Sitting of 11 August 1875

MINUTES.
Public BILLS—WITHDRAWN-crease of the Episcopate [110].
The House met at Two of the clock.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1871 AND 1873—PROSECUTIONS FOR UNSEA-WORTHY SHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. E. J. REED (for Mr. PLIMSOLL)asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he would explain to the House how it comes to pass that whereas 515 ships had been found to be unseaworthy on survey by Board of Trade officers, and 28 of them were found to be so bad that they were ordered to be broken up, that there were not more prosecutions for sending unseaworthy ships to sea under section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1871 and 1873, than two in Ireland; and, whether he intends in future to put that salutary Act into more vigorous use?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Question incorrectly assumes that there were not more than two prosecu-

851
tions tinder the 11th section of the Act of 1871. With reference to the 515 cases mentioned, the chief reason why more prosecutions have not been made is, that the section only provides for cases in which the owner or others actually send a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state. The Board of Trade have, under the 12th section of the Act of 1873, stopped ships from going to sea, thereby intercepting the offence which would come under the 11th section of the Act of 1871. There was a clause in the dropped Merchant Shipping Bill which has been passed in the Unseaworthy Ships Bill, elaborated and improved by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), by which the Board of Trade will be empowered to proceed against persons who attempt to send or take unseaworthy ships to sea. That, with improved legal machinery, will probably make the law much more effective in future.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1873—SEAMEN REFUSING TO GO TO SEA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. J. REED (for Mr. PLIMSOLL)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will be so good as to cause a circular to be sent to all magistrates' clerks and borough and county magistrates of seaport towns, again reminding them that they have the power now, when seamen are brought before them charged with refusing to go to sea, of ordering a survey, which will be made without expense to the borough funds, by the officers of the Board of Trade?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that a communication was made from the Home Office to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) some time ago that it was the intention of the Home Office to issue a circular of some kind, and he was in communication with the President of the Board of Trade as to the form it should take.

  UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL—DECK CARGOES.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. J. REED (for MR. PLIMSOLL)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, seeing that no provision is made in the Unseaworthy Ships Bill for prohibiting deck cargoes during the
  852
  next twelve months, he will endeavour, through the Foreign Office, to induce Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, and other exporting countries to prevent the loading of ships with deck cargoes?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, assuming it to be possible, which it probably is not, for the Governments of the countries referred to to legislate between this time and next winter, it would scarcely become this Government to suggest to them the legislation they should adopt. The suggestion of such legislation, if confined to British ships, would in effect be to ask those countries to impose on British shipping restrictions which they do not impose on their own. If not so confined, it would amount to an interference with the municipal law of those countries which could scarcely be justified. I, however, hope and believe foreign countries are taking steps in co-operation with this country for security against the improper loading of ships.

  IRELAND—INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION—MODEL SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WARDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, having regard to the Report of the Royal Commission in 1870 on Primary Education in Ireland, that "the Model Schools have failed to accomplish the objects of their institution, and that the cost of their further maintenance is not justified by the result produced," and their recommendation that the existing provincial Model Schools "should be gradually discontinued," Her Majesty's Government will give legal effect to the recommendations of the Commission; and, whether they will consider the advisability of applying the money now expended on the Model School system to the development of Intermediate Education in Ireland?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, no doubt, before the Government could propose any scheme in reference to intermediate education, it would be necessary to consider the position of the model schools. The Government would pay every possible attention to the recommendations which had been made by the Commissioners, but it was not the intention of the Government to give effect to them. He would add that the model schools were considered to be

  853
  of great importance in certain parts of Ireland, where they did, to a great extent, what was necessary for the purposes of secondary education.
  MR. WARDgave Notice that he would next Session draw attention to the Report of the Commissioners, in reference to intermediate education in Ireland.

