Sitting of 22 July 1875

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Banks of Issue [No. 351].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—National School Teachers (Ireland) * [223]; Justices of the Peace Qualification * [151].
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (England) (re-comm.) [222]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Salmon Fishery Act Provisional Order (Taw and Torridge) * [247]; Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867, Amendment * [233]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment * [250].
Third Reading—Conspiracy and Protection of Property * [260]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c * [216], and passed.
Withdrawn—Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (re-comm.) [116]; Patents for Inventions * [133]; Statute Law Revision (Ireland) * [199]; Imprisonment for Debt (No. 2) * [134].

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—OVERLOADED SHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. T. E. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any officer of the Board of Trade at outports, without reference to grade, has power to stop a ship as overloaded; and, if not, how the captain of a ship can tell that an officer claiming such power is duly authorised; and, whether, considering that the salaries of these officers are paid out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, and that great loss and discredit falls upon a shipowner whose ship is unjustly detained, he cannot devise some system by which such powers should only be exercised by a class of officers superior to those at present employed, and who should show to the captain their general authority from the Board of Trade to act in such cases?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, no officer of the Board of Trade at out-ports has, with or without authority from the Board in this case, power or means to stop a ship as overloaded. The Act only gives the Board of Trade power, on receiving information from their officers, to order officers of Customs, acting under their express directions, to stop ships duly reported to them, and notice of such directions is at the same time given to the master or owner of the ship. I am considering the question of appointing officers of a higher grade at certain ports, who might exercise a superintending power over the surveyors of a district. But I do not think that, without a further Act I could delegate to any local officer the power to stop a ship. As to the last part of the Question, I should be glad if Parliament would in any way mitigate the extreme difficulty of the task it imposes on the Board of Trade; and I am astonished at the few mistakes the Board has made; indeed, the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) has often stated the fact that of all ships detained scarcely any have been proved seaworthy. This proves the care with which the guilty have been prosecuted, without harassing the well-conducted trade.
MR. T. E. SMITHexplained that the word he used was "detained," and the right hon. Gentleman spoke of ships being "stopped." As a matter of experience ships were detained while communications were made to the Board of Trade. He should repeat his Question another day.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had not misapprehended the hon. Member. Stopping and detaining were exactly the same, and there was no power given by any Act of Parliament to the Board of Trade to delegate the power of stopping or detaining any ship whatever.
MR. NORWOODasked the right hon. Gentleman to give some assurance that in future when superior officers boarded a ship to detain her, they should be required to produce an authority to the captain showing they were acting in proper form.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he saw no objection whatever to the telegraphic or other order being shown to the master of the ship. It was usually done, he thought; and, if not, it ought to be.

THE SUNDAY ACT—THE BRIGHTON AQUARIUM, &c.—QUESTION.
MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can state to the House what course he intends to adopt in regard to the Act (21 George 3, c. 49) under which the Brighton Aquarium and similar places of recreation are closed on Sunday?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to ask leave to-morrow to introduce a short Bill to remedy the temporary inconvenience arising from prosecutions which had been, or might be, brought under the Act in question.

INDIA—RAILWAY COMMUNICATION—THE EUPHRATES LINE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the rapidly growing importance of the Central Asian question, and the advance of Russia towards India, as also the essential value to this Country of an alternative route to India,
  1810
  demonstrated by the evidence taken two years ago by a Select Committee of this House on the Euphrates Line of Railway, presided over by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who drew up the Report, Her Majesty's Government contemplate taking any steps towards carrying out the recommendations of that Select Committee?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I should be very glad to see a line, joining the two seas, referred to by my hon. Friend; but I hesitate—and probably shall continue to hesitate—to guarantee a great expenditure for that purpose—certainly not less than £10,000,000—in a foreign country; especially, so far as I can judge from the evidence taken before the Select Committee, as the line could never pay. In summer neither troops nor passengers can be moved, and they appear to be the only traffic that would probably be conveyed.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONgave Notice that, at the earliest opportunity, he would call attention to the subject, and move a Resolution.

INDIA—CAVALRY SERVICE IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SHUTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the apparent hardship of retaining Cavalry Regiments twelve years in India, whilst it is usual to keep Infantry Regiments in that country only ten years, during two of which they are quartered on the hills in Bengal; which relief from tropical heat is not available to the Cavalry in consequence of the paucity of forage and water at hill stations; and, whether the Cavalry service in India might not now with facility be reduced to eight years, in consequence of the number of Dragoon Regiments doing duty in that country having been reduced to eight instead of twelve, as when the present length of service was fixed, thus compensating them for not having (as with Infantry) two years on the hills?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that this question had been under the consideration of the Department as far back as 1873. As at present arranged, Infantry regiments remained 12 years in India. There being nine Cavalry regiments in India, they served between 11 and 12 years; but, as one regiment

  1811
  returned home every season, the term of service abroad would soon be reduced to 10 years, at which it was proposed to fix it.

TURKEY—CHRISTIAN CONVERTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If, notwithstanding the statement of the British Ambassador at Constantinople early last year,
  "That orders were already issued for the release of the persecuted Christian converts who were being treated as Moslem convicts,"
  seized in the neighbourhood of Latakia and at Marash, the men had not at the date of last advices been restored to their families, but were either in exile, cut off from all means of self support, or serving as drudges in the Army without pay or clothing?
  MR. BOURKE: The form in which the right hon. Gentleman has put this Question makes it difficult to answer with that accuracy I should desire. I have looked through all the despatches of the British Ambassador at Constantinople of last year, and cannot find in them the statement which has been placed upon the Notice Paper in inverted commas, as if it were a quotation from a despatch—
  "That orders were already issued for the release of the persecuted Christian converts who were being treated as Moslem convicts."
  Perhaps, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will refer me to the date of the despatch from which he has quoted, and I will make inquiries into the subject. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has been misled, and has quoted from some other statement than the despatch of the Ambassador. The second part of the Question mixes up distinct cases which have engaged the attention of the Government, which have no similarity, and which have been dealt with at different times, different places, and upon different principles. With regard to the case of the Ansairiyeh conscripts, their discharge from the Army was originally promised on the representation of the British Embassy under the belief that they had been illegally taken for the Army, and were being subjected to persecution as Christians. Subsequently it was maintained by the Porte that these men were not
  1812
  illegally or improperly enrolled in the Army, and they have been placed in a regiment in which men of all religious denominations are serving. As regards the case at Marash, that was the case of a convert who was in danger in his native village from having become a Christian, and in consequence of that danger he was removed to Constantinople, and afterwards to Smyrna. The man was perfectly at liberty at Smyrna to go wherever he pleased, and his family was allowed to be with him; the only condition the authorities had made with regard to him being that he should not return to his native village of Marash, because they were afraid that his personal safety could not be secured in that place. Papers will be laid upon the Table upon the subject, in which all the particulars of both these cases will be found.

POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS—THE LATE NEWCASTLE RACES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Post-master General, Whether it be the fact that a special telegraph wire was carried to the racecourse at the recent Newcastle meeting, but that this was not done for the convenience of the general public, but only for those few who chose to pay a high admission fee to get into the betting ring; and, whether he will in future in granting such facilities make it a rule of the service to stipulate that the office shall be so placed as to be available to the general public attending the meeting, so that a great public department may not be open to the charge of giving special encouragement to betting?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that at the recent Newcastle meeting the office used was that in which the old telegraph companies formerly transacted business at the Grand Stand. The office was the property of the Grand Stand Company, and it was lent to the Department free. He believed it to be an inconvenient office, and not readily accessible to the outside public, although he was informed that upon the occasion in question one message, if not more, was handed in from the outside. Communication had from time to time taken place with the Grand Stand Company, with the view of improving the accommodation, and he hoped that before the

  1813
  next race meeting took place such improvement would be effected. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Department were of opinion that in the Grand Stand offices proper accommodation should be provided for the general public, and for the future it had no intention of occupying any new office which was not readily accessible to the general public.

IRELAND—RIOTS AT CALLAN—FATHER O'KEEFFE.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, To explain the course taken by the Government at the Kilkenny Assizes in the case of the prisoners indicted for riot at Callan, and to state whether a nolle prosequi was entered on the part of the Crown in consequence of the non-attendance of witnesses for the prosecution; and, whether these witnesses had been bound over to prosecute in the usual form; why, if so, seeing that it is admitted there had been a serious breach of the peace, the trial of the prisoners was not postponed, and steps taken to enforce the attendance of the witnesses?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the action of the Government in this matter was confined to the usual course of deciding that a prosecution should be instituted, and in pursuance of that decision witnesses were bound over to prosecute in the usual form. The Bill was sent up to the Grand Jury at the Kilkenny Assizes, and when it came before the consideration of the Grand Jury it contained four counts, and upon two of these counts material evidence was not forthcoming, because the care-taker of the chapel, whose evidence, in the absence of Father O'Keeffe, had been relied upon, to show the amount of damage which had been done, although he was at the time in the town of Kilkenny, did not choose to answer the summons to attend as a witness. The Grand Jury were, therefore, unable to return a true bill upon the most important counts in the indictment. The conduct of the prosecution was, as was always the case, in the hands of the learned counsel who were engaged by the Crown, one of whom on this occasion happened to be a very eminent member of the Irish Bar—Mr. Serjeant Armstrong. Finding the bill had only been partly
1814
returned, the counsel for the Crown, in the exercise of their discretion, entered a nolle prosequi, believing that, as the evidence on which they principally relied was not forthcoming, it would not be advisable to proceed with the remaining counts of the indictment. It was better to enter a nolle prosequi, as a fresh prosecution might, if it were thought advisable, be instituted at the next Assizes. He might add that Father O'Keeffe himself wrote to the Crown solicitor some few days before the Assizes, and expressed his own desire, so far as he was concerned, that the prosecution should not be proceeded with, and that it might be withdrawn.

RIVERS POLLUTION—DESTRUCTION OF FISH IN THE RIBBLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HERMONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the destruction of food in the shape of fish, the pollution of water, and the injury to the health of the people, owing to the impurities carried into the Kibble from the Calder and Darwen; and, what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he had seen an account of what he must call a deplorable destruction of salmon in the Ribble, in consequence of cinders, sawdust, and other refuse which had been thrown into the river. He was not aware of what remedy the owner of the fishery might have against the parties who had caused that destruction; but the part he had taken in the matter was simply this—He had inserted in the Pollution of Rivers Bill a clause which would render the throwing into rivers such pollution an offence under that Bill, and if it pleased the House to pass it, such an evil would be provided against in the future.

EAST INDIA OFFICERS' COMPENSATION COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Despatch addressed to the Government of India carrying out the recommendations of the East India Officers' Compensation Committee,

1815
or to communicate the substance of it to the House; and, when effect is likely to be given to the recommendations of the Committee?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, he had no objection to communicate to the House the despatch referred to by the hon. Member, but he thought it would be better to wait till they received the answer of the Governor General of India. Assuming that reply to be favourable, the Secretary of State would at once take steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.

INDIA—THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE KING OF BURMAH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the Correspondence relating to the differences which had arisen between the King of Burmah and the Indian Government, promised by him on the 21st of June, will be produced; and, whether it would be still detrimental to the public interests to furnish Parliament with some authentic official information as to the character and issue of the recent negotiations with the King of Burmah?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, he did not promise to lay the Papers upon the Table of the House on the 21st of June, but on that day he undertook that Papers should be laid upon the Table relating to those differences when they could be published without detriment to the public service. Negotiations were not at present concluded, and therefore he thought it would be inadvisable to lay Papers upon the Table of the House which contained only incomplete, and consequently misleading, information. Neither could he state distinctly when they would be laid upon the Table. In reply to the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff), on July 8, he stated that the differences which had arisen between the Government of India and the King of Burmah were satisfactorily settled with the exception of one, and he added that he hoped that would be amicably disposed of. He had nothing to add to that Answer, except that the hope which he then expressed, was, and continued to be, well founded.

