Sitting of 26 July 1875

MINUTES.
RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE—East India, Auditor of Accounts, &c. [Superannuations; Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland) [Salaries].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Commission Act Amendment* [266]; Restriction on Penal Actions and Redemption of Penalties* [267]; Sanitary-Law (Dublin) Amendment* [268].
First Reading—Copyright of Designs* [270].
Select Committee—Registration of Trade Marks* [242], Mr. Hermon disch.
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (England) (re-comm.) [222]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment (re-comm) [202]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* [251]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c)* [253]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Aberdare, &c.)* [254]; Traffic Regulation (Dublin)* [244]; Justices of the Peace Qualification* [151]; Legal Practitioners* [46].
Report—Public Works Loans* [243–269].
Third Reading—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland)* [189]; Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867, Amendment* [233]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment* [250], and passed.
Withdrawn—Offences against the Person Act Amendment* [250]; Pollution of Rivers* [252]; Savings Banks, &c. "[198]; Drugging of Animals* [235].

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL AND UNSEA-WORTHY SHIPS.

  MOTION AND NOTICES.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I beg to move that the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill be fixed for second reading on Thursday next.
  Motion agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I give Notice that on Wednesday next, I will move for leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for giving further powers to the Board of Trade for stopping Un-seaworthy Ships.
  MR. DILLWYN: To-morrow, at 2 o'clock, I will ask the Prime Minister, if he will give precedence over the other Orders of the Day to the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill, which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Derby, and which will stand for second reading on Thursday next.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES WITH FRANCE, ITALY, AND AUSTRIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTLER - JOHNSTONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can hold out any confident hope to the House and to the country that the treaties of commerce between this country and France, Italy, and Austria, two of which are shortly shortly about to lapse, will be renewed, and on terms equally favourable to this country as the expiring treaties?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, the French treaty expires in June, 1877, if denounced. The Austrian expires in December, 1876, if denounced. The Italian will expire June, 1876, and has been denounced. As to France and Austria, no denunciation has been made. The time, therefore, has not arrived when it is expedient to make any public announcement upon the subject. As to Italy, negotiations are going on with respect to the Treaty, and no efforts shall be wanting on our part to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. Many influential Members on both sides of the House are aware that Her Majesty's Government are giving the subject serious and anxious consideration, and they are also aware that the views of many commercial bodies in this country have been communicated to my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office. I need not say that Her Majesty's Government will continue to use every effort to base our commercial relations with all foreign countries on sound principles.

CIVIL SERVICE (IRELAND)—SALARIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can state why it is that while clerks connected with several of the Irish Public Offices and other officials belonging to the Irish branch of the Civil Service have been placed on a footing of equality with those in a corresponding position in England, the district inspectors of national schools in Ireland have not been placed in the same position as to salary and allowances with those in England, in accordance with a Resolution of the House of Commons of the 4th July, 1873, recommending the same?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, in consequence of the Resolution of the House of Commons in July, 1873, referred to by the hon. Member, a Departmental Committee was appointed by the late Government to inquire into the case of various officials belonging to the Irish branch of the Civil Service. In that inquiry the Treasury was represented, and also the Departments on which the inquiry was held, and the result has been a very considerable improvement in the position of various parties employed in the Irish Civil Service. I am quite aware that there are some eases in which parties holding nominally the same position as officers in England have not been placed on precisely the same footing; and Inspectors of Schools are in that class. Although the name of the office is the same in both countries, there is a difference in the position of the officer and his duties; but the position of these Inspectors has been very considerably improved. There were three classes under the old system. The first class had a salary commencing at £450 and rising by £10 yearly to £500. The salary now commences at £500 and rises by £15 per annum to £600 a-year. The second and third classes have had a similar increase; and the position of these classes has also been very much improved as to their allowances for travelling and personal expenses.

