000 was necessary to set the Colony afloat, and roads must be made and telegraphs established.
MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, the late Government were quite as much responsible for the annexation of Fiji as the present Government, inasmuch as they had sent out the Commission to determine whether annexation was desirable; or, if not, what other course should be adopted; upon what Report annexation was determined upon, and personally he was bound to say that when he was in office it was his earnest desire that the annexation should take place. He would certainly support Her Majesty's Government, and hoped the House would deal in a liberal and gracious spirit with this new Colony, especially as it was believed that we had inflicted upon the inhabitants of the Islands the disease to which allusion had been made.
Question put, "That '£72,105' stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 10: Majority 179.
Resolution agreed to.
Next Twenty Resolutions agreed to.
Resolution 29.
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens,"
—read a second time.
MR. ADAM, while not objecting to the Vote, expressed a hope that his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works would not decide upon any scheme for relieving the traffic at the point in question without careful consideration. The scheme for the purpose which was now being exhibited at the Conference Room was open to the objections that it was very expensive, that the gradients were

575
not good, that it would necessitate raising the roadway at Constitution Hill, and the making of a deep cutting, while it would besides interfere to some extent with the use of the Park for pedestrians. Now, it was, he thought, possible to hit upon some scheme which would not be open to all those objections, and he trusted, therefore, his noble Friend would act upon his suggestion.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he was very much obliged to his right hon. Friend for the kind assistance he had given him in the matter, and could assure him he would do nothing with respect to it without the most careful consideration. The Vote under discussion was intended to obtain from the House of Commons its sanction for some steps to be taken before next year to remove the block which was created by the traffic at Hyde Park Corner, and the great object he had in view was the separation at that point of the business from the pleasure traffic, which at present caused great inconvenience. He had obtained the assistance of two noble Lords in the other House of Parliament, who had consented to act with him as a sort of Committee to look into the subject, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would join them and give them the advantage of his advice. In that way he hoped to be able next year to carry out satisfactorily the object which they both had in view.
Resolution agreed to.
Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL— [BILL 274.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL— [BILL 274.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had to propose the insertion of clauses in the Bill which had been suggested in Committee, and which seemed to have met with general acceptance. They were clauses relating to loading and deck lines taken from the first Government measure, which, unhappily, had to be withdrawn; but, although they had been placed on the Paper only within 48 hours, a number of Amendments already accumulated around them, and, indeed, the tendency to become smothered with Amendments seemed to
  576
  be inseparable from any measure on the subject. The first of the three clauses which he had to lay before the House provided that every British ship registered after the 1st of January, 1876, should be conspicuously marked with lines of not less than 12 inches in length and one inch in breadth painted longitudinally on each side, so as to show the position of every deck above water. This clause was not to apply to ships employed in the coasting trade, or in fishing, or to yachts. There were in the 2nd clause provisions with regard to the marking of a load line, a statement of the position of which would be required from the owner of every British ship before entering his ship outward on any voyage, showing the distance in feet and inches between the load line and the deck next above it, while he would also be bound to enter a copy of the statement in the articles of agreement with the crew and in the official logbook. There were, he might add, certain Amendments which he proposed to make in the clauses as they stood on the Paper. In compliance with the wish of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), he had altered the date at which the Bill was to come into operation to November, 1875, instead of January, 1876. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following clause:—
  (Marking of deck lines.)
  "A. Every British ship registered on or after November one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five shall before registry, and every British ship registered before that day shall, on or before that day, be permanently and conspicuously marked with lines of not less than twelve inches in length and one inch in breadth, painted longitudinally on each side amidships, or as near thereto as is practicable, and indicating the position of each deck which is above water.
  "The upper edge of each of these lines shall be level with the upper side of the deck plank next the waterway at the place of marking.
  "The lines shall be white or yellow on a dark ground, or black on a light ground.
  "Provided, That—
  "(1.) This section shall not apply to ships employed in the coasting trade or in fishing; and
  "(2.) If a registered British ship is not within a British port of registry at any time before the date named, she shall be marked as by this section required within one month after her next return to a British port of registry subsequent to that date."
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that although an Amendment stood on the Paper in his name, which was substantially a new

  577
  clause dealing with the whole question of load line, he was actuated by no spirit of hostility to the proposals of the Government, and could, he thought, dispose of his Amendment in a very words. He had listened with most respectful attention to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the other evening, in regard to load line, and with every word of the right hon. Gentleman he (Mr. Mac Iver) heartily and entirely concurred. In expressing that concurrence, he believed he expressed the views of those who had the best facilities for becoming practically acquainted with the subject, and who had given these questions serious attention. The way to prevent overloading was to compel the shipowner to declare plainly and distinctly what he intended to do, and to indicate such intended load line upon the ship in such manner as to afford reliable and visible evidence in regard to the actual facts. He asked, however, if the Board of Trade clauses under discussion carried out this view? He (Mr. Mac Iver) ventured to say they did not; but that they would permit the alteration of a load line with too great facility, and in such manner as to confuse and destroy—so far as ordinary witnesses were concerned—all readily available evidence in regard to depth of loading. This might suit some people; but it would not suit those shipowners who meant right by this question, and he had received letters and telegrams on the subject, with an extract from only one of which he would trouble the House. It was from a shipowner of high standing, and was as follows:—
  "Such a load line would be worse than a sham. If the owner of a steamer, after marking his maximum load line, were to be at liberty to alter that mark at pleasure in any foreign port, such an arrangement would merely give full swing to his cupidity, under a sort of quasi-legal sanction."
  He (Mr. Mac Iver) was quite sure this was not the intention either of the Prime Minister or of the President of the Board of Trade. He had no desire to press the particular words of his own Amendment upon the Government; but that he thought he had pointed out a real defect in the Board of Trade clauses, which the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would, he hoped, see his way to remove. He believed his brother shipowners in the House of Commons
  578
  were equally desirous with himself that there should be an honest solution of the load line question; but he thought it was only in regard to steamers that there existed any necessity in regard to such legislation. The loading of sailing vessels was more generally understood; but, as regarded steam vessels, there was so much diversity of model, quality, and general arrangements, that he (Mr. Mac Iver) thought there was a real necessity for dealing with steam vessels upon the principles so well explained the other evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. There was another objection to the Board of Trade clauses, also one of detail, but on which he wished to say a few words. Was it worth while, he asked in a Bill which was tentative—brought forward to be in operation only for one year—to provide expressly that British vessels should be disfigured with discs and lines in the particular form set down? AU that appeared to him (Mr. Mac Iver) to be necessary was that the marking should be intelligible; and he thought it might be well to leave to the Board of Trade and the shipowners some discretion on the subject. He thought the prescribed manner of marking would, in some instances, result unsatisfactorily, and in others be a needless disfigurement.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he did not wish to examine the Government's clauses hypercritically; but it was his duty to point out that they differed materially from his own, which the Government had substantially accepted. The Government had not given sufficient consideration to the difference between the density of fresh water and that of salt water, and this difference was estimated at about 2½ per cent; and this was rather a serious margin, considering the competition there was between British and foreign shipowners, and among British shipowners themselves. The clause and his own both provided for a disc; the clause proposed a larger disc than he did; but this clause omitted the scale of feet and inches which would enable surveyors and managers to make allowance for the difference between fresh water and salt water, and in the absence of which there would be continual disputes between master, seamen, and surveyors. In his Bill the power of changing load lines was carefully guarded; it was necessary it should be,