  RAILWAY TRAINS—COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PASSENGERS AND GUARDS.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to insist upon Railway Companies complying with the Act of Parliament which requires "That an efficient means of communication shall be established between the passengers and guards of certain Railway trains;" whether, with a view to this result, the Board of Trade will fix a time at the expiration of which they will cause proceedings to be taken for the recovery of penalties under the Act against such Companies as have not by that time established "an efficient means of communication;" and, whether, as to certain trains, there is not a penalty incurred by Railway Companies for every compartment of every carriage where there is no communication, or where such communication is inefficient?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Board of Trade has no power to initiate any system of communication between passengers and guards in railway trains; and, although only three of the companies have had their systems of communication approved by the Board of Trade, it is not my intention, at present, to institute any proceedings against such companies as have not complied with the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, in this respect. The reason for this is that the whole question is now being considered by the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, under the presidency of the Duke of Buckingham, whose Report will, I hope, shortly be made; and any recommendations they may make on the subject shall have my anxious and immediate attention. The last paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's Question is one upon which I am unable to offer an opinion, and must be decided by a Court of Law.

POST OFFICE—THE TREASURY COMMISSION ON THE TELEGRAPHS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. J. REEDasked the Postmaster General, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the Documents sent in by Mr. Scudamore to the Treasury Committee on Telegraphs; and, whether Mr. Scudamore will be authorized to offer observations upon the Report of the Treasury Committee, and if such observations will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, the Report was made to the Treasury, and that he had no control over and documents sent in by the Committee. As to the second part of the Question, he had no doubt that any observations which Mr. Scudamore might offer upon that Report would be duly considered by the Treasury. He was unable, at present, to state whether the Paper could be laid on the Table of the House.

NAVY—REPORTED DISORDERS ON BOARD H.M.S. "TRIUMPH."

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. J. REEDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will inform the House what grounds exist for the statement that disorders had recently occurred on board Her Majesty's ship "Triumph?"
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that the reports which appeared in some of the newspapers during the last few days with regard to the Triumph, were scandalous fabrications. There was a slight substratum—very slight—for the report. Some of the dockyard police had, on one or two occasions, missiles—such as wedges of wood or bits of rope—thrown at them from the topgallant forecastle, and it had been ordered to be cleared. There had been an inquiry, and it was found there was no existence of bad feeling amongst the crew of the ship against the commander.

LANDED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. KAVANAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, having regard to the representations addressed

  855
  to the Government by persons interested in the sale and purchase of land, as well as by both branches of the legal profession in Ireland, in favour of appointing a second Judge to the Landed Estates Court, he will now state whether it is the intention of the Government to fill up the vacant judgeship?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, the Government have decided to advise Her Majesty to fill up at an early date the Judgeship now vacant of the Irish Landed Estates Court. It is intended, as soon as arrangements can be made for the purpose, and legislation on this subject will be proposed to Parliament early next Session, that the Judge to, be appointed, in addition to his share of the present work of the Landed Estates Court, shall perform other important duties connected with the same subject which are at present performed by another high legal official, whose office it will, consequently, be proposed to abolish.

LAW AND JUSTICE—DEGREE OF SER-JEANT-AT-LAW.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, under the New Judicature Act, the existence of the degree of Serjeant-at-Law will serve any public purpose; and, whether the Government have considered to whom, in the event of the Serjeants Inn claiming to be maintained, the title and property belong?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, in answer to the hon. Baronet, I have to state that, by the Judicature Act of 1873, it is provided that it shall not be necessary for a Judge of the Supreme Court to possess the qualification of being a Serjeant-at-Law, and that the new Judicature Act which has just passed in no way affects the position of a Serjeant-at-Law. Under these circumstances, the Question "whether the existence of the degree of Serjeant-at-Law will serve any public purpose "is one upon which the hon. Baronet is quite as qualified to form an opinion as I am. With reference to the second part of his Question, I can only state that, so far as I am aware, the Government have not considered "to whom, in the event of Serjeants Inn claiming to be maintained, the title and property belong."