POOR LAW—NEWPORT PAGNEL UNION—DISMISSAL OF MR. HAMMETT HAILEY.—QUESTION.
DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the statements of Mr. Hammett Hailey, a medical officer of the Newport Pagnel Union for twenty seven years, in a Petition presented to this House July 7th and printed in the Appendix (No. 526) have received his attention; and, whether the dismisal of Mr. Hailey from his office for the alleged offence of writing an intemperate letter to a relieving officer (subsequently apologized for) will be re-considered by the Board?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, the case of Mr. Hailey has received my most careful attention, I am aware of the Petition presented to the House and the statements contained in it. It is not correct to say that he was dismissed for
46
writing an intemperate letter to a relieving officer. The letter was addressed to the Board of Guardians. But his offence could hardly be said to be confined to the writing of that letter. His conduct had been the subject of numerous and repeated complaints on the part of the Local Government Inspectors during a long series of years; and, upon reviewing the whole circumstances, I could not come to the conclusion that I should be justified in re-opening the case.

ARMY—YEOMANRY AND VOLUNTEERS—PAY OF ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Secretary of State for War, If any decision has been arrived at as to the pay of adjutants of Yeomanry and Volunteers?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the Commission on the pay of adjutants of the Yeomanry had completed its Report, although all the Members had not yet signed it. The question of their pay would, therefore, soon be ripe for consideration. As to adjutants of Volunteers, some questions as to certain Brigade Depôt arrangements were still pending, and their case must therefore stand over for some time longer.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION—THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is able to inform the House what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the adoption of the recommendations of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Commissioners have sent in three Reports to the Government and have now completed their labours. I must express our great gratitude to them, and especially to my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), for the great pains they have taken. The Reports are very interesting and very suggestive; and they raise questions both of principle and detail, the application of which will require careful consideration. The Government has been making inquiries in particular offices

47
with a view of seeing how far the principles of the Reports could be applied to them. We are not at present in a position to give a definite answer, but the matter is engaging serious consideration, and we hope in the course of the Recess to arrive at some conclusion.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHS AND RAILWAY COMPANIES.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any award has been made in respect of the claims of certain Railway Companies for compensation for the transfer of their telegraphs to the Government; and, also whether the payment of such awards has been provided for in the Vote already taken in Committee of Supply?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, an important award has been given in the case of the arbitration between the Post Office and the Great Eastern Railway. The amount which was claimed by the railway company was £504,000; the amount which was awarded was £77,000; that sum has been provided, but it has not been voted in Supply, nor is it necessary or proper that it should. The money will be taken from the capital authorized to be raised by loan under the Telegraphs Act a few years ago. The powers of that Act are not exhausted, and they are more than sufficient to meet this claim. One or two other claims by railway companies are under consideration, but of course I am unable to say what the awards may be.

NAVY—THE MARINE LIGHT INFANTRY—PAY OF OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When it is intended to remove the anomaly in the pay of the the Colonels Second Commandant of Marine Light Infantry, whereby those officers receive 5s. per diem less than the sum which would be in proportion to the pay of the corresponding rank of Marine Artillery, and of the other ranks of their own corps, the pay of the Colonel Commandant of Artillery being 40 s. per diem, and of the Light Infantry 38 s. 6d. per diem, making a difference of 1s. 6d. per diem; of the Colonel Second Commandant of Artillery 26 s. 3d. per diem, and of Light Infantry 20 s. per diem,
48
making a difference of 6s. 3d. per diem; and the difference in the ranks of Colonel, Captain, and Lieutenant being 11 d., 6d., and 4d. respectively; whether this anomaly did not in fact originate from some clerical mistake, and, if not, what reason can be alleged for its existence; and, whether it is anticipated that the Report of the Commission now sitting on Army Promotion will throw any fresh light upon the subject?
MR. HUNTin reply, said, he could not inform the hon. and learned Member whether the Report referred to would throw any fresh light on the subject of what the hon. and learned Member called an anomaly in the pay of the colonels second commandant of Marine Light Infantry. The only way of removing the alleged anomaly would be by the process of "levelling down;" but he did not think that that would meet the view of the hon. and learned Member.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Savings Banks Bill during the present Session?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Savings Banks Bill was introduced with the limited object of stopping a deficiency which had been increasing many years, and which still goes on increasing, in these accounts. There had been some misunderstanding with regard to the nature of the Bill; but I think it was fully removed by the discussion it has gone through, and I feel confident if we were to persevere with the discussion, there would be no doubt as to our being able to satisfy the House and the country with regard to character of that proposal. My right hon. Friend has given Notice that he will endeavour to graft on this Bill an important proposal—namely, that we should take into consideration the question of Savings Banks reform. That is so large a question that it would be impossible to deal with it at the end of a Session; it is, therefore, our intention not to proceed with the Bill during the present Session, but to take up the question next Session, and to deal, as is absolutely necessary, with the question