  579
  because the load line formed the basis of agreement between the merchants, the insurers, and all the parties interested; and the omission of the provision would render it necessary that the articles of agreement should lapse if the load line were changed. In his clause the mark could not be altered during a voyage, nor during the existence of articles, and in that way full protection was afforded to seamen. His scheme was devised in the interest of the seamen rather than in that of the shipowner. The Government had omitted that clause in his Bill which provided that the seaman's liability to fine or forfeiture should lapse if the load line were altered, and this would have been a great safeguard. As the Government had accepted his proposals so partially, he could not be responsible if they did not work satisfactorily.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, whose name was on the back of the Bill of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), objected to the facility which the Government's clauses afforded for the changing of the load line without the sanction or even the knowledge of the seamen, and said that the Government, by the way in which they had resisted proposals relating to load lines, deck cargoes, and grain cargoes, and by the way in which they had emasculated the provisions they had accepted, seemed determined to sail as close to the wind as they could.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, there was no doubt that the scale of feet and inches proposed by the hon. Member for Hull would afford a ready means of making a comparison between a salt water and a fresh water load line. It was rather strange that the House should present the spectacle of shipowners pleading for greater protection to seamen than the Government seemed willing to give. Surely this could be nothing more than an oversight? He hoped the Government would make such additions to the clause as would give seamen the protection they desired. He could not sit down without thanking the President of the Board of Trade for the courteous manner in which he had endeavoured to meet their wishes in reference to a load line.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought that he should be able to meet the views of the hon. Member for Hull.
  SIR JOHN HAYbegged to thank the President of the Board of Trade for his concessions on the subject of the load line.
  MR. GOURLEYwas of opinion that there ought to be two fixed load lines—one for immersion in salt water and the other for fresh water. The weight of a cargo in a ship sailing in each made a very perceptible difference. As a matter of fact, however, seamen did not like vessels being marked in this way.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that unless care was taken in making these arrangements foreigners would obtain such an advantage over us that we should gradually lose the shipping trade of the country. He should like to know why coasting vessels were to be exempt from this clause, and why they should not be required to have a load line? Half the losses and disasters occurred in the coasting trade.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, the load line would be part and parcel of the contract between the owner and his seamen. The next clause, however, said that if the owner or his agent wished to alter the maximum load line, they might do so. It would be in the power of an agent in a foreign port, therefore, to contract his owner, so to speak, out of the Bill.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREregretted that the clause had not been proposed in Committee, and he thought that as it had only just now been introduced the whole responsibility of it should be thrown upon the Government. He would therefore advise his hon. Friend the Member for Hull not to endeavour to amend it. He further thought, however, that the point as to an agent abroad altering the load line should be considered by the Board of Trade.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the measure was only of one year's duration, and the House would see by experience how it worked. He could not see why vessels plying between Newcastle and the Thames should not have a load line, as well as vessels plying from London and Hull to Hamburg, seeing that the voyage was quite as dangerous.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that if hon. Members would consult the Register they would find that the losses in the coasting trade were exceedingly small as compared with the foreign and colonial trade.

  581
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and aided to the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in moving the next clause, said, the object of sub-section 7 was to enable the shipowner when his ship started from a foreign port to alter the load line. The season, the cargo, and the circumstances of the voyage were very often entirely different when the ship left a foreign port on her homeward voyage. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the following clause:—
  (Statement of load line.)
  "B. With respect to the marking of a load line on British ships, the following provisions shall have effect:

  "(1.) The owner of every British ship shall, before entering his ship outwards upon any voyage for which he is required so to enter her, mark upon each of her sides amidships, or as near thereto as is practicable, in white or yellow on a dark ground, or in black on alight ground, a circular disc, twelve inches in diameter, with a horizontal line eighteen inches in length, drawn through its centre;

  "(2.) The centre of this disc shall indicate the maximum load line in salt water to which the owner intends to load the ship for that voyage;

  "(3.) He shall also, upon so entering her, insert in the form of entry delivered to the collector or other principal officer of customs, a statement in writing of the distance in feet and inches between the centre of this disc and the upper edge of each of the lines indicating the position of the ship's decks which is above that centre;

  "(4.) If default is made in delivering this statement in the case of any ship, any officer of customs may refuse to enter the ship outwards;

  "(5.) The master of the ship shall enter a copy of this statement in the agreement with the crew, before it is signed by any member of the crew, and no superintendent of any mercantile marine office shall proceed with the engagement of the crow until this entry is made;

  "(6.) The master of the ship shall also enter a copy of this statement in the official log-book;

  "(7.) When a ship has been marked as by this section required, she shall, unless the marks are altered as hereinafter provided, he kept so marked until her next return to a port of discharge in the United Kingdom. If the owner of a ship or his agent wishes to alter the maximum load line to which he intends to load the ship at any port out of the United Kingdom, he may do so at any time before any cargo is taken on board at that port by causing similar marks to those by this section required to be made at a higher or lower level on the ship's sides. In the event of any such alteration being made the master of the ship shall forthwith enter in the official log-book a statement with respect to the new marks corresponding to the statement by this section required with respect to the original marks, and deliver a copy of this statement, if the port is in a British possession, to the principal officer of customs at
  582
  the port, and if the port is a foreign port, to the British consular officer at the port, and if ha makes default in such delivery, shall incur a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds:

  "(8.) This section shall not apply in the case of any ship until she has been marked, as by this Act required, with the lines indicating the position of her decks."

  MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought the Amendment was a very practical one.
  MR. D. JENKINSobjected entirely to the load line being altered during the voyage, because this would destroy the value of the load line altogether. Great pressure would often be put upon a captain abroad to alter the load line. A captain ought not to be exposed to this pressure.
  MR. BATESrecommended that the power to the owner's agent abroad to alter the load line should be altogether omitted from the clause, because he did not think that a captain when abroad should be allowed to alter the load line.
  The provision as to the owner or his agent altering the load line abroad was negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYmoved the following clause:—
  (Penalty for offences in relation to marks on ships.)
  "C. Any owner or master of a British ship who neglects to cause his ship to be marked as by this Act required, or to keep her so marked, and any person who conceals, removes, alters, defaces, or obliterates, or suffers any person under his control to conceal, remove, alter, deface, or obliterate any of the said marks, except in the event of the particulars thereby denoted being lawfully altered, or except for the purpose of escaping capture by an enemy, shall for each offence incur a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds.
  "If any of the marks required by this Act is in any respects inaccurate, so as to be likely to mislead, the owner of the ship shall incur a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. GOURLEYmoved to leave out Clause 3, and insert the following clause:—
  (Cargo of grain, &c.)
  "From and after the first day of October one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five all British vessels over two hundred tons register, when laden with grain, corn, rice paddy, pulse, seeds, nuts, or nut kernels, shall carry at least one-third of the cargo in bags, sacks, or barrels, and placed on the top of the bulk cargo, or have the cargo stowed with shifting boards, bulkheads, or otherwise.