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CASE OF ROBERT GORDON.—QUESTION.
MR. SHERRIFFasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the case of Robert Gordon, a child eight years of age, who for placing a few pebbles on the Midland Railway has been sentenced by the Reverend G. E. Gray, Chairman of the Alcester Bench of Magistrates, to one month's imprisonment and five years in a reformatory; and, whether he will make further inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and take such steps as he may deem necessary?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he had made an inquiry into the case. It was quite true that such a sentence was passed upon this boy, who did place eight pebbles upon the railway, and that, he need hardly say, was a very dangerous practice, and must be put a stop to. This boy had been several times cautioned, not for putting pebbles on the railway, but for throwing stones at trains when passing. The magistrates acted, he felt sure, upon a deep sense of responsibility of what they thought was right. He believed that one, if not two, of the boy's brothers had been sent to a reformatory, in order to remove them from the influence of their parents. In this case, however, the magistrates had exceeded their powers, as the boy, being under the age of 10 years, they were not justified in sending him to a reformatory except he had been previously charged for a like offence; and though it appeared he had been charged with a like offence by a police-constable, yet he had not been charged in the sense required by the Act of Parliament, and therefore he (Mr. Cross) had remitted that part of the sentence. He had himself a horror of sending children to prison. No doubt, the best thing that could have been done would have been to give the boy a sound whipping. He was in communication with the visiting justices as to what should be done with the boy, and he should be disposed to act upon their recommendations as to his release after a certain period.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CASE OF COLONEL BAKER.—QUESTION.
MR. EDWARD JENKINS (for Mr. MUNDELLA)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true, as stated in the following paragraph from the "Morning Post," that:—
"Colonel Baker was in the first instance placed in a different reception cell at Horse-monger Lane Gaol to the other prisoners, and throughout his term of punishment he will be kept separate from them. He is allowed to wear his own clothing, to buy his own food, to furnish his rooms—he has had two allotted to him—with what is reasonable, necessary, and not extravagant; to have wine at his own cost not exceeding one pint, or malt liquor not exceeding one quart, per day. He is not required to do any work, to clean his apartment, make his bed, or perform any menial office, all these being done for him by an officer of the prison. He may have any unobjectionable books or newspapers which he chooses. He may write or receive letters or papers, but these must in the first instance be examined or read by the governor. Lastly, he may see his friends in his apartment between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m."
and, if so, who is responsible for maintaining the discipline of the prison; and, whether the same regulations would apply to other criminals convicted of the same offence?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the last part of the Question first. By the Gaol Act, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 126, s. 67, in every prison to which the Act applies, prisoners convicted of a misdemeanour, and not sentenced to hard labour, are to be divided into two divisions, one to be called the first division; and whenever any person is convicted of misdemeanour and sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour, it is lawful for the Court or Judge before whom the prisoner is tried to order such prisoner to be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division, and not to be deemed a criminal prisoner within the meaning of the Act. When the learned Judge who tried this case sentenced the prisoner, and made out the warrant of commitment, it was stated in the warrant that he was to be considered as a first-class misdemeanant. He would therefore fall under the first division of misdemeanants who are not sentenced to hard labour; and, that being so, he would come under the ordinary prison rules, which were sanctioned long ago, the effect of which is to place the prisoner in the category of prisoners
858
alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member. The hon. Member will see that it is no question of action either on the part of the Home Office or on that of the visiting justices, but simply a question of law, the prisoner having been so sentenced.

METROPOLIS—LIGHTING OF ST. JAMES'S PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, considering that the enclosure of St. James's Park is now open long after dark in the winter months, he will take any measures for lighting the Park?
MR. W. H. smith,in reply, said, he had been desired, in the unavoidable absence of the First Commissioner of Works, to state that his noble Friend would give, during the Recess, his most anxious consideration to the question of the lighting of St. James's Park.

IRELAND—THE HARBOUR OF ARDGLASS.—QUESTION.
MR. J. ORMSBY GORE (for Lord EDWIN HILL-TREVOR)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Government will take any steps next Session to provide for the re-construction of the Harbour of Ardglass, in the county Down?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that a scheme had been prepared, and a Bill would be introduced next Session.

MERCANTILE MARINE—THE LOSS OF THE "COSPATRICK."

  QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps he proposes to take in order to carry out the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry held at Greenwich into the burning of the Emigrant Ship "Cospatrick," specially with regard to the proper stowage of the boats and the weekly exercise of the crews of both emigrant and passenger ships at fire and boat stations?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Court which inquired into the loss of the Cospatrick by fire made three recommendations. The first was, that in wooden vessels there should be bulkheads to cut off communication with the hold as in iron ships, and that has been

  859
  seen to as far as possible. The second was, that there should be better stowage of boats, and that they should not be stowed keel upwards. That point is under consideration of a Departmental Committee; but its decision has been delayed by the illness of Captain Forster, the chief Emigration Officer of the Board of Trade. The third was, that there should be a boat drill on board emigrant ships. To these recommendations we have called the attention of shipowners throughout the country; but, at the same time, I beg to state that we do not think it desirable that imperative orders should be issued for compliance with them, and much less that compliance with them should be enforced by special legislation directed to that end.