COUNTY COURTS—IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT—CASE OF WILLIAM SMALL-BONE.—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLES LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the case of William Smallbone, who was on the 30th of October 1874 committed to prison by the Judge of the County Court of Farnham for an alleged contempt of court for non-payment of a sum of £63 11 s. 6d. costs recovered by the plaintiff in an equity suit in such County Court; that the said Smallbone, a farm labourer upwards of 72 years of age, suffered continuous imprisonment under such order until the 2nd day of July 1875, when he was discharged out of custody by order of Mr. Baron Huddlestone; whether such imprisonment of Smallbone for over eight months was legal, having regard to the Acts for Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt; and, whether he will insert in the County Courts Bill, now pending in this House, provisions for the purpose of preventing any such imprisonment being ordered by County Court Judges in future?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, in consequence of the Notice of my hon. Friend I have made inquiries into the case of William Smallbone, and believe the facts of the case to be as follows:—Smallbone was defendant in a suit in Equity, instituted by his brother's widow and devisee, to compel him to convey upon the trusts of his brother's will a certain small property, purchased from Smallbone by his brother, and paid for, but which had not been conveyed though possession had been given. Smallbone not only defended this suit, but was prosecuting an action of ejectment for the recovery of the same land from his brother's widow. The decision, which was pronounced in April, 1874, was adverse to Smallbone; he was decreed to convey the land, and pay the plaintiff's costs. He conveyed the land, but, not having paid the costs, he was summoned in September to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt; on the 16th of that month he appeared and stated that he was about to sell some property out of the produce of which he intended to pay the costs. The Judge found him guilty of contempt; but, in consequence of his statement, directed that the warrant for his com-

1817
mittal should not be executed if within one month he paid £30 and the balance within two months. Not having paid any portion of the costs, he was on the 30th of October committed to Winchester Gaol. In February he applied, through his solicitor, to the Judge for his discharge, on the grounds of ill-health and inability to pay, and it was then admitted that the property which he had expressed his intention to sell, though worth £300, had been sold to his brother for £200, out of which £100 was retained by his brother for an alleged debt, and £80 was paid to his solicitor in discharge of his, the defendant's, costs. The Judge thereupon adjourned the hearing of the application to enable the defendant to make some reasonable offer, but, none being made, Small-bone remained in prison until the 2nd of the present month, when he was discharged by an order of Mr. Baron Huddlestone, on the ground of his age, ill-health, and inability to pay. Such, as I am informed, are the facts of the case; and, whatever opinion may be entertained as to the conduct of Smallbone, I am bound to state that, in my opinion, his imprisonment was contrary to law. All parties concerned—Judge, registrar, counsel, and solicitors—were apparently forgetful of the provisions of the Debtors Act of 1869. It is still more strange that the mistake which had been made was not discovered when the parties were before Mr. Baron Huddlestone, as the defendant was not discharged from prison on the ground of any illegality or irregularity in his committal, but, as I have already stated, upon grounds which were quite consistent with its, perfect legality and regularity. I may add that the Judge, by whom Smallbone was thus committed, has held his office for 10 years, during which time he has discharged his duties with great ability, and to the general satisfaction of those transacting business in his Courts; the present is the only committal for contempt in Equity ordered by him, though he has disposed of considerably more than 100 suits. No one can regret more than he does the mistake that has been made; at the same time, it is to be observed that, if those conducting Small-bone's defence had drawn the attention of the Judge to the state of the law, the irregular order could hardly have been made, or, if made, would have been
1818
immediately and successfully appealed against.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Patents for Inventions Bill this Session?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, in the present state of the Business of the House, I fear that I should have but very little chance of making any useful progress with this Bill. I therefore propose to move at the proper time that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged, and I shall do this with the less regret, as I feel that the time and attention which, during the present Session, has been given to the subject by those eminently qualified to deal with it will materially and the eventual passing of a useful measure.

DOMINION OF CANADA—BOARD OF VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COOPEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to the option granted in Canada to the payers of School Rates of selecting as to the application of their payments either to Board or to Voluntary Schools; and, whether he is prepared to take steps to assimilate the practice here, and to allow the same privilege to ratepayers as is enjoyed by those in Canada?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, my attention, I need hardly assure my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex, has been called to the manner in which schools are supported in Canada. The point, however, to which his Question refers is so large and important a one that I trust my hon. Friend will excuse me if I say that I do not think it advisable for me to enter upon it in those brief terms in which it is necessary for the convenience of the House that replies to Questions should be given.
  MR. COOPE: While I thank my noble Friend for his courtesy, I beg to give Notice that, early next Session, I will take an opportunity of bringing the question before the House.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN NOLANasked the honourable Member for North Warwickshire, If, considering the advanced period of the Session, and the fact that many Irish Members desire to be in Dublin during the first week in August for the O'Connell Centenary, he would consent not to take, on the 4th of August, the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill now fixed for that date?
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I should be happy to consult the convenience of the Irish Members in any manner I could; but considering what I have seen in the newspapers respecting the uses to be made of the Centenary, it is rather hard to ask me to contribute to its success. I remember Mr. O'Connell in this House, and I must follow his example upon the only occasion on which I was ever brought into communication with him. I was deputed in 1846 to ask what course with regard to the interests of Irish agriculture he would take upon the commercial measures then proposed by Sir Robert Peel. He received my communication with the utmost courtesy, but declined to give any answer.

MISCARRIAGE OF PAROCHIAL RECORDS.—QUESTION.
MR. KAVANAGH (for Mr. BRUEN)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is true that a considerable portion of the parochial records of the united diocese of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin, comprising registers of births, deaths, and marriages for upwards of a century, has lately been lost in transit from the Irish Church Commissioners to the Diocesan Registrar of that diocese; whether that loss was owing to an insufficient and incorrect address having been placed by the Commissioners on the box containing those documents; whether the documents were sold as unclaimed goods at a public auction in Dublin by order of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, and bought as waste paper by a Mr. James Ganly; and, if the above statement is substantially correct, whether any steps have been taken, or will be taken, by the Church Commissioners to regain possession of docu-
1820
ments of so much public importance, and of which they had the custody?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that some of the parochial records of the united diocese of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin were sent by railway by the Irish Church Commissioners simultaneously with a posted letter of advice to the diocesan registrar; but, owing to the mistake of a vowel in the name, the parcel was taken to a tradesman, who declined to receive it. The contents were afterwards sold by the railway company as unclaimed goods to Mr. Ganly, of Dublin, from whom they had been recovered, and handed over to the Treasury Solicitor in Dublin.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. CHARLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can hold out any hopes of being able to afford facilities for the third reading of the Infanticide Bill in time to enable the House of Lords to consider it this Session?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think I may hold out hopes to my hon. and learned Friend respecting the measure in which he takes so much interest, because I think the House is anxious that the Bill should pass. In answering this Question I will ask the House to allow me to say now what I had purposed saying when we reached the Orders of the Day, and to state my views as to what will be the probable progress of Business. I felt a difficulty the other night in answering the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) without Notice a Question which he put on this subject; and I also felt some difficulty when I was pressed on a previous occasion to make what I then considered to be a premature announcement. The real reason of my hesitation was the extreme anxiety of the Government to pass, if possible, the Merchant Shipping Bill this Session:—and certainly it was shown to my satisfaction that if we could have got through the Committee on the Agricultural Holdings Bill this week we might have succeeded in passing the Merchant Shipping Bill without detaining the House to an un-

  1821
  reasonable period. In that we have been disappointed; and, therefore, I have to say—and I say it with unfeigned and unaffected regret—that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to continue their efforts to pass the Merchant Shipping Bill this Session. It has been suggested to me that we might pass the measure in a limited form, and in that limited form it might not be devoid of utility; but I am not myself disposed to deal with the measure in a fragmentary manner, and on reflection I declined to take that course; and all I can promise the House is, that if I am next year in the position which I now occupy, I and my Colleagues will take the earliest opportunity in our power of re-introducing the measure and will endeavour to push it to a satisfactory conclusion. If the House would permit me I will further state that we intend to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings Bill in Committee until the Committee in concluded. After that we propose to take Supply; and when Committee of Supply is concluded the two legal Bills, which are already considerably advanced, will, I hope, receive their finishing stroke from the House. I calculate that with this programme we may conclude the Business on the 10th or 12th of August; but if the whole of the time of the House is placed at our disposal I think that even an earlier date might be named—but that depends entirely on the House itself. With regard to the lesser measures, it is almost premature to say anything on this occasion. "Whatever course is taken their progress will not interfere in any way with the result I have indicated to the House. But I think it would be more satisfactory to the House if the Ministers who are in charge of those Bills should have the opportunity, when they make the Motions for discharging the Orders, or otherwise, of expressing their own opinions with regard to the measures entrusted to their care—as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) wishes to do on Monday next in regard to the Bill just mentioned. I will therefore not dwell on the subject. The result I wish to put before the House is, that unfortunately we must give up the Merchant Shipping Bill—that we will proceed with the Agricultural Holdings Bill till the Committee is concluded; then go on with Committee of Supply until that is
  1822
  concluded; and afterwards ask the House to conclude its labours upon the Judicature and Land Transfer Bills.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Indian Budget will be laid before the House?
  MR. DISRAELI: I do not at present know—but I have no doubt the programme I have submitted will leave my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) an opportunity for the Indian Budget some night before the close of the Session.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I must express, in one word, the deep sense of regret with which, representing a constituency with large shipping interests, I have heard of the abandonment of the Merchant Shipping Bill. It is clear—if I may say so without offence—that of the two Bills which have been running against each other the Merchant Shipping Bill is now sacrificed to the Agricultural Holdings Bill. Considering the urgency of the case with regard to the former measure—considering that human life is at stake—considering that the shipping interest has now been for years in a state of uncertainty as to the legislation by which it might be affected—I think that interest has some right to complain—not that the Bill has been withdrawn now when perhaps it may be impossible to discuss it, but that the arrangements of the Government have been such as to render its withdrawal necessary.
  MR. T. E. SMITH: I must add one word—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the proper time for discussing this subject will be on the Motion, which will be made later in the evening, for the withdrawal of the Bill.

PARLIAMENT—BREACH OF ORDER (MR. PLIMSOLL).
MR. PLIMSOLL(with great excitement)—I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House. Sir, I earnestly entreat the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government not to consign some thousands of living human beings to undeserved and miserable death. Sir, I believe, and I have not hesitated to say—and I told the President of the Board of Trade him-

1823
self at an early period of the Session—I do not for a moment charge him with anything like breach of faith or treachery—that the Bill, of which the first 30 clauses were merely re-enactments—with unimportant exceptions—was so drawn as to afford unlimited facilities for death-dealing volubility and hypocritical Amendments. I adhere to that opinion. I want that the House should understand the position of the question. Under the Board of Trade, since 1862, when unhappily the commercial marine of this country was committed to their care, matters have been getting worse and worse, with the and of shipowners of murderous tendencies outside the House, and who are immediately and amply represented inside the House, and who have frustrated and talked to death every effort to procure a remedy for this state of things—["Name! name!"] I will give the names very soon. I ask hon. Members if they have not seen in the newspapers the report of the recent judgment of Lord Justice Giffard in the case of the Bard of Avon, and the statement that in the case of this ship, which was bought for about £780, and being of about an equal amount of tonnage, and having had about £800 spent upon her in repairs—making the total value about £1,500—the owners, immediately on the vessel being repaired, entered into a contract which would have recouped them that sum total of the cost in one half of the first voyage. I entreat you to consider it. I must speak out. The Secretary of Lloyd's tells a friend of mine that he does not know a single ship which has been broken up voluntarily by the owners in the course of 30 years on account of its being worn out. Ships gradually pass from hand to hand, until bought by some needy and reckless speculators, who send them to sea with precious human lives. On the 3rd of this month I had a list carefully prepared of 15,000 vessels on Lloyd's Register; and on going over these what does the House think was the result? It was found that no fewer than 2,654 of the classed ships had gone off their class and forfeited their position. And what is the consequence that ensues? It is that continually, every winter, hundreds and hundreds of brave men are sent to death, their wives are made widows and their children are made
1824
orphans, in order that a few speculative scoundrels, in whose hearts there is neither the love of God nor the fear of God, may make unhallowed gains. There are shipowners in this country of ours who have never either built a ship or bought a new one, but who are simply what are called "ship-knackers," and I accidentally overheard a Member of this House described in the Lobby by an ex-Secretary to the Treasury as "a shipknacker." ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that his speech, and all the references of his speech, relate to a Bill which is on the Order Book, and which is set down for consideration this very day. His observations would be quite in Order if made on the Order that that Bill be discharged; but he is not at liberty to discuss, on a Motion for adjournment, the merits of any Bill which is on the Orders of the House.
MR. PLIMSOLL: Then, Sir, I give Notice that on Tuesday next I will put this Question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will inform the House as to the following ships—the Tethys, the Melbourne, the Nora Greame, which were all lost in 1874 with 87 lives, and the Foundling and Sydney Dacres, abandoned in the early part of this year, representing in all a tonnage of 9,000 tons; and I shall ask whether the registered owner of these ships, Edward Bates, is the Member for Plymouth, or if it is some other person of the same name. ["Order!"] And, Sir, I shall ask some questions about Members on this side of the House also. I am determined to unmask the villains who send to death and destruction—[Loud cries of "Order!" and much excitement.]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member makes use of the word "villains." I presume that the hon. Gentleman does not apply that expression to any Member of this House.
MR. PLIMSOLL: I beg pardon?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member made use of the word "villains." I trust he did not use it with reference to any Member of this House.
MR. PLIMSOLL: I did, Sir, and I do not mean to withdraw it. [Loud cries of" Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The expression of the hon. Member is altogether un-Parliamentary, and I must again ask him whether he persists in using it.
MR. PLIMSOLL: And I must again decline to retract. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the expression?
MR. PLIMSOLL: No, I do not.
MR. SPEAKER: I must again call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the expression.
MR. PLIMSOLL: I will not.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw the expression I must submit his conduct to the judgment of the House.
MR. PLIMSOLL: I shall be happy to submit to the judgment of the House, and this is my Protest. (The hon. Member placed a paper on the Table.) ["Order, Chair!"]
MR. DISRAELI: I rise, Sir, under a sense of deep pain—and I am sure every Member of the House will have experienced the same feeling—that a brother Member should have conducted himself in a manner almost unparalleled.
MR. PLIMSOLL: And so has the Government. ["Order, Chair!"]
MR. DISRAELI: I desire, as far as I can, to do that which will conduce to the dignity of the Chair, and to the honour of this House and its Members, and I think the conduct of the hon. Member cannot be passed without notice. It is of the most violent and offensive kind. Although I do it with great reluctance, I feel I am only expressing the sense of the whole House when I say that this is an occasion on which you, Mr. Speaker, must exercise one of your highest duties, and that is that you should reprimand the hon. Gentleman for conduct so disorderly and violent as that we have just witnessed. I beg accordingly to move that the hon. Member for Derby be reprimanded by you, Sir, for his violent and disorderly conduct.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Plimsoll, the Member for Derby, for his disorderly conduct, be reprimanded, in his place, by Mr. Speaker."—(Mr. Disraeli)
MR. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House is that Mr. Speaker do reprimand the hon. Member for Derby for his disorderly conduct.
MR. PLIMSOLLrose to address the House but was received with cries of "Order!"
MR. SPEAKER: According to the practice of the House the hon. Member for Derby will be heard in his place and will then withdraw.
MR. PLIMSOLL: I beg pardon? I did not hear.
MR. SPEAKER: According to the practice of the House the hon. Member will be heard in his place and will then withdraw.
MR. PLIMSOLL: I will withdraw.
[As the hon. MEMBER was leaving the House he turned round and exclaimed—"Do you know that thousands are dying for this?"]
MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that the hon. Member for Derby for his disorderly conduct be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker in his place.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I need hardly say that, if necessary—speaking on behalf of Members on this side of the House—I will support the Motion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. I rise, however, with great diffidence—feeling that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the Forms of the procedure of the House—for the purpose of making a suggestion. It is quite evident that the hon. Member for Derby, in the observations he has made, has been labouring under feelings of very strong excitement—and although I cannot—and no one could—for a moment desire to entirely justify the language he has used, I cannot help thinking it will be very much to the advantage and dignity of our proceedings if action in this matter could be postponed for a short time, during which I have no doubt—or at least I have great reason to hope—that the hon. Member for Derby may be induced to see the impropriety of his conduct and to set himself right with the House. Therefore, if it is possible that this discussion can be adjourned for a short time, I think it very much to the interest and dignity of the House that this should be done.
MR. SULLIVAN: The House has listened to and witnessed a scene, I believe, without precedent in the annals of this Assembly; and, Sir, as a friend of the hon. Member for Derby—and as one of those who came here to-day, I