  583
  "When laden with less than two-thirds of the aforesaid descriptions of cargo, then the same shall he secured in the same manner as if laden with a full cargo, unless the vessel have her cargo completed with wool, hemp, cotton, wood, or other cargo.
  "The master of any British ship who shall knowingly allow any cargo or part of a cargo to he shipped therein for carriage contrary to the provisions of this section, shall for every such offence incur a penalty not exceeding two hundred pounds."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsuggested certain verbal alterations which would then render the Amendment unnecessary.
  LORD ESLINGTONwas afraid the House would be much disappointed with the effect of Clause 3 in preventing the loss of life at sea in grain-laden British ships. From information he had obtained to-day, he found that of 48 grain-laden ships in British ports of call yesterday morning only 14 were British. No other European States regulated the loading of its ships by law, neither did America, and he was afraid that by this legislation we should be giving a tremendous impetus to foreign trade without in any way securing the lives of the seamen.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYobserved, that the very important and interesting figures laid before the House by the noble Lord would be treasured up for use in another Session in the event of the House being then told that this legislation had driven British ships out of the grain-carrying trade.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved the insertion of the following clause:—
  (Liability of shipowner to crew.)
  "In every contract of service, express or implied, between the owner of a ship and the master or any seaman thereof, and in every instrument of apprenticeship whereby any person is bound to serve as an apprentice on hoard any ship, there shall be implied, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, an obligation on the part of the owner of the ship to the master, seaman, or apprentice, that the owner of the ship his agents and servants, shall use all reasonable efforts to insure the seaworthiness of the ship for the voyage at the commencement thereof, and to keep her in a seaworthy condition during the voyage.
  "Provided that nothing in this section shall make the owner of a ship liable for the death of or any injury to a master, seaman, or apprentice belonging to any ship when caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of a seaman or apprentice belonging to the same ship, in any case where he would not otherwise be so liable."
  584
  The hon. Member said, the clause was substantially the same as one in the original Bill of the Government.
  MR. RATHBONEthought the seamen ought to have the same right of action in respect of unseaworthiness as the owner of the merchandize.
  MR. NORWOODwas of opinion that the relations between the shipowner and the seaman ought not to be dealt with in this piecemeal manner.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped the Government would not embark on this subject at present.
  MR. E. J. REEDbelieved the insertion of the clause would add very much to the satisfaction with which the Bill was received by the seafaring community.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought the feeling of the House generally was in favour of the clause, and, as it was copied from his own original Bill, the Government, of course, regarded it as a fit and proper provision. The effect of it would simply be to bring seamen within Lord Campbell's Act. In a recent case it had been decided that the shipowner was not bound, in relation to the seaman, to keep the ship seaworthy, though he was under a statutory obligation to provide him with medicine. This was an unsatisfactory state of things. He thanked the hon. Member for moving the clause, and hoped it would be agreed to.
  MR. GOURLEYwas understood to remark that it might be impossible at sea to keep the vessel quite seaworthy.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDpointed out that all the clause required in that case was reasonable efforts.
  Clause agreed to and added to the Bill.
  MR. MAC IVERmoved an Amendment on Clause 1, with the view of limiting the number of additional surveyors to be appointed by the Board of Trade to three. He wanted to see the general working of the Act placed in competent hands, and objected to an indefinite number of new surveyors of unknown qualifications with absolute powers. He thought additional powers were less necessary than that the Board of Trade should be enabled judiciously to exercise the powers they had; and that this could best be done by strengthening the Department in London. A few

  585
  first-class surveyors could readily be obtained who might efficiently relieve the Permanent Secretaries of the Board of Trade from some of their present duties in regard to the detention of ships under the Act of 1873; but he did not believe that the right class of person to be entrusted with absolute powers was obtainable for every principal seaport in the Kingdom at a moment's notice, and upon a mere yearly engagement. There would, in any case, be many applications for the new Surveyorships, but this—if any large number of appointments were contemplated—would but increase the difficulty of selection.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREhoped that the Government would be extremely careful as to the persons whom they appointed to exercise those large and arbitrary powers, and suggested that from six to eight first-class men would probably be sufficient for that purpose.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "a sufficient number of," and insert the words "not more than three."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHrecommended that the matter should be left to the responsibility of the Government.
  SIR JOHN HAYthought three was obviously too small a number, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYproposed to amend Clause 3 by adding the words "such grain, corn, rice, paddy, pulse, seeds, and nuts."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RATHBONEmoved to add the words, "This clause shall not apply to any grain ship previous to the 1st of October, 1875."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GOURLEYmoved that the section should not apply to vessels of less than 200 tons register.
  MR. E. J. REEDthought this Amendment would weaken the clause, and that it would be a positive invitation to people to sail vessels of loss than 200 tons register.
  MR. RATHBONEconsidered the Amendment a very reasonable one. In small ships the grain would be divided into small bulks.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought that small river vessels under 100 tons should be exempt.
  MR. HAYTERopposed the Amendment. He felt certain that if it were carried a greal deal of grain would be carried in very small vessels.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERthought it would not be desirable, without consideration, to introduce any limitation in the clause. At the same time, the matter might be considered between the present time and the third reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 4; considered in Committee, and reported.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 26, after the word "pounds," to insert the words "the one-third under this section shall he one-third of the tonnage measurement of the cargo."—(Sir John Hay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RATHBONE (for Mr. HER-SCHELL)moved, in Clause 4, page 3, at end, to add—
  "8. Every person who is guilty of any offence which is by this section declared to be a misdemeanor shall be liable either to punishment on indictment or to a penalty of one thousand pounds, to be recovered by the Board of Trade by action in any court of competent jurisdiction, which court may mitigate the same at their discretion; and where a penalty is adjudged under the provisions of this section to be paid by any managing owner of a ship, as defined by sub-section five, the owners of the ship shall become jointly and severally liable for the same as sureties for such managing owner, but in such case the owners shall not be liable to any other proceedings under this section in respect of the same matter."
  MR. NORWOODstrongly objected to the Amendment, remarking that under the existing state of the law a person who knowingly sent, or attempted to send, a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition was liable to be prosecuted for a misdemeanour. But the Amendment sought to turn a prosecution for misdemeanour into a simple matter of suing for a fine, for which all the co-owners of