PARLIAMENT—THE PROROGATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNasked, Whether there would be a Sitting of the House to-morrow, and whether the House would meet on Friday?
  THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER,in reply, said, it would not be necessary to ask the House to meet tomorrow. The House would meet at 12 o'clock on Friday for the Prorogation.

  INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.— [BILL 110.]
  (Mr. Beresford Hope.)

  ORDER FOR COMMITTEE DISCHARGED. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  MR. BEEE8F0ED HOPEsaid, that, in consequence of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should move that the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Bill, which had been more than once on the Paper, should be read and discharged. He wished, at the same time, to express his thanks to the hon. Members for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) and Dundee (Mr. Edward Jenkins) for the great services they had rendered to his cause by the course they had taken on Monday night. There never had been a division on the main principle of the Bill until the hon. Member for Chelsea moved to substitute another day for that which he proposed for the postponement of the Bill. The
  860
  hon. Member for Dundee, not satisfied with the result of the division on that Amendment, challenged a division on the substantive Motion, and this was really taking a division on the principle of the Bill. That was a result for which he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had vainly looked, and for which he was much indebted to the hon. Members opposite.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no discussion on the merits of the Bill would be in Order on the present occasion.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would bow to the authority of the Chair, but would take the opportunity of giving Notice that it was his intention to raise the question again next year. A Petition signed by between 4,000 and 5,000 of the clergy had been presented in favour of the Bill, although in consequence of some ignorance of the Forms of the House the signatures of only about 1,000 could be received. The fact, however, remained that one-fourth of the clergy of England had formally declared their assent to the Bill. Next Session he should re-introduce it at the earliest possible moment, and if he could only then find as good a friend as the hon. Member for Dundee had been this year, he trusted that he might be able to pass this Bill.
  MR. MONKsaid, that having voted in the minority the other night, he begged to state that he was as much in favour of an increase in the Episcopate as his hon. Friend the Member for the Cambridge University; but he thought the question had never been fully considered by the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that any debate on the Bill would be entirely out of Order.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

SEA WALL, SHEERNESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. J. REEDasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has received a Memorial from some of the inhabitants of Sheerness relative to the unsafe condition of the sea wall in front of Marine Town; and, whether any steps have been taken by his department in the matter?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he had received such a Memorial. It came before him in connection with a proposal of the Local Board of Sheer-ness to construct an esplanade on a portion of the sea wall repairable by the War Office. The War Office naturally objected to repair that portion of the wall which they were not liable to repair, but which should be done by other parties, and the matter was still under consideration, and he was waiting for another communication from the Local Board.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.— [Lords.]