1827
avow, in concert with him, to support his views upon the question to which he has referred, let me say at once that I do not seek to justify what has occurred. But I do appeal to the House to be as considerate and as indulgent towards him as it can under these circumstances be. I am personally aware that the hon. Member is at this moment extremely ill. I do not wish to go closer into the matter than to express my own opinion, formed from a very constant intercourse with the hon. Member, that within the last two days his mental excitement—the result of an overstrain acting upon a very sensitive temperament—has placed him to-day in a condition of agitation on this subject, such as will, I hope, obtain a generous consideration from this Assembly—offended, and justly offended, as it is by the language he has used—language which I do not attempt to justify or palliate. I feel that if my hon. Friend—for whom I speak at this moment, with a painful sense of my responsibility in the serious position in which he has placed himself—that if he could have the calm retirement of a week he would be himself the first to regret what he has done, so far as it is a transgression of good order and the Forms of this House, and of the duty which he owes to this House. I hold in my hand documents, which I have read, but which I will not use, which have wrought him to the pitch of excitement we have seen to-day. I have no intention of making the case of the hon. Member worse than it is by going into any matters that could hurt the susceptibilities of any in this House. I only plead this for him—that his is a nature eminently unselfish, and that though in this case I think his conduct most unwise, yet I know the painful excitement which has agitated his mind on this subject, and which has within the last few days been such as to give uneasiness to his friends and to those Members of this House who, like myself, have enjoyed his confidence. I will not, I cannot, even for the success of the appeal I now make, say one syllable that would put my hon. Friend in an undignified or in an inconsistent position. I do not believe that even if he were taken to the scaffold he would retract one word of what he would say in calm mind and deliberate judgment; but with regard to the expressions he has used on
1828
the present occasion, I feel sure that if he is allowed a few days of rest the hon. Gentleman will set himself right with the House.
MR. DISRAELI: Under the circumstances detailed by the hon. Gentleman, the friend of the hon. Member for Derby, I think it would be best that the hon. Member for Derby should not be required to attend in his place till this day week. I beg, therefore, to move that the debate be adjourned for a week. ["Agreed, agreed!"]
MR. FAWCETT: As I knew the hon. Member for Derby before he came into this House, I hope hon. Members will not think I adopted an unusual course—considering the excitement in which the hon. Gentleman now is—by going to him in the Lobby and having a conversation with him. I can quite confirm what his friend the hon. Member for Louth has stated—namely, that the hon. Member for Derby is in a state of mental excitement to a painful degree, and I am sure nothing can be so kind to him, and nothing so likely to conduce to the dignity of this House, than, as has been proposed by the Prime Minister, that he should not be required to attend in his place for another week. I found him in a state of unusual excitement in the Lobby, and I did what I thought best—namely, after considerable difficulty, I persuaded him to take a walk in the open air. The hon. Member will have an opportunity in the course of a week of consulting with his friends, and I am sure—though I have no authority to speak in his name—between then and now the hon. Member, who is not unreasonable, will regret—strongly as he may feel on the subject to which he has devoted himself—that he used expressions which none of us can justify or uphold. ["Agreed, agreed!"]
MR. BASS: As the Colleague of the hon. Gentleman, and one who is well acquainted with his excellent qualities, I hope the House will permit me to offer my grateful acknowledgments to the Prime Minister for the considerate course he has suggested.
Debate adjourned to Thursday next.
[The following is the entry of the subject upon the "Votes and Proceedings of the House."]
Mr. Plimsoll, the Member for Derby, having used expressions in Debate

1829
which, when called upon by Mr. Speaker, he refused to withdraw; and having otherwise conducted himself in a disorderly manner:—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Plimsoll, the Member for Derby" for his disorderly conduct, be reprimanded, in his place, by Mr. Speaker."
Whereupon Mr. Plimsoll, without claiming to be heard, withdrew.
Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND)
(re-committed) BILL—[Lords.] [BILL 222.]
(Mr. Disraeli.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th July.]
  Tenant's Compensation for Improvements.
  Clause 5 (Tenant's title to compensation).
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, to leave out the word "executes," and insert the words "lays out money."—(Sir Thomas Acland.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'executes' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. NEWDEGATEinquired whether the clauses were to be proceeded with exactly as they stood, or whether it was intended to made any alteration in them?
  MR. GOLDSMIDobserved, that if a report which prevailed was correct—that the Government had decided on making some very important alterations in the Bill, and had already informed one portion of the House of their intention—it was possible that the alterations might materially affect the course of the discussion, and therefore it was only fair that hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House should know what changes the Cabinet had decided upon; otherwise it would be impossible to discuss the questions which were to be raised. He therefore wished to ask the Government, what were the decisions at which they had arrived with regard to the Bill?
  MR. HUNTobserved, that it was quite reasonable that the Committee should be desirous of knowing what the Government intended to do in the matter. There had been a good deal of discussion the other evening as to the system on which the classification of different subjects should be arranged, and the Government had in consequence resolved
  1830
  to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot). He believed that by doing so a great number of objections to the classification, as it at present existed, would be removed.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDobserved, that he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation which he had given; but as he had not stated the general views of the Government, he had no option but to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice for the purpose of removing the difficulty which would arise from the meaning of the word "improvement," as defined in the different classes of qualification. He wanted to know where they were, and what they were about? That House was not a Chamber of Agriculture, or a House of landlords; but was the House of Commons, and a great number of its Members represented great and populous constituencies not engaged in agriculture. He wished to know whether they were to adopt a particular phrase because certain agriculturists had settled that it was the right thing? The proposition he had to make to the Committee was supported by a large number of the landowners in several south-western and north-eastern counties, and its object was to remedy injustice—or at least that which led to a sense of injustice—to a large class in this country. He had already stated that he did not believe that the actual injustice was so great as some people were inclined to think it was, because he was satisfied that a large number of landlords acted with substantial justice towards their tenants. But there certainly was a growing feeling that the present amiable, pleasant, kindly relations between landlords and their tenants must come to an end, and that the latter must have more independence than they at present enjoyed. His firm belief was that if the relations between landlord and tenant were placed on the same footing as the great Ecclesiastical Body and their tenants things would be very different. Why was it that the tenants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners got on so well? For this simple reason, that those Commissioners had no "game," no religion, and no politics—at least, those subjects were not intruded into their relations with their tenants. The intended effect of this scheme was, in the first place, to get rid altogether of the details of the

  1831
  first class of improvements mentioned in the Bill, leaving them to he regulated entirely by free contract between the landlord and the tenant. His second object was to leave the arrangements as to manure and game to generally go under the ordinary rules of valuation, but to take them out of the hands of the valuer whenever the landlord and tenant chose to come to an agreement on the subject. With respect to the second class, he proposed that the landlords and tenants should have power to make agreements in respect of any improvements the effects of which were likely to endure beyond two years. In other words, he proposed that, as regarded all improvements mentioned in the first and second classes, the landlords and tenants should have full power to contract, leaving the question as to manures and cake to be settled by the valuers. He also proposed with respect to the second class that they should not lay down a uniform rule for the whole of England, and should not interfere where the custom of the district allowed the great capitalist farmers of the East of England to effect improvements of the second class at their own discretion and to claim compensation for them. Had things remained as they were on Tuesday, he should have hoped for considerable support for his scheme from hon. Members opposite; but he should watch with interest the course they would take with regard to it now that they had settled their differences and were again a united Party. With the view of hearing what the Government had to say on the subject he would formally move the exclusion from the clause of the word "improvement" comprised in either of the three classes following.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, the hon. Baronet had begun his speech by saying "Where were we?" Well, he (Mr. Read) wanted to know where was his Amendment, as he did not know what it was or where it was. In 1847 a Bill was introduced by Mr. Pusey, on the back of which were the names of Mr. Evelyn Denison and Mr. T. D. Acland, who then sat on the Conservative side of the House. Now, in that Bill he found this remarkable fact, that compensation for tenants' improvements was to be divided into three classes—first, temporary improvements, including artificial manures and feeding stuff for stock; secondly, durable improvements, in-
  1832
  cluding draining, marling, &c.; and, thirdly, permanent improvements, including new fences, roads, and necessary buildings. But now the hon. Baronet came down to the House and said he did not want the word "improvement" inserted, or any classification of improvement. [Sir THOMAS ACLAND: No, no!] Well, at all events, the hon. Baronet said that he did not want in this Bill something which was contained in the Bill which had his name upon its back. The hon. Baronet had apparently been asleep since 1847. Indeed, he was known in the agricultural world as the Rip Van Winkle of Tenant Eight, and it was not until the Government had awakened him from that sleep that he had renewed his knowledge of that Bill. He (Mr. Read), for his part, thought it was essential to have classification. It was embraced in a Bill which he had introduced and, he believed, in every Bill brought under the notice of Parliament. The expenditure on artificial manure and on cake and other feeding stuff for cattle was an improvement, however temporary the benefit might be; but the Government had never deviated from the principle of Mr. Pusey's. Bill, which declared that the ordinary course of good husbandry should not be a subject of compensation. This was a different thing, however, from extraneous manures brought on the farm, for all of which tenants ought to be compensated.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read), said, it was true that the first of Mr. Pusey's Bills contained three classes of improvements; but after the Committee of 1848, for which he moved, and over which Mr. Pusey presided, the next Bill and the subsequent Bills introduced by Mr. Pusey contained only two classes, omitting permanent improvements, such as buildings. In the opinion of the Select Committee of the House, which then considered this subject, what were commonly called landlords' improvements ought to be exempted from a Bill of this nature, and from the category of ordinary tenant improvements. The relations of landlord and tenant were totally different in England from what they were in Ireland or Scotland. In Ireland landlords generally left tenants to do everything. In Scotland the partnership which existed between landlord and tenant in England was interrupted by