  587
  a ship were to be liable, though they might be wholly innocent.
  MR. RATHBONEmaintained that the Amendment would render the law far more effectual by enabling the Judges to apportion the punishment to the offence.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it appeared to him that there was very great force in the objection of the hon. Member for Hull to the Amendment. It was undesirable to make the owners sureties for the managing owner when, in truth, they might not be in the least to blame. He suggested the omission of the latter part of the proposed clause.
  MR. RATHBONEwas willing to accept the suggestion of the Solicitor General.
  MR. BATESconfessed that he saw no great objection to the Amendment. He had been a managing shipowner for many years, and he had always understood that if he did anything wrong, his co-owners were liable as well as himself.
  MR. MAC IVERstrongly objected to Clause 4, and said that it would be of no earthly use, and without any result other than annoyance to shipowners, by compelling the registration of so-called managing owners. The clause, he maintained, would fail precisely as Clause 11 of the Act of 1871 had failed, and from precisely similar reasons. He deprecated this concession to the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), and held that the clause was mere wastepaper legislation. It read stringently, but meant nothing; nor could it, he (Mr. Mac Ivor) thought, be made to mean anything unless additions were made to it such as would cause it to mean a great deal more than was reasonable. Nothing would ever be proved under the clause as it stood. There was nothing to compel the so-called managing owner to actually manage the ship, nor was there any endeavour to reach those persons who owned vessels under the provisions of the Limited Liability Act. If the directors of limited liability companies were compelled to register some of their number as managing owners, and if it were assumed that the registered managing owner must in every case possess personal knowledge in regard to questions of seaworthiness, the clause might then come to mean something. If a
  588
  Proviso were added to the effect that the foundering of a vessel was in itself proof of unseaworthiness as against the managing owner, the clause would then come to mean something very real indeed; but in such case it would have a meaning that would be altogether unreasonable. He (Mr. Mac Iver), however, saw no alternative between this and no meaning at all; and, in its present form, the clause had no meaning at all. He therefore strongly objected to it, and would hope to call attention to the remarks that he had then made when the same subject came up again for discussion next Session
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, that the latter part of the proposed Amendment introduced a totally new principle into the law of England—namely, that of making a man criminally liable for an offence committed by his partner with which he had nothing whatever to do. A penalty implied an offence, and no man ought to be punished for an offence of which he was not himself guilty. He hoped the Committee would reject a proposal embodying a principle which was unknown to the English law and he believed to any other law.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERobserved, that though there was a great deal to be said in favour of the present proposal, yet, considering the many questions of importance which it involved, he thought it should not be introduced into a Bill of a temporary character at the period of the Session at which they had arrived. The matter must come up for consideration when the permanent measure to which they looked forward was dealt with.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYmoved, at end of Clause 4, to add—
  "Provided, That the repeal enacted by this section shall not affect any punishment incurred or to he incurred in respect of any offence against the enactment hereby repealed, or any legal proceeding in respect of any such punishment, and any such legal proceeding may be carried on as if this Act had not passed."
  Proviso agreed, to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.— [Lords.] [BILL 277.]
(Mr. Disraeli.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.— [Lords.] [BILL 277.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. HUNTmoved to insert after Clause 9 the following Clause:—
  (Deduction in first class for want of repair, &c.)
  "A. In the ascertainment of the amount of the tenant's compensation in respect of an improvement of the first class, there shall be taken into account, in reduction thereof, any sum reasonably necessary to he expended for the purpose of putting the same into tenantable repair or good condition."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. HUNTalso moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Exclusion of compensation in third class after exhausting crop.)
  "B. The tenant shall not he entitled to compensation in respect of an improvement of the third class, where, after the execution thereof, there has been taken from the portion of the holding on which the same was executed, a crop of corn, potatoes, hay, or seed, or any other exhausting crop."
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that the object of the Bill seemed to be to enable limited owners to charge their estates and to put them under stringent regulations for doing so. He thought the Amendments should have been placed on the Paper earlier.
  MR. T. CAVEthought that the hon. Baronet had misconceived the object of the Bill.
  MR. HUNTexpressed his regret that the Amendments had not been placed on the Paper sooner. The fault was his, and he was exceedingly sorry for it, but the delay arose from his being deeply engaged with other public business. This provision was for the protection of the incoming tenant, but it was also partially for the benefit of the outgoing tenant.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. HUNTmoved the following Clauses:—
  (Exclusion of compensation for consumption of cake, &c. in certain cases)
  "C. The tenant shall not he entitled to compensation in respect of an improvement of the third class, consisting in the consumption of cake or other feeding stuff, where under the custom of the country or an agreement he is entitled to and claims payment from the landlord or incoming tenant in respect of the additional value given by that consumption to the
  590
  manure left on the holding at the determination of the tenancy."
  After Clause 18, insert the following Clauses:—
  (Requisition for appointment of umpire by Inclosure Commissioners, &c.)
  "D. Provided that, where two referees are appointed, an umpire may be appointed as follows:
  "(1.) If either party, on appointing a referee, requires, by notice in writing to the other, that the umpire shall be appointed by the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, then the umpire, and any successor to him, shall be appointed, on the application of either party, by those Commissioners:
  "(2.) In every other case, if either party, on appointing a referee, requires, by notice in writing to the other, that the umpire shall be appointed by the County Court, then unless the other party dissents, by notice in writing, therefrom, the umpire, and any successor to him, shall, on the application of either party, be so appointed, and, in case of such dissent, the umpire, and any successor to him, shall be appointed, on the application of either party, by the Inclosure Commissioners for England and "Wales."
  (Exercise of powers of county court.)
  "E. The powers of the county court under this Act, relative to the appointment of a referee or umpire, shall be exerciseable by the judge of the court having jurisdiction, whether he is without or within his district, and may, by consent of the parties, be exercised by the registrar of the court."
  Clauses agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEmoved the following clause:—
  (Manure made on the holdings.)
  "The manure made in the stables, sheds, and foldyards from the last year's produce of the holding shall be the property of the tenant, but shall not, after notice to quit has been given, be removed from the holding or sold without the consent of the landlord or his agent in writing. The value of any portion of such manure, which may not at the determination of the tenancy have been applied to the land in the due course of husbandry, shall be estimated by the referees or the umpire, and shall form part of the compensation to be awarded to the tenant."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHthought this was a very valuable clause.
  MR. ASSHETONthought the effect of the clause would be to put a premium upon bad farming.
  MR. GOLDSMIDconsidered that no bad results would follow from the adoption of the clause. It merely carried out what was already the custom in Kent, and answered well there; but he thought they were trying to do by this Bill that

  591
  which was impossible—namely, provide for all the varying circumstances of different soils and principles of farming.
  MR. HUNTapproved the principle of the clause in an agricultural point of view; but as it would operate in many eases as an interference with custom, he thought it should not be introduced without full discussion, and many Members interested in the question were not present.
  MR. LEEMANthought that the fold-yard manure ought to follow the same fate as the chemical manure upon an estate. He was sorry the clause had not been accepted, though the whole of the Bill was purely permissive and would not be brought into operation.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENthought that the latter part of the clause—providing that the tenant should be paid for the value of manure in his yard, whilst for manure on the land he would only be paid according to the value which the referees might find to have been already added to the land—would be an inducement to bad farming, as a tenant would be tempted to keep the manure in the farmyard in order to be paid for it.
  MR. MONKregretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) should have opposed the clause on the ground of the absence of Members interested in the question, for ample notice had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire upon this subject.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, it was a matter of common practice in various counties to pay the outgoing tenant for the farmyard manures, and he had done that himself.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 67: Majority 23.
  MR. NEWDEGATEmoved the following clause:—
  (If tenant commit waste, or improperly cultivate, the judge of the county court may direct landlord to enter on the farm.)
  "If, after notice to quit has been given, complaint be made and proved to the satisfaction of the judge of the county court that a tenant is committing waste or is neglecting the proper cultivation of the farm, the judge may direct the landlord to enter upon the farm in such manner as may he necessary to prevent such waste, or to carry on the cultivation of the farm; and the expense of such entry and of
  592
  such cultivation by the landlord may be recovered as rent in arrear, or may be computed as compensation due to the landlord by the referees or the umpire."
  The clause was rendered the more necessary in consequence of the change of notice from six to twelve months. By this clause a landlord would have a more simple and speedy way of obtaining possession than by the present law, so as to prevent waste, especially in the case where a tenant died shortly after Lady Day, when the executors, who had no desire to continue the occupancy, would have to remain in possession two years. He also proposed that waste after notice should be recoverable as arrears of rent. The yearly notice was advantageous to the tenant in getting rid of his stock and enabling him to look out for another farm, but there was extreme danger to the landlord of waste.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. GOLDSMIDobjected to the clause as being extremely unfair to the tenant. The landlord's rights were sufficiently protected by Clause 15, and a litigious landlord would, under the proposed clause, be constantly harassing his tenants.
  MR. KNIGHTsupported the clause on the ground that without it the tenant might—if leaving his farm in an ill-humour with his landlord—do an enormous damage to the land for which the landlord could exact no compensation.
  MR. RODWELLsuggested that such an extreme contingency as that alluded to was already provided for in Clause 15. He regarded the clause proposed as being unworkable.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Government could not assent to the clause, because they did not think that it could be worked.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHthought the clause would be unfair to the tenant and worrying to the landlord, and he should therefore oppose it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. ALFRED MARTENmoved the following clause:—
  (Service of notice.)
  "Any notice under this Act may be served