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I understand, Sir, that the Lords' Amendments are merely formal, and having supported this Bill throughout, as containing a principle which I have long desired to see enacted by Parliament; that principle being the reversal of the hitherto presumption of law, which was against compensation to tenants for unexhausted improvements, I am anxious to make one or two observations. I have long thought that, in the present state of agriculture, justice demands that the principle of the law should favour a claim for compensation for his improvements on the part of the tenant, owing to the extent to which improvements in agriculture have been carried during the last 40 years, and by reason of the large amount of capital which it has become necessary for the tenant to employ in order to effect these improvements. But I own that I do not view the frame of this Bill without some apprehension; and I think it highly important, for the sake of the good understanding which has hitherto existed between the landlords and tenantry of England, that the operation of this Bill should at once be explained and understood. I do not intend to attempt that task myself on the present occasion; but having been friendly for so many years to the principle of this Bill, I wish to point to one or two circumstances connected with its framing and to one or two matters connected with its probable operation. The Bill is an "enabling" Bill. The Bill is a "permissive" Bill; but, at the same time, its permissive character is qualified by two circumstances; and the first of
  862
  these circumstances is, that under the Bill action on the part either of the landlord or the tenant to maintain for themselves the right of free contract, or in order to exempt themselves from its operation, is necessary, and that this action must be taken within the very limited period of two months after the statute comes into operation. It is most important that that should be clearly understood throughout the country. Well, Sir, there are certain omissions from the Bill, which I endeavoured to supply; with this object, I moved a clause, by which the manure made upon the farm would have been declared to be the property of the tenant, and this manure is the chief instrument for the fertilization of the farm. I am, therefore, of opinion that if, at the conclusion of his tenancy, the tenant is found to have provided a store of manure, he ought to be compensated for any provision in that form which he may leave upon the holding for the future cultivation of the farm. Unfortunately, however, as I think, the House by a small majority rejected that Amendment; I regret this the more, because it appears to me that the Bill in some of its provisions points in the opposite direction. It seems to point towards the manure being the absolute property of the landlord; and my experience tells me, that under these conditions this will be found a void inheritance—void, that is, of the elements necessary for the future cultivation of the farm. But there is another provision omitted from the Bill, which I ventured to suggest to the House, but which the House did not accept. There is no power under this Bill, although it extends the period of notice to quit to double the former period; from six months to a year, which in practice, from the use of fixed dates for quitting, may become two years; there is no power, I say, under the Bill for the landlord to enter for the purpose of preventing waste; waste, that is, on the part of the tenant, in case of his death on the part of his executors. Now, I hold that "prevention is better than cure; "and although we have provided penalties against waste, the experience of those who are intimately and practically acquainted with the management of landed estates, as I have been repeatedly assured, is that this omission of all power of entry after notice to quit is a serious defect in the Bill, There is

  863
  also an objection, which was raised by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), that the provisions of this Bill, where it extends to saddle the estate with a charge for compensation for unexhausted improvements, some of them possibly of a very costly nature, are such that they may entail serious difficulties and future litigation among remainder interests and incumbrancers. I cannot think that adequate provision has been made in this respect; and in proof of that opinion I will read to the House the Resolutions of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the improvement of land, the recommendations adopted by that Committee at the close of the Session of 1873. This was a very competent Committee, presided over by the Marquess of Salisbury, and its Report has been communicated to this House—

  "1. Limited owners, with the consent of trustees, shall he empowered to spend trust mo upon the improvement of their estates, on redeemable mortgage.

  "2. Limited owners may charge their estates with improvements; the charge to redeem-able within a period exceeding by ten years the owner's expectation of life; so that no such term may in any case he less than twenty-five years, or more than forty."

  "3. [And this is very important.] An improvement to he charged as above, with consent of trustees, on certificate from a surveyor approved by the Inclosure Commissioners or the Court of Chancery, that it is beneficial to the estate, and that the works have been properly carried out."

  Now, there is no such provision as this contained in this Bill.
  "4. That where the limited owner acts with the consent of the tenant-in-tail, being of full age, the certificate of a surveyor may be dispensed with, unless refused by incumbrancers after notice given; and the repayment of charge may be spread over a period of forty years."
  But there are no such precautions in this Bill; no precautions for giving notice to the parties interested, either in remainder or as incumbrancers.
  "5. Trustees to have liberty to defend the inheritance either at law or in Parliament, with leave of the Court of Chancery first obtained, and to he allowed to charge on the estate costs approved by the Court."
  Now, the provisions of this Bill not only do not include any precautions of this kind, but they absolutely preclude appeal from the decisions of the County Court, a provision not likely satisfactorily to settle complicated questions connected with real property; and yet
  864
  the Bill thus passed the House of Lords, notwithstanding the recommendations made by their Select Committee in 1873. I will not further detain the House than to say that this is eminently a measure in exposition of which, to the public and to the unlearned, it is most desirable that a digest should be prepared by some competent lawyer—after the manner of the summary digest of testamentary law—which, as produced by the late Lord St. Leonards, has conferred such benefits upon the country, I have ventured to offer these few observations to the House as the result of some knowledge of the relations and feelings of the agricultural community and the requirements of the landed interest; and, because I believe, as the period of two months only is given for the permissive action of this Bill, after it comes into operation, it is essential that the agricultural and landowning community—indeed, all persons who are interested in the land—should at once be made aware of the provisions of this measure, and of the need of prompt action, as well as caution, in deciding either to accept in full or in part, or to reject the operation of this Bill.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS. REPORT.
  Resolution [9th August] reported.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that after carefully considering the statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India and the discussion which took place on it, he never was more convinced than he now was that there were many things connected with the finances of India which particularly required careful investigation. He thought they ought to receive more precise information in the next Financial Statement. The question of expenditure was of very great importance. If they were told what the Extraordinary Expenditure was they should also be told what the Extraordinary Receipts were. The accounts also were deficient in this—that whilst they showed what the increase of the Revenue was, they did not show whether that increase was real or only nominal. If the occasion permitted it, he could show that in one instance where the Revenue had increased, the cost of collecting it