  1833
  long leases. He hoped it would be the object of the Committee to continue the relation between landlord and tenant which had so long existed in England, which was still a relation of partnership. This Bill proposed to effect an object he had long desired—namely, to change the existing presumption of the law that the tenant was not entitled to compensation for agricultural improvements to the opposite presumption that the tenant was entitled to compensation, unless by contract he excluded himself from the right. Although in England it was unusual that the tenant should erect the farm house and buildings, it had become usual that the landlord should agree with the tenant that the tenant should make the common agricultural improvement—such as field drainage, chalking, marling, and the like; he acted as a partner with the tenant, and it was just that the period assigned for compensation should be such as would recoup the tenant for his outlay; or, failing this through death or other termination of the tenancy, that the tenant or his representatives should be paid such portion of his outlay, as had not been recouped by increased produce. It was just that afterwards some portion of the improvement to the land should remain to the landlord to compensate the landlord for the risk he had incurred by becoming security for the outlay of the tenant before it was recouped. As soon as the tenant was recompensed, it was right that the landlord should come in for the advantage in return for the risk he had run. But with regard to building, road-making, and other improvements, which might be called landlord's improvements, a period of 20 or 25 years might be allowed to repay the tenant if he should have undertaken them. But this ought to be left to private contract between landlord and tenant, and should be kept separate from improvements of the state and condition of the soil of the farm which are strictly within the province of the tenant. In 20 or 25 years the remainderman would probably come in, and it was only just that, as he was no party to the transaction between his predecessor and the tenant, that the instalments for repayment of any compensation still due should be re-distributed, so that the burden should be made as light to him as possible.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it had been stated several times in the course of the discussion that the Government were willing to introduce several modifications in the Bill, and that statement had not received any contradiction from the bench opposite. He would therefore appeal to the Government whether it was not fair that they should be told what important Amendments in the Bill the Government had assented to before they asked the Committee to proceed further with the discussion of this most important clause. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that it was the intention of the Government to accede to certain Amendments in the 7th clause.
  MR. HUNTexplained that what he had stated was that the Government purposed to accept the Amendments of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), with a view to give elasticity to the period over which compensation for improvements would extend, instead of drawing a hard-and-fast line at 20 or 25 years. These Amendments applied to the 6th and 7th clauses, and there was a new consequential clause allowing the arbitrators to restrict the number of years.
  THE MARQESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, if that were so, there could be no objection in point of form to the Government stating to the Committee what Amendments in other clauses they had agreed to. It was evident that some communications had been made to hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and he appealed to the Committee whether, when communications had been made to hon. Members opposite which they (on the Opposition side) knew nothing of, they should proceed with the discussion? The question was mixed up with every clause of the Bill—whether this clause was to extend to four-fifths of the holdings of England, or whether those holdings were to be excluded. What, also, were the intentions of the Government as to the clauses dealing with breaches of contract; were they to be modified or not? Lest there should be any difficulty or irregularity in what he suggested, he would assist the Government by moving that the Chairman do now report Progress, in order to afford them an opportunity of giving information to the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  MR. DISRAELI: I shall certainly oppose that proposal, which is, I think, most unusual and most unreasonable. Whatever Amendments may be proposed we shall be prepared to express our opinion with regard to them when they come before the Committee. The alterations to which the noble Marquess has referred, and which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt), are on the 6th and 7th clauses, but then they affect the clause before the Committee. The Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex have been on the Paper some days. It is nothing unusual to adopt Amendments as a Bill proceeds; that has been done before without the Government's being called upon to make a formal statement in consequence; and if Amendments should be proposed in this case, which we approve, we shall adopt them, whether they come from our opponents or not. I think the noble Lord weakens the character and reputation of his followers by supposing that Amendments are only to be agreed to which proceed from the Ministerial side of the House. The Government will agree to Amendments, from whatever side proposed, which may appear to them advantageous. On every occasion when the Chairman puts the Question, we will take care to express our intentions. There is not a single reason for the Motion made by the noble Lord. We fairly stated before we came to the 6th and 7th clauses that we intended to adopt the Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, which affect those clauses, and we are acting in a legitimate way with regard to the other clauses. As to the allegation that some secret meeting has been called, which might be described by an American name, I can only say that the practice of a Ministry consulting with their friends has been sanctioned at all times, and I have seen very great mischief caused to both sides of the House by Ministers not consulting their friends. Nothing of our purpose has been concealed. I believe it was announced in the organs which disseminated information, and having taken a course perfectly
  1836
  legitimate we shall proceed in a legitimate manner in the consideration of the Bill. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had come to the meeting we should have been glad to see them, but their presence would have been unusual.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, they did not complain of a concealed purpose, but because the result of the consultation was concealed. The real question was, whether they were to discuss this Bill in the House of Commons, or whether it was to be settled outside. The question was, whether the majority of hon. Gentlemen on the other side had settled the terms of this Bill elsewhere, and whether arrangements had been made not known to the House generally. The First Lord of the Admiralty had told the Committee that certain concessions were to be made to hon. Gentlemen opposite in Clauses 6 and 7. The right hon. Gentleman said that was because Clauses 6 and 7 affected Clause 5. That was true; but it was equally true of Clause 46, which affected every clause in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had made an announcement with reference to Clauses 6 and 7, because the Amendments had been long on the Paper; but so had the Amendments of the hon. Member for North Wilts (Sir George Jenkinson). The course which the Government were taking would involve the most egregious waste of time it was possible to conceive. The House was not placed in a fair position. They were like persons negotiating a treaty, while a plenipotentiary sitting opposite had a secret article in his pocket. They did not complain that the Leaders had consulted their Party; but it was only fair that the House as well as the Party opposite should have an announcement from the Government as to the general nature of the alterations they intended to make in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty said the object of the Amendments to the 6th and 7th clauses was to make the terms more elastic; but they would only do so one way. They were not elastic as against the landlord, but were elastic against the tenant. Were the other Amendments to be in the same direction? If the Government had arranged terms further discussion must be practically useless.
  MR. HENLEYpreferred the words in the Bill as to improvements to those

  1837
  proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Thomas Acland), because in legislation they must have regard not only to what 99 out of 100 people would do, but to what some wrongheaded man might do. But really this Bill was what it had been described as being in "another place." It was a "model Bill," indicating the things which, in the opinion of the Legislature, ought to be dealt with, and leaving it perfectly free for all parties to deal with them by contract if they thought fit so to do. But they could no more make one Bill applicable to the hundred different circumstances of soil and other matters in various parts of this country, than the House of Commons could take wings to fly. He thought the intention of the Government was that the Bill should be so regarded, and it was impossible to treat it in any other way. It was simply impossible to make a Bill which would meet all the circumstances of every case; therefore, he could not see that it was worth while discussing the vast number of improvements suggested in the Bill by the various Amendments of which Notice had been given, with the intention of making it generally applicable. Treating it as a model Bill, there was some chance of getting through it in reasonable time; whereas if they attempted to make it suit every soil and every variation of circumstances, it would be impossible duly to settle its clauses if they sat till this time next year.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The question immediately before the Committee is that you report Progress, and upon that I wish to say a few words. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister quite misunderstood the proposition of my noble Friend and his speech. He treated both my noble Friend's Motion and his speech as hostile; but if I understood my noble Friend, neither deserved that character. There is no reproach, as has been stated distinctly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), intended to the Government for having pursued the course, not unusual, of summoning, on occasions like the present, their supporters—if it be the fact that such a meeting has been held for the discussion of this measure, and for considering what should be the future course of the Government with regard to a number of particular points in the
  1838
  Bill. We may be wrong in supposing that to have occurred; but, supposing it has occurred and that the Government laid before their friends their views on a variety of most important points affecting the provisions of the Bill, and that the result of the consideration of those provisions has been, as might reasonably be expected, to affect materially the views of hon. Members in regard to the measure, the real question is whether there has been such a consideration of the Amendments, and whether the proceedings of to-day elsewhere have been communicated to their supporters; and the point I venture to press is this—that not merely those who sit behind the Government, but the entire House, are warranted in expecting that if there has been announced, on the part of the Government, the intention of deviating materially from this Bill in several clauses, we, as well as the friends of the Government, are entitled to a conspectus of the Bill. I wish to remind the Committee of the position in which we are now placed. If the Government think they can facilitate the progress of this measure by announcing their intentions with respect to particular parts of this Bill to their immediate supporters, what I as an individual desire, and what I believe the House requires, is, that we also should know what are the intentions of the Government; and so far from my noble Friend's proposal being a hostile one, it was the only proposal he could make most calculated to facilitate the progress of this measure; for many Gentlemen feeling disposed to press their isolated Amendments, possibly leading to lengthened discussion, might, if they knew of the arrangement which had been made, be disposed to consult the general convenience and sacrifice their own immediate views. But the right hon. Gentleman treats the Motion to report Progress as a hostile Motion; whereas it was exclusively meant to meet the point of order, and, knowing that you, Mr. Raikes, are a vigilant and able guardian of the Privileges and Orders of the House, to remove any possible difficulty that might be interposed to such a statement. I would remind the Committee that a very important change has occurred of late years with respect to the proceedings of the House while an important Bill is in Committee. Within a limited number

  1839
  of years it was in the power of any Member before going into Committee every day to raise a discussion on the general subject of the Bill. This enabled Members to express their views generally on the measure while it was going through Committee, so that the House, at any given stage, had a clear prospect of the work they had to do. That power has been taken away, but it has placed us in this difficulty—when important changes have been reviewed by the Government affecting the general character of a Bill, I believe there is no other mode of enabling the changes intended to be announced except by making the Motion of my noble Friend. Therefore, I say that Motion is a friendly Motion. It implies no blame or censure on the Government for having consulted their friends and made known to them their intentions. If we are wrong in supposing that a variety of important modifications have been accepted by the Government to-day, cadit quœstio; in that case, no doubt, my noble Friend will withdraw his Motion. But if we are right in that, we are bound to ask, and entitled to expect, that we may know the general intention of the Government, not from clause to clause, but on the Bill as a whole. I say, as far as this side of the House is concerned, that is not an unfair proposition; it is necessary to enable hon. Members to consider what course they shall take.
  MR. DISRAELI: I cannot say I am convinced that I put an erroneous interpretation upon the Motion of the noble Marquess, and I can say now I have not the slightest desire to encourage friendly Motions of that kind. The speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich appears to me to be of a very remarkable character. It has one great hypothesis—" If there has been a meeting to-day, of which I know nothing—if there have been great alterations made in the Bill, of which I know nothing—you are bound to come forward and make a statement to us—in a friendly spirit—before you proceed with the Bill." I do not want to have any hypotheses upon the subject. There has been a meeting—I think a most legitimate meeting; I have to meet my friends frequently; I think it greatly facilitates the course of Public Business; and certainly I thought there were circumstances to justify me in giving them the
  1840
  trouble of meeting that we might consult upon several points. Of course, meeting in that way, Amendments upon the Paper were touched upon. So far as I can form an opinion, the meeting, though it was advantageous, was one which certainly does not justify me in any way in making a formal statement to the House. The most important communication that could be made has already been made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. And what is that? That we are going to adopt an Amendment of an hon. and gallant Friend of ours (Sir Walter Barttelot), that has been at least two days on the Paper. With regard to the particular point which seems so completely to interest the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), I am afraid I cannot hold out to him the prospect of any opportunity for those combinations of infinite mischief which I saw he anticipated. I must inform him that at this meeting we did not accept in any way the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson).
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, the question before the Committee was whether the clause was to be adopted in its present form? What would be better than altering the relations of landlord and tenant would be to enable the limited owner to obtain the necessary capital and secure the payment of interest from the tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The main object of the Motion to report Progress was to obtain, if possible, some explanation from the Government, and such explanation has been given in the speech of the Prime Minister. He has informed us that the Amendment which the First Lord of the Admiralty stated it was the intention of the Government to accept is the most important change which the Government have announced their intention to agree to. Upon that assurance we must assume that there are no changes of very great importance affecting very much the character and scope of the Bill which it is the intention of the Government to agree to. The right hon. Gentleman has stated he had no intention to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I accept that assurance. I have no doubt he also intended to say that

  1841
  he had no intention of making any considerable modification of the 46th clause. Under these circumstances, I do not think we shall be justified in troubling the House to divide; I would rather express my thanks for the intimation that has been given us.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he supposed the question intended to be raised was, whether the Committee should retain the classification proposed by the Bill or adopt the alternative classification of the hon. Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland). He could not help thinking there were serious objections to the classification proposed by the Government. No one was bound in any way by the classification suggested by Mr. Pusey 25 years ago; the question rather was, what, in the present state of agriculture and agricultural enterprize, was the best arrangement that could be made? There had been no answer to the criticisms of the hon. Members for Forfarshire and Durham (Mr. Barclay and Mr. Pease) upon the first and second classes of improvements. It was utterly impossible that we could, with any approach to accuracy, bring the improvements enumerated within the two classes that were to be distinguished by endurance for 20 or for seven years. Drainage, for instance, might last for a very long time or a very short time, and buildings might last for much longer than 20 years. He could not see how, after getting rid of classification as against the landlord, the Government could, in justice, maintain it as against the tenant. The third class of improvements had been more properly designated as outlay upon the operations of agriculture, and the attempt to lay down a scale of compensation for these appeared to be preposterous. Everybody knew that the quality of different kinds of manures was as various as the different manures themselves, and while one kind would soon become exhausted, say in one year, other kinds would last a much longer time. A specimen of the agricultural knowledge with which the Bill was drawn was furnished by the provision which would allow a tenant to recoup himself for the purchase of artificial food for feeding his flock or cattle and yet obtain the cost of it from the landlord or the incoming tenant. What
  1842
  he maintained was this, that unless the Bill went in elaborate detail into the subject of different kinds of manure and soil, and that in respect of every county in England, no scale of improvement could be laid down which would be satisfactory to either landlord or tenant. The effect of the Bill as it stood would be that in the great majority of cases landlords would contract themselves out of the Bill, or else make separate arrangements in reference to the third class of improvements. Instead of being elastic, the clauses of the Bill would lay down hard-and-fast lines without any elasticity whatever. The Committee, he had no doubt, desired that landlord and tenant should make reasonable contracts with each other; and that being so, he trusted that they would accept the reasonable proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire.
  MR. HUNTobserved, that the noble Lord, following the example of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was of opinion that the Government were prepared to allow elasticity as against the tenant, but were not prepared to allow elasticity in his favour. The noble Lord could scarcely ask for the tenant farmer more than he asked for himself. He could assure the Committee that they had not acted in the matter without sufficient reason and due deliberation. Her Majesty's Government had had the advantage of seeing the Bill which the Central Chamber of Agriculture had submitted to the public, and which Bill, the Central Chamber of Agriculture being mainly composed of tenant farmers, might reasonably be taken to be promoted in their interest. Well, the maximum terms of years proposed for the two classes of improvements, which the Government had adopted, were the same as those proposed in that Bill—namely, 20 years for what they called permanent improvements, and seven years for what they called durable improvements. The tenant farmers, therefore, being satisfied with the maximum stated in each case, the noble Lord had no occasion to advocate for them more than they asked for themselves. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire asked the Government to strike out these clauses and adopt his proposals. On the whole, the Government preferred their own plan to the hon. Member's. The object of the