  593
  upon the person to whom the notice is to be given, either personally or by leaving it for him at his usual or last known place of abode in England, or by sending it through the post in a registered letter addressed to him at such place of abode; and any notice, if sent by post as aforesaid, shall be deemed to have been served at the time when the letter containing the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, and in proving such service it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter containing the notice was properly addressed and posted."
  He added that many notices were at present so served.
  MR. MELDONhoped that the clause would not be agreed to, because it would change the whole law as to the service of notices to quit.
  SIR HENRY JAMESdid not see why the service of notices to quit should be altered.
  MR. GREGORYobserved, that many important notices were now served through the post, and no inconvenience had arisen from this.
  MR. JACKSONalso thought that this mode of service worked very well.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had heard no sufficient reason for rejecting the clause.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. ALFRED MARTENmoved the following Clause:—
  (Fixtures.)
  "Where after the commencement of this Act a tenant affixes to his holding any engine, machinery, or other fixture for which he shall not under the provisions of this Act or otherwise be entitled to or receive compensation, and which shall not be so affixed in pursuance of some obligation in that behalf or instead of some fixture belonging to the landlord, then such engine, machinery, or other fixture shall be the property of and be removable by the tenant: Provided as follows:—

  "1. Before the removal of any fixture the tenant shall pay all rent owing by him, and shall perform or satisfy all other his obligations to the landlord in respect of the holding;

  "2. In the removal of any fixture the tenant shall not do any avoidable damage to any building or other part of the holding;

  "3. Immediately after the removal of any fixture the tenant shall make good all damage occasioned to any building or other part of the holding by the removal;

  "4. The tenant, if required by the landlord, shall, before the removal of any fixture, give security to him for making good any damage which may be occasioned to any building or other part of the holding by the removal, and any difference as to such security shall be settled by a reference under this Act;

  "5. No tenant shall remove any fixture without giving one month's previous notice in writing
  594
  to the landlord of the intention of the tenant to remove the fixture;

  "6. At any time before the expiration of the notice of removal, the landlord by notice in writing to be given by him to the tenant, may elect to purchase any fixture comprised in the notice of removal, and any fixture thus elected to be purchased shall be left by the tenant, and shall become the property of the landlord, who shall pay the tenant the fair value thereof, and any difference as to the value shall be settled by a reference under this Act."

  The object of the clause was to change the law, the Courts having ruled that trade fixtures belonged to a tenant, but agricultural fixtures to the landlord. To meet the wish of the Government he added a special provision relating to steam engines, for the erection of which the landlord's consent must be first obtained to entitle the tenant to the benefit of the clause.
  MR. HUNTthought the clause a valuable one, and accepted it.
  MR. GREGORYagreed with the new clause so far as regarded machinery, but he objected to the words "other fixtures," because their legal acceptance was very indefinite.
  MR. MELDONprotested against such an alteration of the law of the land. There ought to be some definition of the word "fixtures."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas of opinion that if the clause was restricted to machinery, it would go a very little way towards removing the inequality which existed between the farmer and the trader.
  MR. HENLEYthought it desirable that there should be some restriction as to the place where any machinery should be fixed, otherwise it might be erected just before the landlord's windows.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwas in favour of the clause, because it was recommended by the Report of the Committee of 1848, but he felt the force of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley).
  MR. HUNTthen moved to omit the 4th proviso to the effect that the tenant, if required, should give security to the landlord for making good any damage to any building occasioned by the removal of any fixture.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. HUNTmoved in Clause 4, page 2, line 8, after "tenancy," to insert, as a new paragraph—

  595
  "'Absolute owner' means the owner or person capable of disposing, by appointment or otherwise, of the fee simple or whole interest of or in freehold, copyhold, or leasehold land, although his interest is encumbered or charged to any extent."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Amount of tenant's compensation for first and second class).
  MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 3, line 24, to leave out—
  "But so that where the landlord was not, at the time of the consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit."
  His object was to simplify the proceedings before the referees with regard to the legal title of the owner to the property.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the effect of the Amendment would be to restrict the extent to which a tenant could go in the way of improvements of the first class. A check which was necessary on limited owners was not required in the case of absolute ownrs.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONdid not see that at the stage which they had now reached they required this letting value at all. As far as could be understood it had been introduced for the protection of the remainderman; but the remainderman had no interest in the amount of compensation. As an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex, he begged to move the omission of the words limiting the amount of compensation to the addition made to the letting value.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add to the words proposed to be left out—
  "The amount of the compensation shall not exceed a capital sum fairly representing the addition which the improvement as far as it continues unexhausted at the determination of the tenancy then makes to the letting value of the holding."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. HUNTobserved, that the noble Lord had said that the remainderman had no interest in the amount of compensation, but only on the amount of charge. The amount of charge must depend on the
  596
  amount of compensation. He thought the proper course would be to dispose of the original Amendment first.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONwas of opinion that the Committee would thereby be placed in a false position.
  MR. GOLDSMIDhoped the Committee would see its way to adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory).
  MR. MELDONhoped, under all the circumstances, that the Committee would not pass this clause.
  SIR HENRY JAMEStrusted that the Amendment suggested by his noble Friend would be accepted.
  MR. RODWELL, as author of the clause, defended it, and left it in the hands of the Government, who had adopted it.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he could not consent to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington).
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the same principle ought to be employed between the landlord and tenant as between the real owner and the remainderman.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, that subject had discussed three times before, and a compromise had been come to in regard to it, which ought not to be disturbed. He hoped the noble Marquess would not press his Amendment.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDhoped the House would adopt the view of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Jackson), who placed the question so clearly before them.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 105: Majority 48.
  MR. GREGORYthen withdrew his Amendment, remarking that the Bill, as it stood, was very favourable for members of his profession.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he proposed to take rather an unusual course, but he thought the clause should be properly divided into two. He therefore proposed that the clause Clause 7 should end at line 30, after the word "holding."
  Amendment proposed, to divide Clause 7 into two Clauses, the first Clause to terminate at the word "holding," in line 30.—(Mr. Hunt.)
  Question, "That Clause 7 be so divided," put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Restrictions as to third class).
  MR. HUNTmoved in page 4, line 11, to leave out "ascertaining," and insert "the ascertainment of."
  MR. GOLDSMIDdesired to know why it was proposed to restore the word "ascertainment" which was struck out in Committee, and which it was admitted by the Prime Minister was not good English.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that with the word "ascertaining" the clause did not read grammatically. They had consulted high literary authorities, and they found that the word "ascertainment" was a perfectly good English word.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Tenants compensation for breach of Covenant).
  MR. KNIGHTmoved the omission of the word "custom," which he said was vague, and would lead to a great deal of cross swearing.
  MR. HUNTassented to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Landlord's title to compensation).
  SIR HENRY JAMESproposed to leave out the words "or permits waste or commits" in order that a tenant should not be placed in a false position in case he should convert pasture into arable or vice versâ.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 39, to leave out the words "or permits waste or commits."—(Sir Henry James.)
  MR. HUNTcould not accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 44 (Time of notice to quit).
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENmoved to leave out—
  "or is five months in arrear of his rent, the same having been lawfully demanded in writing and not paid within 14 days after such demand."
  He said, that having extended the term of notice to quit, from six months to a
  598
  year, it would be ungracious to clog that concession with unnecessary restrictions, and the law of distress sufficiently protected the landlord's rent. This Amendment had been somewhat hastily acceded to by the Government; and as he understood that many Gentlemen who had voted for it desired its omission, he would not argue the question at length, if his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) was of the same opinion. Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 49 (Application of Act to existing tenancies).
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONproposed to leave out, in line 3, the words "or at will," and insert "where there is a written agreement."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 14, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words "or at will," and insert the words "where there is a written agreement,"—(The Marquess of Hartington,)—instead thereof.
  MR. HUNTcould not accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill re-committed in respect of Clauses 11 and 35; considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, considered:—Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

RESTRICTION OF PENAL ACTIONS AND REMISSION OF PENALTIES BILL.
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
RESTRICTION OF PENAL ACTIONS AND REMISSION OF PENALTIES BILL.