  865
  had increased in a greater proportion. He wished to know whether the increase of the Army expenditure was due to any action on the part of the War Office. He gave Notice that next Session, with the view of securing an earlier and a more complete discussion of the Indian Budget, he should move, on the earliest possible day, the following Resolution:—
  "That this House, considering it important that it should devote an adequate amount of attention to Indian affairs, is of opinion that it is desirable that Public Business should he arranged, so that it will not he necessary to postpone the Indian Budget until almost the close of the Session."
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he would admit that it was desirable, if it could be conveniently done, that the Indian Budget should be discussed earlier in the Session; but, still, he thought that the inconvenience arising from the present course of proceeding was exaggerated. The complaint as to the lateness at which the Indian Budget was brought on was made against every Administration; in fact, it might be called an annual growl. The only object in having the discussion earlier was, that there might be a full House; but he was afraid that could not be secured, because the affairs of India were not administered by the House, but by the Indian Council, and public functionaries, and because the Indian Budget was only brought forward for discussion, without any decision being come to upon it.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought it only right and just that the affairs of India should be discussed when there was a full attendance of hon. Members. There was a vast population of India which took a deep interest in this discussion, and these matters ought to be reviewed earlier in the Session. But as the Legislature of England had seen fit to set aside the East India Company, which had acquired India, and had for so many years administered the Government of India, it was incumbent on the Legislature to provide for the discussion to which the new Government ought to be subjected, by finding time for doing so. And as regarded the duties entrusted to the Council of India, it was only just that the Parliament which created these duties should ascertain how they were fulfilled.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr.
  866
  Fawcett) had asked him whether the increase of the Army expenditure was due to any action of the War Office? There were two items of increase which were rendered necessary in consequence of certain alterations made at the War Office—one of which was the increase of the pay of officers of Artillery, who had by a Royal Warrant been promoted to the rank of major; and the other was a small addition to the pay of privates, necessary in consequence of certain alterations made by Lord Card-well. He stated the other night the reasons why the Budget was brought on so late; and though, no doubt, it was somewhat unfortunate that it should be the last Business which the Government transacted, yet its postponement this year had been attended with this advantage, that he had been able to receive a forecast of the Public Works expenditure. The discussion turned mainly upon that expenditure, and had the Budget been brought forward earlier in the Session, they would not have had the information of which they were able to avail themselves the other night. He thought that inconvenience arose from postponing observations upon a variety of Indian topics until the Financial Statement was made, when it was almost impossible to reply accurately to the obervations which were made. He hoped, therefore, that another year hon. Members who wished to call attention to Indian matters which were not connected with finance would do so apart from the Budget; and then the discussion upon Indian Finance could be more satisfactorily conducted.
  Resolution agreed to.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th July], "That the Amendments made by the Lords to the Offences against the Person Bill be now taken into Consideration."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that one of the Amendments of the Lords was a