  1843
  hon. Member was to take a sponge and wipe out all the provisions of the Bill of the Government, and to insert his in place of theirs. Instead of the classification in the Bill, the hon. Member proposed no classification at all, but simply laid down certain principles which would leave the matter vague as regarded terms of years. His hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had pointed out that the principle of the Bills of 1847 and 1850 and of the measure proposed by Mr. Howard on the subject of classification had been adopted in the present Bill, as it had been in that of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He trusted that the Committee would, by a decisive majority, decide that the plan of the Government was that on which they had decided to work.
  MR. DODSONobserved, that if he was not very much mistaken the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had on a former occasion stated that the Central Chamber of Agriculture did not, in his opinion, represent the tenant-farmers of the country.
  MR. HUNT: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I never said so, nor did I ever say anything like it.
  MR. DODSONsaid, his impression had been so; but, no doubt, his memory had deceived him. The Bill divided improvements into three classes, which it specified in three elaborate lists. Instead of the clause allowing persons to adapt their arrangements to local circumstances, it aimed at establishing a universal custom. It was not sufficiently elastic to adapt itself to the wants of the country, and he therefore trusted that the Committee would adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Devonshire.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that if the Amendment were agreed to, and if a farmer before sowing turnips put in expensive manure and the crop failed, he would get nothing for his outlay.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDwished to know whether the Government adhered to their intention, as expressed in the clause, of having a list of the first, second, and third class?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought it had been well understood that the Government adhered to the classification in the clause.
  MR. PHIPPSsaid, he thought that 10 was a better term than 7 years for the
  1844
  second class improvements, and 20 years for improvements in the first class. The Bill hitherto had not received great praise from either side of the House; but as far as he could see it was a step in the right direction. If it contained nothing but the power to limited owners to charge their estates for improvements, the Bill would be valuable.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 117: Majority 118.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDmoved, in page 2, line 23, after the word "holding "to insert" by agreement with his landlord." He explained that the object of the Amendment was not to interfere with the Government classification, but to enable the landlord and tenant voluntarily to agree as to the compensation to be given in reference to any of the subjects enumerated in the first two
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as it was contrary to the scope of the Bill.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDwished to know whether, if the Bill became law, a landlord and tenant might make agreements with each other without being obliged to adopt the precise method of procedure therein prescribed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the improvements for which compensation was to be given to an outgoing tenant were divided into three classes, the last comprising artificial manures and feeding stuffs, both of which would be compensated for according to a scale that would be more properly discussed when a subsequent part of the Bill came under consideration. If he read the Bill correctly the amount of that compensation would be the sum properly laid out during the last year of the tenancy and half the amount laid out in the last year but one. The result would be that the sum would amount to half as much more than was laid out in artificial manures, and three times that in feeding stuffs as was allowed under the Lincolnshire system. He was strongly of opinion that these two kinds of improvements ought not to be paid for on the same scale, as he felt

  1845
  that half the amount of compensation given for manure would amply compensate a tenant for feeding stuff. He looked upon this point as the pith and marrow of the Bill. These so-called improvements were, in fact, not improvements at all. It was a misnomer to call them so, but it was a convenient misnomer, for their judicious use made the distinction between high farming and low farming. He could not think it satisfactory that they should both be paid for on the same scale, and therefore he made those few remarks in explanation of his Amendment, which, however, he would not press if the Government would give an assurance that they would accept the principle it embodied. In conclusion he moved, in page 2, line 23, to leave out "three" and insert "four," thereby making four instead of three classes.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) in his view of the third class, which had been described by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition as an absurdity. The fact was that it was not an absurdity, but an inadvertence. The clause was perfectly well-framed according to the original principle—if he might call it principle—on which the Bill was framed—namely, the letting value. If that had been retained in the Bill, it would have been in perfect accordance with justice and reason. In correcting the Bill in "another place" this, by inadvertence, was omitted to be altered. He had given Notice of an Amendment to the 8th clause which he believed would entirely carry into effect the intentions of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire. He hoped his hon. Friend would not object to the three classes, as so modified, being retained.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that, as his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire had referred to the distinction between artificial manures and feeding stuffs, this seemed an appropriate time for him to inquire whether it had occurred to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty or to the Prime Minister that there were some farms—and he believed a great number—on which no stock was kept at all, and on which, therefore, no manure, or hardly any, was made. One of the most distinguished agriculturists in the country
  1846
  informed him two or three years ago that he was farming 1,000 acres in Lincolnshire on which there was no stock whatever. This gentleman sold the whole of his produce and bought all his manure. Now, if this clause were passed in its present form, he would be entitled to compensation for all the manures he had purchased, which would be an absurdity. His hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) had, to a certain extent, remedied this flaw by his Amendment, which did not, however, entirely meet the case. He was told that the kind of farming he had alluded to was rapidly growing into fashion in the neighbourhood of large towns, and therefore he wished to call the attention of those who had charge of the Bill to the necessity of putting in words to meet such cases.
  MR. GOLDSMIDpointed out that the third class would not meet the case where the tenant farmer purchased in autumn a large quantity of cake to fatten cattle in his stalls and sheds and sold them at the commencement of the winter season, thus obtaining, in consequence of their increased value, a fair return for the cake. The manure would be paid for by the incoming tenant, and then the outgoing tenant might make a claim on the landlord in respect of the feeding stuff he had used. He also objected to the provision by which under an agreement the tenant might execute certain work which properly belonged to the landlord. A landlord ought not to be placed in such a position as practically to have to borrow money from his tenant.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he quite agreed that the outgoing tenant ought not to be paid twice for the same thing, nor did he think he would be able to do so under the clause. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) was deserving of consideration. It was an exceptional case, and the point would not be lost sight of by the Government.
  COLONEL MUREconsidered the power given to limited owners to enter into agreements with the tenants to make permanent agreements one of the most valuable clauses of the Bill. The Government were, however, entering on a dangerous course in stereotying the second and third clauses. He believed it would cause a difficulty in the working

  1847
  of the Bill and cause disputes between landlords and tenants. In Belgium, where the value of unexhausted manures on the expiry of a tenancy were most clearly and distinctly recognized, the local agricultural authorities prescribed the rule, and proportions of such valuation, and under their regulations all disputes were decided. The Imperial Parliament—and he (Colonel Mure) thought wisely—declined to interfere in such transactions, though the local customs had legal force.
  MR. PEASEsaid, Class I would be detrimental to this measure, and that by Clause 34, a limited owner might pay compensation to a tenant, and by agreement with the tenant the limited owner could in respect of that payment get an order from a County Court Judge imposing a charge on the property. By that process, therefore, an estate might be encumbered and deeds of settlement upset. If our laws of entail were to be maintained, he thought this clause came most improperly into the Bill. The interests of remaindermen should be guarded by the Inclosure Commissioners, who should have a voice on those matters.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PEASEmoved, in page 2, line 23, to leave out "three," and insert "two." The first class would have the effect of enabling the limited owner by agreement with his tenant to upset the whole law of settlement.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the protection of the interests of the remainderman was the qualification as regarded the letting value. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pease) had said that if landlord and tenant agreed, a County Court Judge could give a charge to the prejudice of the remainderman; but according to the provisions of this Bill the arbitrator would have to find, first or all, that an improvement had added to the letting value, and it was for the purpose of protecting the interests of the remainderman that the letting value qualification was retained in the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if the matter could be effected by an arrangement between landlord and tenant, there would be nothing left for the arbitrator to do. He did not in the least complain of the Bill because it was likely to affect the law of entail and
  1848
  of settlement; indeed, he had already declared that his great admiration for the measure was founded upon the fact that it would destroy that law. The clause as it stood would enable a landlord having a limited interest in the land and his tenant to enter into an agreement for large sums to be expended on the estate, and on their going before a County Court Judge the latter would be compelled to make the sum to be expended a charge upon the property.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that under the Inclosure Act there was no difficulty as to borrowing if due notice was given.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that the interests of the remainderman in the estate would be fully protected by the provisions contained in the subsequent clauses.
  MR. RODWELLwas also of opinion that if the County Court Judge became aware that such a nefarious transaction as that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman were in progress he would have power to interfere and put a stop to it.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEalso thought that the provisions in the subsequent clauses were sufficient to protect the interests of the remainderman.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Government believed the remainderman was sufficiently protected in the Bill; but if, on consideration, it appeared that further protection was necessary, the necessary words would be inserted in the Bill at a later stage.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he thought the remainderman was more than sufficiently protected already.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped the remainderman would receive notice of improvements in order that he might protect himself against excessive charges.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEprotested against the exaggerated position assigned by the last speaker to the remainderman. He considered that a main merit of the measure consisted in its making the continuance of settlements possible by providing equal advantages for tenants on a settled estate. As to the three classes, he protested against any disturbance of them in regard to the hop culture. All who knew the condition of the hop districts were aware that over-planting was the mischief to be avoided.
  MR. STARKIEhailed the Bill with great satisfaction, and was glad to see

  1849
  that it contained provisions for compensation; but he objected to their being divided into three classes. The improvements in the third class were plausible, but were likely to lead to abuse, and he should therefore like to see them struck out of the clause.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that seeing the array of Members behind the Treasury bench, he could not expect to carry his Amendment, and would therefore withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONmoved, in page 2, line 29, to remove the words "laying down of permanent pasture," from "first class" to "second class."
  MR. HUNTexplained that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), which the Government intended to accept, would meet the case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENmoved an Amendment for the purpose of exempting the making and planting of osier beds from the clause. He pointed out that two of the "improvements" specified in Class I. differed from the rest, inasmuch as they referred to cropping the land—that was, by osiers or by hops. He thought it a mistake to interfere at all by legislation with the cropping of land by the tenant. On his own estates, osier beds had been grubbed and planted by tenants without any interference on his part. If this clause passed as it stood, no tenant would be able to obtain compensation for any expenditure on this account, unless he had gone cap in hand to his landlord and obtained his written consent to crop his land in this particular manner. All these things were matters of detail, and the granting of compensation or not might well be settled by the referees without specific legislation as to each.
  MR. CLARE READthought that, as an osier-bed cost something to make, and it was some time before a return was received, the improvement was one which was very properly put into the first class.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that compensation was to be had for the "making or improving of roads and bridges," but
  1850
  improving a road was the ordinary duty of a tenant. He moved the omission of the words "or improving of."
  MR. CLARE READobserved, that it was the duty of the tenant to keep roads in repair, but not to improve them. The improvement, such as metalling a road, would be a permanent work for which tenants should certainly be compensated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOLDSMIDmoved that the making or improving of watercourses should be omitted from the list of things for which compensation was to be awarded.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that what the hon. Member seemed to think was a "watercourse" was, in fact, a mere water-furrow. A watercourse was an important improvement, for which there should certainly be compensation.
  MR. GOLDSMIDmentioned that what the hon. Member called a water-furrow would in Kent be called a water-course. These differences showed the difficulty of making provisions which should bind all parts of the country.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GOLDSMIDmoved the omission of "making of fences" from the first class, with the view of inserting it in the second class of improvements.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, the whole thing was utterly absurd; it was idle to discuss this classification of improvements. As the Government were determined to pass it, they must do so; though, for his part, he would rather have the Bill a true and practicable one, for he did not want, like the supporters of the Government, to contract himself out of it.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that what was "utterly absurd" might be difficult to decide; and possibly those on his side of the House might have some such an idea as to opinions expressed opposite. With regard to the opinions of the hon. Baronet, the Committee had decided against them, and the country was disposed to do so too. Therefore, though he thought their opinions were "utterly absurd," they were not placed within that category by the majority of the House or of the country. Of course it was known that the items in these clauses did not apply with equal relevancy to