  [BILL 267.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WHITWELLexplained his reasons for opposing the second reading of this Bill the other evening, and, while he did not admire the lines upon which the Legislature proceeded, yet he quite sympathized with the difficulties of the case. He should have preferred this Bill being withdrawn altogether, and the particular alterations now proposed introduced by themselves. Again, instead of the Bill being made applicable to certain cases only, it should have been on a broad scale.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the late period of the Session prevented him following out the idea of the

  599
  ton. Member. He, the other evening, indicated the course the Government were prepared to take on the question. He proposed to ask the House to read the Bill a second time, upon the distinct understanding that the first clause should be omitted, so as to render it a measure simply extending the powers now possessed by the Secretary of State for the remission of penalties in criminal cases to a similar remission of penalties in civil cases. That would operate as a wholesome restraint upon vexatious actions under the old law, while, on the other hand, it would not introduce that entire relaxation which would undoubtedly follow upon the repeal of that law itself. He therefore hoped that the House would now assent to the second reading of the measure.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. P. A. TAYLORobserved, that the Act was passed for an entirely different purpose from that to which it had been applied, and it was merely by accident, as it were, that it was made to bear on the case of the Aquarium. The state of things which it was intended to meet having passed away, what should have been done was simply to repeal it, and had the Government determined to do so, it would have been supported by the general feeling of the country. The truth was that they coquetted with the question, and they gave encouragement to a small body of Sabbatarains by showing that they were afraid to go a step further than they proposed to go. This Bill, however, was permissive legislation in its worst form, because it was not dependent on the will of the people, but upon the will of the Government. He thought that whatever laws the people were called upon to obey, they should be able to find them in the Statute Book if they did not form part of the Common Law. The fact was, the whole state of Sunday legislation was getting into inextricable confusion. In the case of Sunday trading, a Permissive Act had been passed, making the execution of the law dependent on the will of the chief police authority of the district, or of two magistrates. This confusion was doing a great deal of harm; for opinion was much divided on the subject, and
  600
  the question of civil and religious liberty became an important point in its consideration for the time being. As nobody was compelled to go to the Aquarium on a Sunday, to prevent anyone's going there on that day who desired to do so was a piece of gross tyranny which ought not to be permitted by the Legislature. He supposed the Bill was only intended as a temporary measure; but if the Government did not determine to repeal that Act next year, he should make a Motion to that effect.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, that if a majority of the country were found to be in favour of the views of the hon. Member for Leicester, he should be ready to bow to that decision; but at present he was bound to recognize that the great preponderance of public opinion was the other way. He protested against a question of that importance being so dealt with at the end of the Session.
  MR. LOCKEthought it quite absurd to suppose that in a place like Brighton the people should not have the opportunity of frequenting a place of amusement. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was amongst that class who were desirous of preventing anybody from being comfortable on a Sunday. He saw on all sides a class of people who endeavoured to interfere with the lower classes, or whatever they might choose to call them, in this country. He had the honour of being Recorder of that place where this dreadful affair arose. Nobody ever thought for one moment that there was any inconvenience caused to the most righteous people in this country from the fact that bodies of people went into that place of fishes, and to look at fishes. Heaven and earth! could it be said that looking at fishes on a Sunday was a wicked thing? How could anybody suppose that this country was to be regulated by a class of persons who entertained views of the most disagreeable nature, and that nobody was to be allowed to do what he liked? And if they had put themselves in that position that in the next world they would have to suffer, what consequence was it to his hon. Friend sitting opposite? It would not hurt him. He had always thought that there were a class of persons who called themselves extremely religious—more religious than anybody else—but he should like to know whether

  601
  they took their religiousness out of the Bible or no. They had an opinion of their own; they worked away to make everybody uncomfortable; and they were the most disagreeable people in the world. The right way of proceeding would have been to repeal the old Act, and then everything would have gone on properly. He was sorry that had not been done; but, at the same time, the people would get something. It was now proposed that the Home Office should protect those persons who went to amuse themselves in the Aquarium, or the Botanical Gardens, or other places that were pleasant and agreeable on Sunday, and who did no harm to anybody, and he thought that in this respect the Government had acted very cleverly. He congratulated the Government on the course they had taken, and hoped they had now got rid of all the ridiculous rubbish he had heard in the House ever since he had been a Member of it, to prevent the great body of the working classes from enjoying themselves just as they pleased, so long as they did not interfere with the rest of the country.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not pretend for a moment that this Bill could be looked upon as a settlement of the general question. That question, if brought under discussion, would inevitably raise a great deal of feeling on both sides throughout the country. Among the working classes, as well as in other sections of the community, there were, no doubt, many who believed that the Sunday ought to be strictly a day of rest. At the same time he, for one, did not wish to deprive people of the means of recreation on that day. It seemed to him that those who sought, as in the case of the Brighton Aquarium, to put in force the Act to which the present Bill referred, were really taking the strongest step possible to secure the repeal of that Act.
  SIR HENRY JAMESinquired whether the Bill might be taken as a temporary measure, because it gave immense power, not only in the remission of penalties in all actions in which they were recoverable, but even in political trials. He would suggest that, instead of the Crown having the power to remit the penalties, they should prevent the informers getting them. The money should go into the hands of the Crown
  602
  instead of into the pockets of private informers.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  [Lords.] [BILL 162.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that he would withdraw his Amendment, which was under discussion when the Committee last reported Progress, and bring it forward at the next stage.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas obliged to his hon. and learned Friend, and as the hon. Members for Chatham and Liverpool were not present their Amendments could also be taken on the Report.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL an Amendment was made in postponed Clause 3, retaining the full number of 15 Judges.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

POST OFFICE (SUPERANNUATION AND GRATUITIES) BILL.— [BILL 245.]
(Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
POST OFFICE (SUPERANNUATION AND GRATUITIES) BILL.— [BILL 245.]