  867
  purely technical one, and he should move to agree to it. As the Bill originally stood, the age at which protection was given to young girls was 14, but at the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Recorder of London 13 was inserted instead. The Lords, however, in consequence of some misunderstanding—he believed in reference to putting the Question—had struck out the 4th clause of the Bill, and thereby reduced the age to 12. Lord Lyttelton moved, in the Upper House, to restore the age of 14, but his Motion was negatived. Lord Redesdale then put the Question—" That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," and said that "The Not Contents had it," and thus, to the surprise of many noble Lords, Clause 4 was struck out, rendering the Bill quite useless. He would move that the House should disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he thought that there was no misunderstanding whatever in connection with the decision in the Lords, and as the House had agreed to the Lords Amendments in every other Bill, he saw no reason why they should doubt their judgment on a legal and moral question of the character involved in Clause 4. He, therefore, hoped that their Amendment would be agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sorry, and he thought justly so, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charley) had been somewhat hardly treated in connection with the Bill, because it had been many times down upon the Paper without there being a discussion upon it. As he (Mr. Charley) had said, the age originally was 14; many hon. Members wanted it to be 12; and a compromise was effected by inserting 13. That was an age which was very familiar from being mentioned in several statutes—as, for example, in the Factory Acts, the Elementary Education Act, as the age at which childhood ended; and the compromise having been come to with the general assent of the House, he did not think that because they agreed to some of their Lordships' wise Amendments they should agree to those which were unwise.
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment agreed, to; one disagreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to "be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to
  868
  the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. CHARLEY, Mr. CAWLEY, Sir GEORGE BOWYER, Mr. MELLOR, Mr. WHIT-WELL, Mr. MARLING, Mr. DYKE, and Mr. ROWLAND WINN:—To withdraw immediately; Three to he the quorum.
  Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To he communicated to The Lords.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHmoved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Friday at 12 o'clock, observing that there was no Business of any kind on the Paper for Thursday.
  MR. O'LEARYcalled attention to the lamentable failure of the Irish Public Health Act, which passed last Session, though he admitted that that Act was conceived in a very excellent spirit. He had to complain that the Act had not been adequately carried out in Ireland by the local sanitary authorities; that there were at least 500,000 persons in Ireland living in miserable hovels; that the ventilation and water supply were bad; and the medical sanitary officers performed their duties negligently. The medical officers excused themselves on the ground that they were not sufficiently remunerated by the local authorities, and unless something was done before the House re-assembled to satisfy their demands, there was a probability that these gentlemen would sign a round robin, and refuse to perform the duties which the Act imposed upon them. In that event, he need hardly say, the most deplorable consequences must ensue.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, that if the Irish Poor Law medical officers were not properly remunerated, it was the fault, not of the Local Government Board, but of the local authorities. The matter, however, would not be lost sight of. Speaking generally, so far as the Government had been able to form an opinion of the working of the Act, which had been in operation only two months, it was working exceedingly well, and was doing a vast amount of good. It was too soon to form any definite opinion upon the subject.
  MR. M'LARENcomplained that Scotland, whilst contributing in taxation towards the payment of Sanitary Inspectors for England and Ireland, received

  869
  nothing from the National Funds for the payment of Sanitary Inspectors in Scotland.
  MR. WARDsaid, the remuneration allowed by the Guardians to be paid to medical men was totally inadequate for the duties they performed, and would prevent the Act from being effectually carried out,
  MR.REUSSELL GURNEYrose to Order, and inquired whether the hon. Member was entitled to speak on a question which was not technically before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: This discussion is, no doubt, most unusual. The House has disposed of all the Orders of the Day, and of the various Motions of which Notice has been given; and a Motion having been made that the House on rising do adjourn until Friday, the hon. Member for Drogheda has raised this discussion. I cannot say that it is not open to the hon. Member to bring forward a grievance on such an occasion; but the course which has been adopted would, if usually followed, be productive of the greatest inconvenience.

SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—H.M.S. "JACKAL."