  1851
  all parts of the country; what was aimed at was to give a general guide to the country on the subject. It could not be pretended that it was possible to draw precise clauses which would apply to all parts of the country. This was certainly not a Bill which could be described in the magniloquent terms in which the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire had announced that he alone would respect legislation. It was a permissive Bill, which for the first time treated with a subject of infinite magnitude and infinite difficulty, and one which the Government thought of infinite necessity, and upon which the country wanted and wished to be guided. Under these circumstances it was brought forward; in that temper it was supported; and he did not think the sort of opposition which was carried on by the hon. Baronet would be successful.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he had no wish to use a hasty expression towards anybody, and therefore he begged to say he was sorry for having used the word "absurd" in the way he did.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, the First Lord of the Admiralty had objected to a proposed Amendment because it was not suggested by the Chambers of Agriculture, but the Government did not adopt all the Amendments of the Chambers, as they were bound to do, for if the Chambers of Agriculture were to be the sources of inspiration of the Government, they should take the rough with the smooth, and not cull and pick only where it suited their purpose.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, no doubt the principle laid down as to the character of the Bill was a right one, and it was because he wished to be brought as little as possible to consider the necessity of contracting himself out of it that he thought they were justified in criticizing the details of this clause and in endeavouring to make them as useful as possible. There was a great variety of fences which this description would apparently include. He was prepared to support the Amendment.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, the Bill was at one time described as too precise, and then as too loose. The reason for putting this improvement in the first class was that the landlord's consent was necessary, and that a good quickset fence required two sets of rails to protect it until it was fully grown.
  LORD ELCHOdenied that the Government was acting with reference to the measure as the mouthpiece of the Chambers of Agriculture.
  MR. PEASEhoped that his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that the House could deal with the Amendment as it pleased. He would not press it to a division.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYexpressed a hope that this matter would be under the control of landlords, as the making of wire fences ought not to be encouraged.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTmoved, in page 2, line 32, to leave out "planting of hops." His object was to make hop-planting a second instead of a first class improvement.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted the Amendment would not be agreed to. It was generally three years before hop-gardens began to pay. If hop-planting were placed in the second class, it would be simply telling the farmers that they might speculate in hops without consulting their landlords.
  MR. HUNTopposed the Amendment on the ground that hops had been transferred from the second to the first class in the House of Lords, because it was considered that the landlord ought to have some control over the cultivation of that plant.
  MR. GOLDSMIDagreed with Her Majesty's Government in placing the planting of hops in the first class. In many agreements the acreage to be under hops was specially limited, as their cultivation required a very large amount of capital, and as too large a proportion often encouraged the tenant to pay almost exclusive attention to their growth to the prejudice of the other land.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FRANCIS ARKWRIGHTmoved, in page 2, line 38, to leave out "pasture."
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDobserved, that they had now arrived at the second class of improvements, when he thought the question might be put to the Government whether it was their intention to adopt the various Amendments of which their supporters had given Notice

  1853
  under this head. The intention of the Government on that point must necessarily affect the views of the Committee.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the Government would not depart from the principle they had laid down with reference to the second class of improvements—that they did not require as a condition precedent any agreement on the part of the landlord. This was a most important matter, and he hoped the Government would adhere to their original intention.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, the Government had no intention of departing from the language of the clause.
  MR. NEWDEGATEthought that where the consent of the landlord was to be asked there were some items which might involve the landlord in considerable difficulty.
  MR. CARPENTER-GARNIERthought that as to some of these provisions it was desirable that the landlord should have the power of objecting.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. NEWDEGATEmoved an Amendment with the object of excluding clay burning from the operation of the clause, and inquired whether the consent of the landlord was necessary to render him liable for any improvements of this class? It was quite possible that a tenant might spend as much as £30 an acre on clay burning, and that would be a serious matter to the landlord unless his consent were obtained.
  MR. HUNTreplied that it was not intended that the consent of the landlord should be necessary for any improvement mentioned in the second class. The instance referred to by his hon. Friend seemed an extraordinary one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERmoved, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "artificial or other." He said that in Scotland the farmers were of opinion that improvements of the third class ought to find no place in such a Bill. He especially referred to sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, and other manures of a nitrogenous character, the effect of which was so temporary that they left the soil in a worse condition than they found it. The tenant of the year might profit by these manures, but his successor would lose by them. When nitrate of soda was
  1854
  used for hay especially it left the land in a worse state than before.
  MR. CLARE READthought the words should be retained, inasmuch as a new manure might be discovered.
  MR. ORR-EWINGagreed that the manures in question were not a permanent benefit, but rather an injury to the land.
  MR. JACKSONthought it desirable to adopt the Amendment on other grounds than those mentioned by the hon. Member for Ayrshire.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, that nitrate of soda was one of the most exhausting things that could be used on the land. Other manures of the same character ought to be omitted from the Bill, such as sulphate of ammonia and soot as a dressing for wheat.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the term "artificial manures" was well known in agriculture.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONbelieved that instead of a tenant getting compensation for nitrate of soda he should pay compensation to the landlord for using it.
  MR. HUNTsubmitted that the proper time to deal with this question was when they came to consider what restrictions ought to be placed on compensation for the third class of improvements.
  LORD ELCHOreferred to the discussion as an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with the subject, and said Mr. Lawes had told him that nitrate of soda was the summum bonum of agriculture. Seeing that chemistry was an advancing science, he thought it would be unwise of Parliament to lay down rules for its application to agriculture.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought there ought to be a definition of the artificial manures proposed to be included in the Bill.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsuggested that the words "artificial or other purchased manures" would meet the difficulty; but, having accepted a variation of his Amendment suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts,
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. STORERmoved, in page 3, line 3, before "cattle," insert "horses." Many farmers were, he observed, in the habit of giving horses cake and artificial manure. It was the practice in some districts to prepare horses for fairs.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, cart-horses were part of the machinery of the farm. They must be fed, and it would be hard for any one but the owner to have to pay for what they consumed.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONmoved to amend the clause by inserting in page 3, line 2, after the word "manure," the words," in addition to all manure made on the holding."
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. PELLmoved to amend the clause by inserting, after the word "manure," the words," other than undissolved bones."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL BRISEmoved the omission, after the word "stuff," of the words—"not produced of the holding," contending that if they were retained, considerable inconvenience might be occasioned to the farmer.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 4 of the' second column, to leave out the words "not produced on the holding," and insert the words "so far as they are of manurial value to the succeeding occupier,"—(Colonel Brise,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that point had been already discussed, with reference to the increased value of the stock after consuming the oil cake.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, the object the hon. and gallant Member had in view would be best attained by the proposed Amendment of the Prime Minister on Clause 8.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTasked what check there was that the corn claimed for had been consumed?
  LORD ELCHOsaid, this was an important Amendment. The value of unexhausted manures varied so very much that he thought the only rate upon which they could safely proceed was to value only those manures which were tangible and visible.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought the Committee were wasting their time on the Amendment. He believed that in one or two years not one estate in a hundred would be under the operation of this clause. Undoubtedly, if the clause was to have any application at all, the principle of the Amend-
  1856
  ment was right. He could conceive no reason why an outgoing tenant should be compensated for manures.
  MR. CHAPLINthought the Amendment would open the door to fraud, and he hoped the Government would not adopt it.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought the Amendment right in principle, but there was some difficulty in adopting it in this clause. It had better stand over till they arrived at the 8th clause, and, in the meantime, they should maintain the words as they stood, or the words proposed might be brought up on the Report.
  Question put, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 109: Majority 142.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Time in which improvement exhausted).
  COLONEL WILSONmoved, in page 3, line 9, after "shall," to insert—"not in any case." His object was to give elasticity to the first two clauses. Every improvement made in Class I. was to extend over a fixed period of 20 years, and in Class II. over a period of seven years. He proposed that 20 and seven years respectively should become the maximum of the two periods, and that it should be left to the arbitrators to determine for how long a period these improvements should extend.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsuggested that the elasticity in the clause should be applicable to both parties, instead of keeping the maximum price against the tenant, whilst it was not to be conclusive against the landlord, though there were many improvements, like building bridges and houses, which ought to continue for more than 20 years.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman would, if pursued, lead to the conclusion that at no time was a permanent improvement to become the property of the landlord. He had never heard in any Chamber of Agriculture or Farmers' Club more than 20 years asked for on this point, and he was sure no tenant farmer wanted a larger limit, as he could not be expected to spend much money on such improvements.
  MR. EVANSthought that, in connection with such improvements as the erection of houses and the making of roads, the limit ought to be 30 years.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTpointed out that it was necessary to take care lest the incoming tenant should be made to pay for improvements which might be exhausted.
  MR. DODDSmoved to report Progress, on the ground that hon. Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House had not been informed as to the arrangements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite elsewhere to-day, and that this important clause required great consideration.
  MR. DISRAELIunderstood that some Members of the House wished to make personal explanations to the House, and therefore, although he should have liked to finish this clause, he would assent to the Motion, in order that those Gentlemen on both sides of the House might have the opportunity of making those remarks in which their feelings were so much engaged.
  Motion agreed to.
  In reply to Mr. GOLDSMID,
  MR. DISRAELImentioned that the Bill would be first in the Orders for To-morrow, and would be taken at 2 o'clock.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 116.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 116.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 21st June.]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  MR. BATES: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the indulgence of the House whilst I make some reference to the extraordinary and very distressing exhibition we witnessed this afternoon. As to the statements made and epithets used regarding myself by the hon. junior Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), I forgive him. Anyone who witnessed his conduct will, I think, agree with me in saying that he was not responsible for his
  1858
  actions or sayings. It is, unfortunately, too true that during the years 1873, 1874, and 1875, I lost five ships—four of them coal laden—and one on her homeward voyage from Calcutta. All of them were iron ships, all classed A 1, and I think I may safely say as fine ships and as well found in every respect as ever went to sea. These particulars I think it necessary I should give to hon. Members. To myself the loss, pecuniarily speaking, was very heavy, as it is well known that I never insure my ships to more than half or two-thirds their market value; but, Sir, this did not give me a moment's thought. I did at the time, and still do, deplore the loss of my men, and the only consolation is knowing that so far as human foresight could go, the ships were as good and safe as man could make them. I thought it was my duty to make this statement to the House. As for myself, I think I may safely leave my character as a merchant and shipowner to the general public outside. I and my ships have been well known for a quarter of a century, and I am proud to think that no shipowner stands better with his underwriters than I do. The statement made by the hon. junior Member for Derby will, to those by whom I am known, be looked upon, I feel assured, as I look upon it—namely, with pity. I thank the House for allowing me to bring the matter before them, and can only hope hon. Members will not think I have occupied their time and attention improperly.
  MR. T. E. SMITHobserved, that shipowners were well pleased to learn from Her Majesty's gracious Speech at the commencement of the Session that the subject dealt with by the Bill was to be taken in hand by Her Majesty's Government. They were not, however, satisfied with all the provisions of the measure which had been introduced in pursuance of the undertaking so given. But this Bill, which had been put down for second reading on the 22nd of February, went through various changes during the Session. When read a second time it could hardly be described as the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. It was read a second time on the understanding that it would be committed pro formâ, and that a full opportunity for discussing it would be given.

  1859
  Once more the Bill was changed, and it became of a totally different character from what it was on the second reading. The consequence was, that it was impossible for the measure to be brought into a practical shape without a considerable amount of discussion. But the opportunity of discussion was not given. He and those who were interested in the subject were prepared to sit in the House for any length of time provided Her Majesty's Government would give a full and fair opportunity of discussing the Bill. At length, seeing that we had arrived at this late period of the Session, he felt it his duty to put on the Paper a Motion for the discharge of the Order, not from any desire to obstruct the progress of the Bill, but with a view to elicit the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the course of legislation to be pursued. He thought that all who took an interest in our seamen and in the shipping trade felt strongly that they had a right to complain of the conduct of the Government in this matter. No less than five months had been permitted to elapse during which this Bill occupied a prominent place on the list of Orders, and nothing was done. Some time ago it was said that it was impossible to drive five omnibuses abreast through Temple Bar. But Her Majesty's Government had attempted to drive six cabs through Temple Bar, and thus had obstructed the progress of the only omnibus in which the public took an interest. He had no wish to undervalue any of the other measures brought forward by the Government; but he believed he could say with truth that no Bill had been so urgently required as one with regard to Merchant Shipping. The course which the Government had pursued with regard to it would not redound either to the credit of their good management of the business of that House or to their popularity in the country at large. He accounted for the failure of this measure upon two grounds—first, the want of a proper understanding as to the principles of the Bill, and the objects to be arrived at. It was characterized by a want of practical knowledge, and should at an early stage have been referred to a Select Committee. In this way they might have had an efficient measure; but they were now no further advanced than they were in the month of February. The other
  1860
  cause of failure had been that the Representative of the commerce of the country was not a Cabinet Minister, and therefore could not enforce his views on his brother Ministers. He hoped the Government would see the necessity of giving the President of the Board of Trade a seat in the Cabinet. The course pursued by the Government would be received with disappointment throughout the country, and he trusted that they would not long be left without an efficient, satisfactory, and complete measure on the subject.
  MR. RATHBONE, as representing the largest shipowning constituency in the country, desired to confirm the protest of the hon. Member against the conduct of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had listened carefully to all the suggestions that had been offered him, and had done his best to carry the Bill; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had been put in a proper position to conserve and promote the best interests of the trading classes of the country, because, as President of the Board of Trade, he had not a seat in the Cabinet, while he was assisted by a Minister who was not allowed to speak in the House. The Bill was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the country expected it to be passed, and the shipping trade was hampered by the prospect of legislation which might affect the principles on which ships were built and found.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he sympathized with those who expressed regret and disappointment at the withdrawal of the measure. He could only say that he himself did his utmost to press it on; he had been in earnest from the very first; he had taken every means in his power for the success of the Bill; he had spared no care or pains to make himself acquainted with the subject; and he employed men of the greatest acquaintance with it and of first-rate ability to assist in the preparation of the Bill. He deeply regretted that the pressure of other business and the want of time had led to postponing a Bill which he believed would have been a settlement for many years of a great part of a question of national importance. He wished to bear testimony to the fact that Members of the House on both sides, having a