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  MR. W. H. SMITHmoved that the Order for Committee be discharged in order that a proper schedule of the officers who would be entitled to benefit by the measure might be prepared before its reintroduction next Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND ART BILL.— [Lords.] [BILL 283.]
(Viscount Sandon.)
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND ART BILL.— [Lords.] [BILL 283.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT SANDON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said,

  603
  the object of the measure was to enable the Department of Science and Art to receive bequests of real property. That high-minded and liberal man, Sir Joseph Whitworth, had expressed a wish to add to the benefactions he had already given to the country. Sir Joseph Whitworth had endowed a scholarship of mechanical industry, to the amount of £3,000 a-year, in connection with the South Kensington Museum, and he now wished to increase that benefaction still further by making a larger endowment of a more permanent character, by bequeathing certain lands of great value to the Science and Art Department. He had expressed his own strong conviction that the maintenance by this country of her superiority in the mechanical arts depended upon her sons having the highest training in science as applied to these arts, and, for this purpose, he had communicated to Her Majesty's Government his wish to make hereafter this noble gift to the nation. It was impossible, however, to effect that object under the statute of Mortmain, and the Government thought they were only interpreting the wishes of the nation by enabling Sir Joseph Whitworth to carry out his admirable object through means of this Bill, which would confer on the Department powers similar to those already conferred on the British Museum. Sir Joseph Whitworth had enhanced still further the value of his gift by making it a condition that the bequest should be subject to the discretion of Parliament, so as to be altered if necessary to suit the varying circumstances of the time. He need hardly say that the Government had the greatest pleasure in doing all in their power to meet the wishes of this distinguished gentleman, and he felt sure that he was only expressing the sentiments of all the hon. Members of that House, when he said that, though this noble act could not add to the position which Sir Joseph Whitworth occupied most justly in the civilized world, it would establish a fresh claim to the affection and respect with which his name was regarded by his countrymen.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

FOREIGN JURISDICTION BILL.— [Lords]
(Mr. Bourke.)
FOREIGN JURISDICTION BILL.— [Lords]

  [BILL 284.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Bourke.)
  MR. JACKSONthought the measure required some discussion, and on account of the lateness of the hour moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BILL— [BILL 269.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BILL— [BILL 269.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill as amended, considered.
  Clause 10 (Interest on Loan).
  MR. STEVENSONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 24, to add at end of clause the following Proviso:—
  "Provided, that when the aggregate amount of principal moneys due by any harbour authority to the Commissioners under The Harbours and Passing Tolls, &c. Act, 1861, exceeds one hundred thousand pounds, the rate of interest on such excess shall be three and a half per cent. or such higher rate, not exceeding five per cent., as may in the judgment of the Treasury be necessary to enable the loan to be made without loss to the Exchequer."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsented to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolution [August 4] reported, and agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill to apply a sum, out of the Consolidated Fund, to the service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC Bins—First Reading—National School Teachers (Ireland)* (258); Sanitary Law (Dublin) Amendment* (259); Expiring Laws Continuance* (260); East India Homo Government (Appointments)* (261); Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (262).
Second Reading—Government Officers (Security)* (251); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (244).
Committee—Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment* (243–264).
Committee—Report—Traffic Regulation (Dublin)* (239).
Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance (222).
Third Reading—Conspiracy and Protection of Property (249); Employers and Workmen (241); Lunatic Asylums (Ireland)* (235), and passed.

CONSPIRACY AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BILL—(Nos. 220, 240, 249.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
CONSPIRACY AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BILL—(Nos. 220, 240, 249.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved to insert, after Clause 14, the following clause:—
  546
  (" Maliciously" in this Act construed as in Malicious Injuries to Property Act.)
  "The word 'maliciously' used in reference to any offence under this Act shall he construed in the same manner as it is required by the fifty-eighth section of the Act relating to malicious injuries to property, that is to say, the Act of the session of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-seven, to be construed in reference to any offence committed under such last mentioned."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN BILL. (Nos. 218, 241.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN BILL. (Nos. 218, 241.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved to insert, after Clause 11, the following clause, which had been proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery):—
  (Set off in case of factory workers.)
  "In the case of a child, young person, or woman subject to the provisions of the Factory Acts, 1833 to 1874, any forfeiture on the ground of absence or leaving work shall not be deducted from or set off against a claim for wages or other sum due for work done before such absence or leaving work, except to the amount of the damage (if any) which the employer may have sustained by reason of such absence or leaving work."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Further Amendments made; Bill and sent to the Commons.

MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 243.)
(Earl Cadogan.)
MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 243.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, the question now arose whether the Militia was to be a substantive force with an administration of its own. The principle of feudality which had hitherto prevailed in respect of this Reserve was past and dead; but, though no doubt that was intended, some of the clauses of the Bill were inconsistent with the carrying out of such intention. He thought they ought to be careful in interfering with the organization of a force which had proved itself so efficient. All regulations emanating from the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War the

  547
  officers of the Militia would receive with confidence and respect. He would add that he had perfect and absolute confidence in the Assistant Adjutant Generals; but he would suggest that there ought to be an additional Assistant Adjutant General of Militia. He had viewed with pleasure the adoption of a system by which Army officers now joined the Militia; but he had not observed any signs as yet of the Militia officers joining the Regular Army, and he hoped shortly to see the prospect of a successful arrangement between the two branches of the service.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Appointments and commissions of officers).
  EARL CADOGAN, in reply to the noble Lord's (Lord Waveney's) criticism, reminded him that the Bill was, in reality, merely a consolidation Bill, and that it did not preclude the future consideration of the reforms which he advocated.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHtook occasion to observe that the recent Regulations issued by the War Office for the appointment of officers of the Army as adjutants in the Militia were, in his view, of the most objectionable character. Ever since the formation of the force it was of a local character, and had always been looked upon as a local force, ranged in the different districts, and commanded by its own officers; and if they now proceeded to appoint officers in the Army as adjutants, he believed that they would totally destroy the local character of the force, and he was confident that if they destroyed its local character they would destroy it altogether, because he believed that Militia recruits would never consent to join a force that was not commanded by the officers connected with the county, but by those of whom they knew nothing at all. Under 42 Geo. III., special restrictions were made with regard to the appointment of adjutants of Militia. They must possess certain qualifications; but now they were taken out of the Staff of the depôt, and he would point out that it was not necessary that because a man was a good soldier, and performed his other duties extremely well, he would be a good adjutant. Another objection to the proposal was that the adjutants of Militia regiments had duties to perform
  548
  for which experience in those duties and a knowledge of the locality were essential. They had to attend Central Boards of Examination, do the work of brigade majors, and several other things. A young officer from a Line regiment would find himself like a fish out of water during the first two years of his adjutancy of Militia, and the office was to be held for only five years. The object of the Warrant seemed to be to get rid of the present adjutants, because it gave them a higher rate of retirement if they resigned at once, but informed them that if they insisted on remaining in for a year or years longer they would receive only the old rate of retirement. Under the present system the regiments were improving in efficiency every year.
  THE EARL OF SANDWICHwas also of opinion that it would be a great mistake to make any change in the class of officers who now discharged the duties of Militia adjutants. He would remind their Lordships that all officers of the Line, with the exception of the colonel, were under the regimental control of some other officer or officers. The adjutant of a Militia regiment was his own master for the greater part of the year, and they were going to put young officers of Line regiments into that position.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORbegged to suggest to their Lordships that the question on which the noble Duke and the noble Earl had just addressed their Lordships was in no way touched by the clause now before the Committee.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, the appointment of adjutants was of great importance, and the greatest care ought to be taken with reference to it. His 23 years' experience had taught him that the adjutants were the life and soul of the regiments. Smart men of the Line know nothing of the feeling and temperament of the men of the Militia. He trusted the Government would re-consider the question discussed by the noble Duke and the noble Earl.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLconcurred with his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) that this question of the adjutants was in no way raised by this Bill. It was one which had recently been discussed in their Lordships' House, and he thought the explanation given of the Warrant was satisfactory. There were a number of adjutants of Militia regiments who desired a better scale of retirement;