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the Secretary of the Admiralty, If he could give any further information relative to H.M.S. "Jackal?"
  MR. a. F. EGERTONsaid, that the officer in command of the Jackal had reported, in reference to the allegation that he had failed to render assistance to fishermen off the Scotch Coast when they were in peril on Friday, 30th July, that after watching the weather he was of opinion there was no immediate reason for apprehension for the safety of the fishing boats in question, and that he believed the application for assistance was made to him by the fish-curers more with the view of getting the fish speedily conveyed to the shore than of their requiring aid. He therefore saw no occasion for it, and did not consider them good authorities on the subject. The Jackal was lying in the part of the harbour which was assigned to her by the authorities of the harbour.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock till Friday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Legal Practitioners* (238); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Local Authorities Loans* (276); Sheriff Substitute (Scotland)* (281); Remission of Penalties* (275).
Third Reading—National School Teachers (Ire-laud)* (258); Unseaworthy Ships (265); Public Works Loans (266); Sanitary Law (Dublin) Amendment (259); National School Teachers Residences (Ireland)* (274), and passed.
Royal Assent—County Surveyors Superannuation (Ireland) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 56]; Public Works Loans (Money) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 58]; Pharmacy [38 & 39 Vict. c. 57]; Friendly Societies [38 & 39 Vict. c. 60]; Public Health [38 & 39 Vict. c. 55]; Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867, Amendment [38 & 39 Vict. c. 59]; Statute Law Revision [38 & 39 Vict. c. 66]; Entail Amendment (Scotland) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 61]; Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 62]; Sale of Food and Drugs [38 & 39 Vict. c. 63]; Government Officers (Security) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 64]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) 38 & [39 Vict. c. 65]; Department of Science and Art [38 & 39 Vict. c. 68]; Militia Laws
848
Consolidation and Amendment [38 & 39 Vict. c. 69]; Chimney Sweepers [38 & 39 Vict. c. 70]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act Amendment [38 & 39 Vict. c. 71]; Expiring Laws Continuance [38 & 39 Viet. c. 72]; East India Home Government (Appointments) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 73]; Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment [38 & 39 Vict. c. 74]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment [38 & 39 Viet. c. 75]; Ecclesiastical Fees Redistribution [38 & 39 Vict. c. 76]; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 67]; Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment (No. 2) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 77]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Leyton, &c.) [38 & 39 Vict. c. cxciii]; Traffic Regulation (Dublin) [38 & 39 Vict. c. cxcv]; Turnpike Acts Continuance [38 & 39 Vict. c. cxciv].

UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.
(The Lord President.)
(NO. 265.) THIRD READING.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved an Amendment in the 4th sub-section of Clause 4, the object of which was to apportion the penalty of £500 for non-registration of managing owner among the owners of the ship in proportion to their shares in the ownership.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSPIRACY, AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BILL.
Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments considered (according to Order).
LORD DENMANobjected to one of the Commons Amendments, which took away the right of being tried by indictment at the Quarter Sessions, as contained in the 5th clause of the Bill, and urged that an appeal to the Quarter Sessions would answer every purpose, but only for cases under £20.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble Friend misapprehended the object of the Amendment. The Bill, as it went down to the Commons, provided that a person breaking a contract involving injury to property might be liable to a penalty of £20 or upwards, with or without imprisonment. The original words were "not exceeding £20," and they were altered to "amounting to £20," no very important alteration.
Commons Amendments agreed to.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill would afford a remedy to the unfortunate Father O'Keeffe, whoso house was besieged by persons against whom hitherto he had no remedy. He hoped advantage would be taken of its provisions in Mr. O'Keeffe's case.

LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL. [H.L.]

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
  LORD DENMANcongratulated the House and the country on the passing of the Bill. He alluded to Mr. Henry Drummond having introduced two Bills for facilitating the sale of land, neither of which was to have been compulsory. In speaking of the first in 1849, the hon. Gentleman said—
  "If the registration be voluntary, it gives the opportunity of feeling our way, of commencing with a few books, and a small office, and a moderate establishment of clerks, all of which can be enlarged as business increases."—[3 Hansard, ciii. 329.]
  On the other Bill, in 1853, the hon. Member said—
  "What I wish is to have a registration of titles, which is totally different from a registration of deeds, and allusion was made to a Bill which was supposed to have passed both Houses of Parliament, but stopped by a Dissolution. It was, indeed, stopped by a Dissolution, but had only gone through the House of Lords, and through a Committee of the House of Commons in 1739. At length, legislation was effected, and he wished that though voluntary it might be generally adopted."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORconcurred with his noble Friend as to the advantages likely to result from the Bill. Any measure for the registration of land titles must be a voluntary measure, at all events for a time. Those who advocated a compulsory measure would do well to explain the form in which it could be made effective. No form had hitherto been proposed in which it could be made effective. With regard to the Amendments, he was bound to say that the House of Commons had dealt with great leniency with the Bill. The Amendments made by that House were few, and almost verbal, and he did not offer any objection to them.
  Commons Amendments agreed to.

  SANITARY LAW (DUBLIN) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 259.)
  (The Lord President.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF EICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, its object was to secure funds for the main drainage of Dublin in the event of the Corporation obtaining, by means of a Local and Personal Bill, such powers as might be necessary to enable them to avail themselves of its provisions.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned at half past Three o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.