  1861
  personal interest in this question, had shown a noble readiness to postpone to the public interest what, if they had taken narrower views, they might have thought adverse claims of their own. He took every means of consulting them, and he obtained great support and assistance from them; although, whatever assistance he had received from the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), he must say the hon. Gentleman seemed to have put the highest value on this measure at the moment when he was about to lose it. He would also say with regard to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), of whom they had such painful recollections that evening, that the House must acknowledge that hon. Member had shown great forbearance, and had reserved his opposition to the Bill to that part with which his name was honourably associated. He was well aware of the way in which that hon. Member's mind had been excited on the subject, and that many of his statements, such as they had heard that day, had been unfounded and exaggerated. But, at the same time, they would acknowledge the gratitude which the country owed to him for calling public attention to this most important subject, with a vigour which led the Government to deal with it in a manner which they might not otherwise have done. For himself, the only thing which at all reconciled him to the withdrawal of the Bill was the assurance he had that it would be one of the first measures dealt with and vigorously prosecuted next Session, and he could promise that, in the meantime, he would not fail to take advantage of the information he had gained in the discussions that had taken place on this Bill, in order as far as he could to improve and enlarge the measure. He hoped that next year the Government would arrive at a complete and permanent settlement of a difficult national question.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the House could not do otherwise than admire the good feeling and good taste of the remarks just made by the President of the Board of Trade. While he deeply regretted the withdrawal of the Bill, he entirely appreciated the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with this matter. The Government deserved great credit for not having been carried
  1862
  too far in a feeling, most honourable in itself, as regarded the great shipping interests of this country. While he wished to pay this tribute of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it only heightened his regret that the opportunity had not been taken to settle a question that had excited so much interest in the country. The House must, however, feel that whatever the fate of this Bill had been, it had not been suppressed by the action of the shipowners. He assured the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that when it was next introduced he would find the House, so far as he could answer for it, ready to assist him in passing it. He regretted that the Bill could not be passed that Session, as the hanging up of the question was very injurious to the shipbuilding interest of the country. The Government ought not to have introduced so many Bills, nor have allowed less important measures to interfere with the passing of this one. The best course for a Government to follow was to stick to their great measures and not to leave them till they had passed through the House. But in the case of this Bill the Government had postponed it from time to time, and had permitted other measures which were not so much needed to be dealt with by the House, and he hoped that that course would not be pursued in another Session. He thought the House had reason to complain, not of the Minister who had charge of the Bill, but of those who were responsible for the conduct of Public Business.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade had done his best to carry this Bill through during the present Session, but that circumstances had been against him. He thought that the withdrawal of this measure should be a subject of congratulation to the country, because almost all the causes of the loss of life at sea were left untouched by the Bill. He was glad that the measure had been disposed of, and he hoped that before next Session the Government would be able to consider more carefully the details of the subject.
  MR. MACDONALDconcurred with the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought the Government had done the only right thing in withdrawing this Bill. The Royal Commission recommended that

  1863
  the system of advance notes should be prohibited, and the Bill, as originally framed, prohibited it, but pressure was brought to bear on the Government, and under that pressure that most valuable part of the Bill was lost. He rejoiced that the Bill was withdrawn, because he hoped that the Bill to be introduced on this subject next year would deal effectually with that question. Hon. Members on the Opposition benches professed to regret the withdrawal of the Bill; but it should be remembered that the representatives of the shipping interest did everything they could to impede its progress. They tried to cut out the best parts of the Bill, and to increase the pains and penalties on seamen. He thought it was very bad taste on their part now to turn round upon the Government and upbraid them for withdrawing it.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, he deeply regretted the withdrawal of the Bill, and sympathized deeply with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, after the trouble and pains he had taken in preparing it, to find himself compelled to take that course. He had had as much experience of the feelings of the shipowners as perhaps any Member of that House, and he denied altogether the allegations which had been made against them. So far from impeding the progress of the Bill they had done everything in their power to and the Government in preparing and passing a satisfactory measure. He did not, however, regret the withdrawal of the measure on its own merits. He regretted that it did not embody the recommendations of the Royal Commission, of which he was a member, for the Saving of Life. In that respect the measure was inadequate, and its provisions of the most meagre character. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he did not doubt that the whole subject would receive ample and careful consideration during the Recess; and he trusted that its withdrawal would have the effect of enabling the Government to introduce at the commencement of next Session a measure which would not only protect the interests of the shipowners, but also secure protection to the seamen so far as the preservation of life was concerned.
  MR. E. J. REEDbelieved that the Bill had been framed by the Government under the pressure of an outside agitation, and he hoped that during the Recess they would not need a renewal of that agitation, because of the influence which had produced the present disappointment. With respect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, he had always felt that in many respects they were objectionable; and he trusted that in framing a new measure the President of the Board of Trade would be guided less by their views than by the opinions of Members of that House who were practically acquainted with the details of the subject. He regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman express his confidence in the gentleman who had drawn the Bill. He hoped that confidence would not be carried so far as to entrust him with the drafting of the Bill for next Session.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the Government deserved the thanks of the country for having had the courage to refuse to pass a mutilated Bill. There was a strong temptation to pass into law those clauses through which the Committee had gone. Those clauses related chiefly to pains and penalties, and the clauses which had not been touched were those which related to the preservation of life at sea. If a measure containing the former were passed, while the clauses relating to the preservation of life were indefinitely postponed, the seamen would probably be placed in a much worse position than they were in at present. He hoped that, profiting by the experience of the present Session, Government would introduce a Bill next year which would effectually settle this great question.
  MR. WILSONremarked that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), under feelings of great excitement, had accused the shipowners of having done their best to impede the progress of the Bill, but that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had deliberately repeated the charge without having the same excuse. To the statement those hon. Members had made he must give a most emphatic denial. The ship-owners, on the contrary, had done everything in their power to assist the Government, not only in preparing the Bill, but in carrying it through the House. He would also testify to the

  1865
  great trouble which the President of the Board of Trade had taken to make himself acquainted with all the bearings of the case. The right hon. Gentleman visited all the principal ports, and did everything in his power to obtain practical information from those who were able to give it. Probably the country would not be inclined to accept the excuse which had been given for the withdrawal of the Bill—namely, that that course was rendered necessary by the pressure of Public Business—for this was a question of life and death, and ought therefore to be preferred to the questions involved in the Agricultural Holdings and other Bills, which could stand over without much detriment to the country.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that as some hon. Members in that part of the House wished to make explanations on behalf of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), in order to give them an opportunity of doing so he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Captain Nolan.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not understand what advantage would be derived from adjourning the debate. There was a general feeling that the Bill was one of such great public interest that its withdrawal justified the somewhat unusual conversation which had occurred. But it would be carrying the proceeding rather far if they were now to adjourn the discussion to another day. It would be really very difficult to find a day for its resumption, and it was more in consonance with the feeling of the House that the discussion should now be brought
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he hoped that the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Motion. The only question was whether Government had done rightly in preferring to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill rather than with the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill; for it had become perfectly evident that both could not be proceeded with. But there would be other opportunities of discussing the conduct of the Government in that respect, and no public ad-
  1866
  vantage could be gained by the prolongation of this debate.
  MR. MELDONconsidered that the hon. Member for Derby had been very unfairly treated. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister brought the debate on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill to an abrupt termination at an early hour, on the alleged ground that some hon. Members were desirous to make "personal explanations;" but no personal explanations had been made, and the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill was then called on in order that a Motion might be made that the Order for proceeding with the Bill be discharged. He considered the proceeding a most unfair one.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, it had been already arranged that the hon. Member for Derby should have an opportunity of making any explanation next Thursday, and that the House would have been in a position to pass this Bill had it not been for the conduct of hon. Members opposite, below the Gangway.
  MR. BIGGARcomplained strongly of the course taken by the Government, who, when they were trying to push the Irish Coercion Bill through the House, persevered with it from day to day, and did not cease until they carried their object.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had not desired the adjournment of the debate from any wish to lend unusual importance to what he wished to say on behalf of the hon. Member for Derby, but he was anxious to fulfil an obligation to that absent Member. He desired to lift the question out of the position into which it had fallen, and to fix the Government with a proper measure of accountability. He complained that under cover of a sympathetic hearing for a personal explanation the Government was about to escape from a considerable and painful dilemma. For seven hours they had been discussing in Committee the question of manurial value, and the Government, on a point of obstinate pride, was persisting with a Bill which many of their own supporters opposed, which was not urgently called for by the country, and for which they were sacrificing this vital measure. The House would naturally revolt against an attempt to present the sentimental side of

  1867
  the Merchant Shippings Acts Amendment Bill after the circumstances that had occurred that evening. Yet, however much they might condemn what had happened, public opinion out-of-doors moved very much in the same line, and the Government incurred a terrible accountability when they threw over a Bill that would save human life in order that they might persist in carrying out a permissive theory of tenant right. Until within the last three or four days the Government had kept the word of promise to the ear, the Prime Minister having only three days ago mentioned the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill as second on the list of those that he intended to persevere with. He would conclude by referring to the contents of letters addressed to the hon. Member for Derby on the condition in which ships were sometimes sent to sea, and would press upon the attention of hon. Members that this was a question of life and death to hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government cordially reciprocated the regret which had been expressed by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade at the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill. It was with the greatest regret that the Government found it necessary at the last moment to move that this Order be discharged. They found the Merchant Shipping Bill in such a position that even if the Agricultural Holdings Bill were out of the way there was not time to consider it fully. The postponement of the Bill till next Session would forward the solution of the question rather than hinder it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not allow the debate to close without pointing out that the statement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was totally at variance with that which had been made by the Prime Minister.
  Original Question put, and agreed to. Bill withdrawn.

EAST INDIA, AUDITOR OF ACCOUNTS &c. [SUPERANNUATIONS].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of a Super-
1868
annuation or Pension to any person who has held the office of Auditor of Indian Accounts, and to certain Clerks and Officers on the Establishment of the Secretary of State for India."
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 51; Majority 19.
Original Question again proposed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Washington Treaty (Claims Distribution) * (216); Chelsea Bridge * (217); Employers and Workmen * (218); County Surveyors Superannuation (Ireland) * (219).
Second Reading—Pharmacy (209).
Committee—Report—Police Constables (Scotland) * (199); Police (Expenses)* (207); Copyright of Designs * (211).
Third Reading—Sale of Food and Drugs (193); Friendly Societies * (215), and passed.

PHARMACY BILL—(No. 209.)
(The Lord President.)
PHARMACY BILL—(No. 209.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to institute a Pharmaceutical Society, and to regulate the qualifications of pharmaceutical chemists and of chemists and druggists in Ireland. At present no person could keep open shop in Ireland for the sale of medicines and the compounding of medical prescriptions, unless he were a Licentiate of Apothecaries' Hall, under an Act of Parliament passed in 1791. The examinations under that Act were somewhat severe, and the consequence was that, comparatively speaking, few persons in Ireland had applied for licences; so that in many parts of the country there were places where medicines could not be properly compounded. In view of this state of things a Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament by Mr. Errington last Session. It was referred to a Select Committee, upon whose Report the present measure was based. The Bill originally proposed that there should be reciprocity between the Pharmaceutical Society of England and the Pharmaceutical Society which it was intended to establish in Ireland under this Bill; but in consequence of considerable objection being taken by the former Society, his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had struck out that clause. The main provisions of the Bill were as follows:—It constituted a Pharmaceutical Society in Ireland; it named the first Members of the Council, providing that the President should be Sir Dominic Corrigan,
  1798
  baronet, and the Vice President Dr Aquilla Smith; it empowered the Council to make rules and to regulate the examinations; and it provided that there should be two grades of chemists, one class to be called "pharmaceutical chemists," and another, which was required to pass an inferior examination, to be called "chemists and druggists." The Act would not come into operation until the rules had been approved by the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland. After providing for the registration of the persons who might be found after examination qualified for either of the two grades, the Bill repealed so much of the Act of 1791 as prohibited keeping open shop in Ireland for the sale of medicines and the compounding of prescriptions, except by Licentiates of Apothecaries' Hall. Further, the Bill provided that no person should keep open shop for such purposes unless he belonged to either of the two grades, or was a licentiate of Apothecaries' Hall, or a duly qualified medical practitioner. It saved existing rights, however, and allowed persons of the grade of pharmaceutical chemist to fill the post of apothecary to the county lunatic asylums. The latter clause he should, in Committee, propose to extend to the post of apothecary in county gaols. Most of the provisions of the measure were taken from the English Pharmacy Act of 1868.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord President.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that having had a good deal to do with the legislation on this subject in England, he desired to express his general approval of the present measure. As, however, the standard of examination for the first grade might be lower in Ireland, it was possible that some damage might be done to the English title of pharmaceutical chemists. When the Bill went into Committee he would move an Amendment, providing that the examination of pharmaceutical chemists in Ireland should be of the same standard as in England. By an arrangement between the two societies there might advantageously be reciprocity between them.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
(The Lord President.)
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.