  549
  there were a number of commanding officers of Militia regiments who were not satisfied with their adjutants; and there were a number of officers of the Line who would prefer becoming adjutants of Militia to going out on half-pay from the Army. If, as he understood, the Warrant was intended to meet those cases, he thought there was much to be said for it; but the question did not arise on this clause, nor was it raised by this Bill.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, that the case had been correctly stated by the noble Viscount. Various complaints had been made by adjutants, and the Secretary for War had devised this scheme of retirement to meet those complaints, and now it was said that the Government were forcing these adjutants out of the service. Those officers who did not wish to perform the new duties which would fall to their share would be able to accept the retiring pay, which would be very advantageous, and those who did not retire would remain in the service under the old conditions. The whole subject of the duties and position of the Militia adjutants was under the consideration of a Committee of the War Office, and he hoped that the Report would meet with the approbation of all parties.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHconsidered that the clause was an intimation by the Secretary of State to these adjutants that they ought to retire from the service on this increased pension, and that if they did not they would be placed in a disadvantageous position. The noble Duke also complained of the new arrangements in reference to the position in which the adjutants' clerks would be placed.
  LORD DENMANsaid, it would be extremely hard on any Judge who might have earned a retiring pension, if he were told that, at the end of 15 years, he must immediately retire, or submit to a smaller reward than those who suddenly quitted the Bench, and it was equally unjust to impose any such analogous conditions on adjutants, and he expressed a hope that the Government would endeavour to make provision for the retention of the services of the adjutants.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKjoined those who were of opinion that the scheme of retirement did practically convey
  550
  a threat that if the adjutants did not now retire on a certain amount of pension, they would be placed on worse terms hereafter both as regarded their duties and pensions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was sure that the opinions which had been expressed by his noble Friends would be very carefully considered by the Secretary of State for War; and he had authority to state that there was nothing further from his right hon. Friend's intention than either to cast any slur upon those gentlemen or to evince a desire to dispense with their services; still less to show any want of courtesy or confidence to the colonels of Militia.
  Clause verbally amended, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 264.)

TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
(Earl Jersey)
TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  (NO. 222.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order.)
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTRobjected to Clause 9, which would transfer the rating of certain hundreds in the county of Kent from the local authorities to the county authorities, and moved that it be struck out.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsupported the clause.
  LORD REDESDALEsupported the Amendment.
  On Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 15; Not - Contents 13: Majority 2.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  An Amendment made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

LICHFIELD CAPITULAR ESTATES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD VERNONasked the First Church Estates Commissioner, Whether, the Bishop of Lichfield having refused his consent, as visitor to the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield, to the scheme for commuting their capitular estates, under

  551
  31st and 32nd Victoria, chap. 114, unless they comply with a stipulation that has no reference to the scheme or the Act under which it is framed, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners intend to acquiesce in such refusal, or whether they will in the next Session of Parliament introduce a Bill to amend the Act by either dispensing with such consent altogether or giving an appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury? The noble Lord said, that the question was one of considerable local interest, and the whole of the circumstances had been already published. The right rev. Prelate, actuated, no doubt, by conscientious conviction, had refused his assent to the scheme because it did not contain two conditions which the Dean and Chapter and the Commissioners both said they had not sufficient funds to carry out; but it was evident from the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they did not approve of the action of the right rev. Prelate. If that was the case he wished to know whether the Commissioners were going to allow the matter to rest there. Great benefit would accrue from the adoption of the scheme, and he wished to know whether that benefit was to be lost because the right rev. Prelate wished to force his will upon an unwilling Dean and Chapter.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid that, so far as he knew, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had no intention of applying to Parliament for additional powers, and that, in fact, it was not the duty or the practice of this Commission to originate legislation. In answer to the noble Lord's other Question—namely, whether the Commissioners acquiesced in the course taken by the right rev. Prelate, he would just refer to what had actually occurred. In the Report of the Estates Committee, dated the 30th of January, 1873, they stated—
  "The scheme for giving effect to this agreement is framed under certain statutory provisions which it may be observed have now been applied, or are in course of being applied, to all the other Capitular Bodies in the Kingdom, the only two Chapters which have not so commuted their estates being now in communication with the Commissioners with that view, and one of these provisions makes the consent of the Visitor of the Dean and Chapter a necessary condition to enable the Commissioners, after agreeing with the Chapter for such commutation, to submit for ratification by Her Majesty in Council a scheme for carrying Out the agreement. It appears, however, to the Committee impossible
  552
  to conceive that the discretion thus given to the Visitor was intended to be used, or that it should be used otherwise than in reference to the provisions of the scheme laid before him by the Capitular Body."
  No action was taken by the Board upon that Report, nor did he see that any further steps were within the powers of the Estates Committee or of the Board. The Estates Committee in the Report expressed their opinion, he thought, clearly and strongly, as adverse to the course adopted by the right rev. Prelate. In that opinion, he (the Earl of Chichester) entirely concurred. It was quite true that the delay complained of inflicted a considerable hardship on the incumbents of small livings in the patronage of the Chapter, since it indefinitely postponed the consideration of the local claims with the view of their augmentation. The delay was also to be regretted on the ground that the Chapter estates continued to be granted out on beneficial leases, and their unimproved and unimprovable condition was prolonged. That was a loss not only to the Church, but to the country. He did not feel called upon to say a word either in favour of or against the project of the right rev. Prelate to which the Dean and Chapter refused their consent, or, rather, to which they demurred, beyond this, that his late friend the Dean of Lichfield (Dean Champneys) was the last man in the world to offer an obstructive opposition to any scheme which, in his opinion, might tend to the welfare or efficiency of the Church.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, the course adopted by the noble Lord who had asked that Question seemed to be unusual and inconvenient. A discretion was given by law to the Bishop to withhold his consent from a scheme for the transfer of the capitular estates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If that discretion was used unlawfully, the remedy lay in an appeal to a Court of Law. If the discretion so vested in the Bishop was in itself inexpedient, it could be withdrawn by the Legislature. The question related, in fact, to a conflict of discretions. The Dean and Residentiary Chapter of Lichfield had a discretion to refuse to bring into operation the provisions contained in two Acts of Parliament for the revival of two suspended Canonries. The assumption of the noble Lord that he (the Bishop of Lichfield) was the only person to blame, seemed to

  553
  him unfair. It was said that he hindered the augmentation of poor benefices in the patronage of the Chapter. If the Dean and Chapter were to agree to his proposal, he would sign their scheme, and then the difficuly would be at an end. The other party was as much to blame as he was, unless their reasons were altogether good, and his altogether bad. That remained to be proved, and ought not to be assumed. It was not likely that he should have disagreed with an honoured friend like the late Dean Champneys, without some strong reason touching his sense of duty. That was not the time or place to state all his reasons, some of which were of a very delicate and personal kind; but he might say that when a large sum of public money was to be placed at the disposal of any corporate body, the common sense of mankind required that body to fill up its vacancies, and make itself in every way as efficient as possible. The General Chapter of Lichfield had passed a resolution that the number of canonries ought to be raised to six, by the revival of the two which were now suspended. It was not the case, as the noble Lord had said, that he (the Bishop of Lichfield) was trying to impose his will upon the Dean and Residentiary Chapter; but that he was endeavouring to carry out the Resolution which the General Chapter had adopted, and to bring into operation the provisions of two Acts of Parliament for the revival of suspended Canonries.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.