  (NOS. 112, 155, 193.) THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments.
  Clause 3 (Prohibition of the mixing of drugs with injurious ingredients, and of selling the same).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved, to omit ("knowingly") from Clauses 3 and 4.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved, after Clause 4, to insert the following clause:—
  "Provided that no person shall be liable to be convicted under either of the last two foregoing sections of this Act in respect of the sale of any article of food, or of any drug, if he shows to the satisfaction of the justice or court before whom he is charged that he did not know of the article of food or drug sold by him being so mixed, coloured, stained, or powdered as in either of those sections mentioned, and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained that knowledge."
  Clause agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDnext moved to omit Clause 5, and substitute the following:—
  "No person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by such purchaser, under a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds: provided that an offence shall not be deemed to be committed under this section in the following cases; that is to say,—
  "(1.) Where any matter or ingredient not injurious to health has been added to the food or drug, because the same is required for the production or preparation thereof as an article of commerce, in a state fit for carriage or consumption, and not frauduently to increase the bulk, weight, or measure of the food or drug, or to conceal the inferior quality thereof.
  "(2.) Where the drug or food named is a proprietary medicine, or is the subject of a patent in force, and it is supplied in the state required by the specification of the patent.
  "(3.) Where the food or drug is compounded as in this Act mentioned.
  "(4.) Where the food or drug is unavoidably mixed with some extraneous matter in the process of collection or preparation."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause struck out; new clause inserted, in lieu thereof.
  Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY—ROYAL LIMERICK MILITIA—CASE OF JOHN LEE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked, Whether John Lee, a private in the Royal Limerick County Regiment of Militia, was on the 5th of June, 1875, sentenced by Mr. J. M. Harnett, a justice of the county of Limerick, to be imprisoned for the period of one calendar month, with hard labour, in the County Limerick Gaol, at Limerick, for having applied on the 4th of June
"For lodging and relief in the Glin Union Workhouse, which lodging and relief he received therein on the night of the 4th and morning of the 5th, he not belonging to the Glin Union, but coming therein for the purpose of obtaining relief; "
whether John Lee was ill at the time, and was on his way to join his regiment, which assembled for training on the 7th of June at Limerick, and so stated when the charge was heard; whether John Lee died in the county gaol at Limerick of fever on the 27th of June; and, whether Her Majesty's Government had caused or will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the above case? The Act under which John Lee was committed was intended to apply to a person who left one Union or district for the purpose of obtaining relief in another Union or district, and did not at all apply to such a case as that to which he had called their Lordships' attention.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that it was perfectly true that John Lee had been committed to the county gaol at Limerick under the 10th and 11th of the Queen, and that he died there of fever on the 27th June. The Local Government Board of Ireland having had their attention called to the facts, had sent an Inspector to the Union to inquire into the circumstances, so far as the Guardians and the relieving officer were concerned, in connection with the part they took in the matter. It appeared, from his Report, that up to the time of the committal to prison, Lee was to all appearance in a strong and healthy condition, and that he did not complain of his treatment while there. The relieving officer also stated that Lee did not say that he was on his way to join the Militia regiment to which he belonged. As to the proceedings before the magistrates which resulted in Lee being committed to Limerick gaol,

1801
further inquiries were now being made, but had not yet terminated; and therefore he was not in a position to give any information as to it.
LORD EMLYobserved that the proceedings had been taken under the Vagrancy Act of 1847, the provision in which was passed to prevent persons going from one Union, where the work-house was not full, into another where the workhouse was full, so that they might there get out-door relief. He found on inquiry that gross cruelty had been inflicted by applying this enactment to cases which it was never intended to apply to, and it was certainly never intended to apply to the case now in question. This man, he understood, stated that he was on his way to join his regiment of Militia, and yet notwithstanding that he was most cruelly and improperly committed to Limerick gaol, where he died. He (Lord Emly) most earnestly trusted that the Government would take some steps to prevent the law being so misapplied in the future.

SUGAR TRADE—FRANCE—BOUNTY ON REFINED SUGAR.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HAMPTON, in presenting Petitions from proprietors of Jamaica and Barbadoes praying for some remedy for the system under which refined sugar is at present exported from Prance and other countries, and in asking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the present state of negotiations on that subject?—said, that in 1864 a Convention on the subject of the regulation of the sugar trade was entered into between England, Holland, France, and Belgium. In 1852 France found that her revenues were suffering from the bounties which she was paying on the exportation of refined sugars. France then applied to the other three Powers, and requested them to co-operate with her in considering the question of the different sugar duties. England acquiesced in that request; and the result was that between 1853 and 1864 several Conferences were held, which resulted in the Convention of 1864, the arrangement under which was considered satisfactory for carrying out an equitable system of sugar duties. From that period England loyally acted and carried out the part which she undertook, for
  1802
  the Government lost no time in obtaining an Act of Parliament to enable them to do so. But he was sorry to say that from that time to the present France had continued to evade the fulfilment of her engagements, although it had been framed upon the terms which her Government had suggested, and had used its powers for her own protection. In 1867 there was a Correspondence between England and France on the subject; but France was in such a position at that time as not to be able to make a change, and subsequently became involved in the war with Germany, so that negotiations were prevented from being proceeded with. When peace was restored these negotiations were again commenced, and England requested France that she should carry out her part of the Convention of 1864. But France being evidently unwilling to carry out her engagement, England proposed that the sugar of France should be refined in bond. The system adopted in France and other countries was one virtually of bounties on the exportation of sugar, and it was of that system that England complained. The system of charging complained of was that the duty was charged upon the raw material, the actual produce of sugar when refined being estimated at say from 3 to 5 per cent, when in fact it produced from 80 to 90 per cent; the result, therefore, under that system was that the French sugar refiners enjoyed an advantage of about 80 per cent upon the quantity of refined sugar which they exported. After repeated complaints on the part of England, France last year passed a law for refining sugar in bond, and that system, which would meet so far the requirements of England, was to commence at the end of the present month of July. He believed he was not overstating the facts when he said that the loss of revenue to France in consequence of granting these special bounties upon refined sugars amounted to £800,000 per annum. The position of things being as he had stated, it was, he believed, at the request of France that another Conference was held, in the hope of adopting a system in which the same four Powers would agree, and he understood it was a fact that no less than seven Conferences between the four Powers had been held upon this difficult and complicated question. The result was

  1803
  that a Convention was agreed upon, and about a week ago it was to have been ratified and signed; but he now understood that France had within the last few days, suggested another postponement of the termination of the Convention—which would have come to an end at the close of this month—and had intimated that the system of refining in bond in France would not come into operation until the month of March next year. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to bring the question under the notice of Her Majesty's Government, in the hope that some remedy might be discovered; though he did not think the Petitioners whom he now represented desired the Government or Parliament to depart from that system or policy which had so long been established in this country, though the people of Jamaica, Barbadoes, and other West Indian Colonies found themselves not only exposed to the competition of the slave labour of Cuba and Brazil, but to the bounty-protected sugar of the Continent. He had endeavoured to compress his statement of the case, though it was a most important one. The Petitioners desired to see the whole sugar trade placed upon a fair and equal basis, for the result of the system in France had virtually been to enable the French refiner to undersell the British refiner to a certain extent. His noble Friend the Foreign Secretary would, no doubt, say whether the complaints of the Petitioners were well founded, and he felt that it was for the Government to discover whether any remedy could be found for the evils complained of without resorting to any system of granting protection to the home sugar trade by any countervailing duties. That, he thought, would be a course which the Government would be reluctant to follow. At the same time, the Government might seriously consider whether, under the extraordinary circumstances which he had endeavoured to explain, the bounty-protected sugar of the Continent should not be excluded from the British market until the inequalities complained of should be removed.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I think my noble Friend (Lord Hampton) has done good service by bringing this question under the notice of the House. It is in itself a question of considerable importance, and one which deeply and vitally
  1804
  affects the interests of a very useful and not unimportant section of the community. I will not follow my noble Friend through the historic retrospect by which he has properly introduced the subject. Those who know what a complicated and confused business this question of bounties and drawbacks has been, will not accuse my noble Friend of any unnecessary prolixity in making the very clear statement which he has laid before us. It is quite true, as he says, that for the last 11 years the principal sugar-refining countries in Europe—England, France, Holland, and Belgium—have been occupied in trying to establish a uniform system of duties and drawbacks on sugar. The difficulty has always been to ascertain the quantity of saccharine matter contained in raw sugar—or, in other words, to ascertain with precision what the yield of refined sugar from a certain quantity of raw sugar would be. The object of establishing a common understanding was to prevent any one country from gaining an unfair advantage over others in regard to sugar exported, and to guard against the injury to revenue caused by excessive drawbacks. The way in which such unfair advantage is secured is this—The duty levied on sugar is measured by the estimated yield of refined sugar from a certain quantity of raw material. If this yield is under-estimated, as has generally been the case, then the drawback granted on exportation operates as a bounty. That is to say, suppose a refiner has paid duty on an estimated yield of 90 lb., he really obtains 95 lb., and he gets the drawback on 95 lb. A sum is, thereby, refunded to him which he has never paid, and which is clear gain into his pocket. It is owned that the French Government are paying in this way a bounty of £800,000 a-year. It was in order to do away with the possibility of that abuse that the Convention was signed in 1864 establishing a system of determining the saccharine quality of sugar. That system did not work well; the whole matter was reconsidered in 1872, and again in 1873, and a great deal of care and labour was bestowed on the inquiry—but no satisfactory system of classification could be arrived at. The British Government thereupon proposed the substitution of refining in bond for the system of classification. I need not explain that re-

  1805
  fining in bond is an effectual remedy for the abuse complained of, because where the refiner pays only on the actual amount of refined sugar produced under supervision, he can claim no drawback beyond what he is fairly entitled to on the amount of the actual yield. At first the system of refining in bond was opposed by other countries; but in March, 1874, the French Assembly passed a law to the effect that refining in bond should come in force on the 1st of July, 1875. To that law a good deal of opposition was raised, and to meet some of the objections taken, the French Government proposed another Conference, which was held at Brussels last month. The delegates signed a Protocol proposing to their respective countries a draft Convention, by which France and Holland should agree to refine in bond, and the Belgian Government, which declines to adopt that system, should, as an equivalent, reduce its duties on sugar by one-third. On this draft there has been a good deal of discussion, the Belgian proposal not being considered satisfactory by Holland and France. They required the reduction to be to the amount of 50 per cent, and that, after some correspondence, was agreed to. There remains still an unsettled question as to the date at and manner in which the Belgian reduction shall be made, and upon that a correspondence is still being carried on. England has cut the knot by abolishing sugar duties altogether, and that, no doubt, would be the most satisfactory solution if it could be adopted all round. The only stipulation asked of us is one to which we have no difficulty in assenting—namely, that if we re-impose the duties on sugar we will adopt the system of refining in bond. I need not say that we do not contemplate their re-imposition at any time or in any form, and therefore the pledge costs us nothing. I regret that in one respect I cannot give a satisfactory report of the state of these negotiations. I have stated that the French Assembly last year passed a law establishing the system of refining in bond for France. That law, it was understood, was to come into operation in the course of the present month, or, at latest, on the 1st of August, when the Convention of 1864 expires. We have had repeated assurances from the French Government that it should be brought into operation with-
  1806
  out delay, and it is therefore with regret and disappointment that we have learnt that a Bill has been brought into the Assembly postponing its operation until the 1st of March next. We have remonstrated against this delay as unjust and injurious to the English sugar trade, and have withheld our signature from the Convention until the matter is cleared up. That is the present position of affairs, and I shall be ready to lay Papers on the Table before the Session closes, containing a fuller statement of what has passed. It is, perhaps, only fair to the French Government to state that the Dutch do not propose to bring in refining in bond until the 1st of March, and I understand that is the French defence; they say—"We will begin the new system when others do, but not before." The cases, however, are different; in Holland a law must be passed to make refining in bond legally compulsory, and that the Dutch say cannot be done before next spring; in France the law exists already, and would come into operation of itself. I may point out that it is not merely the delay of nine months to which we object; it is the risk and uncertainty which that delay introduces into the whole arrangement. It is not impossible that before next year the present French Assembly will be dissolved, and no one can tell what may be the feeling on this subject of the next Assembly. Before I sit down I would just remark that I think my noble Friend (Lord Hampton) put this question a little too much as if it affected exclusively the interests of the colonial producer and the sugar refiner. From our point of view, it is also a question affecting the general interests of the public. We are convinced that any advantage of cheapness to the consumer which can be obtained by means of the bounty on foreign sugar will be temporary only; because if the bounty were continued long enough and raised high enough to drive the English sugar refiner and colonial producer out of the market, then it follows that the foreign producer would get the monopoly of the market—in which case the price would not long remain at a low rate.
  EARL GRANVILLEalso wished to express his opinion that the noble Lord (Lord Hampton) had done good service by calling attention to this subject, and that by so doing the hands of the Go-

  1807
  vernment would be strengthened. He was glad to hear the noble Earl's repudiation of any idea of countervailing duties. This country had quite made up its mind to maintain sound principles in reference to matters of commerce; and he was glad to hear from the noble Earl what his opinion was as to the feeling of the people of this country, and as to the policy of the country in that respect. They could not always induce other countries to follow their example, or to believe that the policy of this country was a sound one; and he believed that as regarded France this was one of those questions in which class interests had much greater power than they ought to be allowed to have. It was a case in which those interests received £800,000 or £1,000,000 by way of bounty. That payment to them raised the price of sugar in France to the consumers, and those consumers were a very large class in that country. He believed that this discussion would strengthen the hands of the Government of France, and would be of service to the French public, as they would have an opportunity of seeing that, in consequence of the present system being maintained, there was a large increase to the taxation of that country, and that their interests were opposed to those of the sugar refiners. If this question should be seriously considered by the French people it would at no distant time be brought to a satisfactory termination.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.