49
of the deficiency, and also, I hope, with the larger question raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL—LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I promised to take this opportunity of making a statement as to two other Bills which are under my charge. One is the Public Works Loans Consolidation Bill, which has been referred to a Select Committee. That Committee has concluded its labour; it is important that the Bill should be passed, if possible; and I have great hopes that when it is again brought forward the House will have no difficulty in accepting and passing it this Session. With regard to the Local Authorities Loans Bill, I am in this position—it has been very carefully considered, a great many objections that were taken to it have been, as I hope, obviated, and from what reaches me I am inclined to think that the Bill may be accepted without much discussion. If that should prove to be the case, I shall be glad to proceed with it. If, however, it is likely to lead to much discussion, it would have to be laid aside for want of time; but I shall keep it on the Paper until I see the feeling of the House with regard to it.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. RIPLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Government to proceed with the Pollution of Rivers Bill this Session?
MR. DISRAELI: I regret to say. Sir, that I think it would not be possible for us to proceed with this Bill during this Session. The President of the Local Government Board, therefore, will take an early opportunity of moving that the Order be discharged.

MERCANTILE MARINE—DETAINING UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EUSTACE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any officer who considers a vessel overladen has power to detain such vessel pending the receipt of instructions from the Board of Trade?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Board of Trade officers have not power to detain any ship. They report to the Board of Trade, and the Customs' officers detain by directions from the Board of Trade. It is proposed to institute a higher class of Board of Trade surveyors at the principal ports; and I hope the Bill which I have given Notice of for Wednesday will give the requisite powers.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.—QUESTION.
LORD FRANCIS HERVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will next Session, together with a Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, introduce a Bill to consolidate the same?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I hope the Government Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts will be among the earliest measures of next Session. I have no intention of attempting a Consolidation Bill at present; but the House is aware that I have prepared and published a Digest of all existing Merchant Shipping Acts, with a very full and complete Index, which may to a great extent serve the purpose of a Consolidation Act.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—HEAVY GUNS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, On what system the 81-ton guns are to be rifled, and what nature of projectiles are to be used; whether he will state to the House the greatest and next greatest number of battering charges which have been fired from any 35-ton or 38-ton gun rifled on the Woolwich system, without requiring repairs (including re-venting); whether it is a fact that the process of re-venting cannot be performed on board ships at sea in the presence of an enemy; whether he is aware that although the stock of projectiles on board ship may be replenished at a distant seat of war, guns of 35 tons or 81 tons weight cannot be replaced without sending the ship home; and, whether he can state to the House, that it has been shown by actual experiment or otherwise, that our heaviest guns can stand such a practical test as they might be put to in war time; and,

  51
  if they have not been so tested, if he would explain why?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in reply, said, that complete answers would involve too much detail, and would also lead him into scientific controversy which had better be carried on outside the House. It was from no want of courtesy, but with a view to save the time of the House that he gave brief Answers to somewhat unusual Questions, which were more fit to be put to men of science and constructors and manufacturers of heavy guns than in that House. The system on which the 81-ton gun was to be rifled was the present, or Woolwich system. Heavy guns were not fired continuously with battering charges, and he could not say what was the greatest number of charges ever fired from any 35 or 81-ton gun without requiring repairs. The process of re-venting could be performed at sea if required. A reserve of heavy guns was maintained at their stations abroad to meet casualties in the fleets, and therefore the ships need not be sent home. The tests to which their heavy guns were subjected and the experiments made showed that they would stand the practical tests of war.
  CAPTAIN PRICEgave Notice, that in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the noble Lord's reply as to the battering charges, he would move in Committee of Supply on the Naval Estimates, that it was undesirable to proceed with the Inflexible or any ship carrying 81-ton or other heavy guns, until those guns had been subjected to a trial such as they might reasonably be expected to undergo in war.

EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY ARBITRATION ACT—APPOINTMENT OF MR. REILLY.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEasked Mr. Attorney General, If Mr. Reilly, the Parliamentary draftsman, has been appointed Arbitrator under the European Arbitration Act, 1875; and, if application was made to any Ex-Chancellor, Judge or other person having the qualification required by the Arbitration Act, 1872, to accept the office, before appointing Mr. Reilly; and, if so, to whom?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that Mr. Reilly has been appointed Arbitrator under the European Assurance Society Arbitration
52
Act, 1875. I am unable to state whether application was made to any Ex-Chancellor, Judge, or other person having the qualification required by the Act of 1872 to accept the office before Mr. Reilly was appointed. The power to appoint an arbitrator was placed by the Act of the present Session in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who is alone responsible for the appointment he has made.

CHINA—MURDER OF MR. MARGARY AT MANWINE.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether at the very time when the Indian Government has been pressing on one side for access to the scene of the murder of the late Mr. Margary, under circumstances which have occasioned great complications, on the other side where we have already direct relations with the Chinese Government, an inquiry by British officers into the circumstances of the murder, to which that Government has consented, is now delayed for no other reason than the heat of the weather; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the necessity of insisting on greater expedition; and, whether it is true, as stated in some of the public prints, that a pecuniary indemnity for Mr. Margary's death has been sought at the hands of the Chinese Government; if so, who has suffered pecuniary loss by that sad occurrence, and for whose benefit an indemnity was sought?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that no doubt the heat of the weather in China had been one reason for deferring the inquiry referred to, and it was the first duty of Mr. Wade to consider the health of the persons under him. The mission would probably start before long; but there were other causes besides the hot weather which prevented it from starting—causes which related to the state of the country both on the side of Burmah and of China, as well as other considerations concerning political complications. With regard to the indemnity, until all the negotiations were completed, the Government did not think it would be desirable to make any public announcement upon the subject.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, (1873)—THE BARQUE "STANLEY."

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the conduct of an officer of the Board of Trade was in accordance with the twelfth section of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1873," when he demanded of and took from the master of the barque "Stanley" of Sunderland, his sailing register in July, 1874, when the said master was in the act of preparing his vessel for the survey and repair under the superintendence of Lloyd's surveyors?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Stanley sailed from Sunderland in July last, and, having struck on a rock off Filey, ran back into the Tyne. The Board of Trade surveyor inspected her, and reported that she was unfit to go to sea without repair. Having reason to believe that she was about to be patched up and sent for repairs to Sunderland, he reported this, and the Board of Trade detained her. Instead of putting a Customs officer on board, the Collector of Customs, for the convenience of the owner and to save expense, obtained her certificate of registry, and held it while she was being repaired under Lloyd's surveyors. The Board of Trade surveyor did not interfere, but reported when repairs were sufficiently well done, upon which the certificate of registry was returned. All fees and expenses were remitted, and she went to sea again. The House will therefore see that the real facts of the case are the reverse of what is implied by the statement which the hon. Member has received, and which has remained about a fortnight on our Notice Paper.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, in consequence of the hon. Baronet's Answer, he should take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the question, simply to put the House right in respect to the facts of the case, and to show that since the Question had been on the Paper there had been four counts out.

MERCANTILE MARINE—ROCKET APPARATUS.—QUESTION.
LORD CLAUD J. HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any convention or arrangement exists with Foreign Governments pro-
54
viding for foreign merchant vessels being provided with translated instructions for the use of the rocket apparatus employed for saving life from wreck on our own coasts?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Board of Trade have communicated with foreign Governments on the subject of the rules for using the rocket apparatus now generally adopted, and have sent them copies of the English rules, with the view of their being translated and put up on board foreign ships. The Board of Trade have always had printed rules for using the apparatus inserted in logs and other ship papers, and they require every master and mate to be examined in the use of the apparatus before he gets his certificate. Believing that the present apparatus is the best yet submitted, the Board of Trade have caused metal tablets with regulations to be furnished to British shipowners free of charge, to be put on board under directions of their surveyors. Her Majesty has commanded that two of these tablets shall be put on board Her Royal yacht. The tablets are also prepared in German and French, and can be procured in this country, and copies will be sent to foreign Governments.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he wished to know whether this Bill, which was the third Order on the Paper, would be taken that night? Perhaps the Home Secretary would state whether it was his intention to move that the Order be discharged?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the House would allow him to state that before the Government brought in this Bill they took pains to obtain accurate information both in England and Scotland from stipendiary magistrates, chief constables, and others. A mass of evidence thus obtained was laid upon the Table, and a Bill was brought in by the Government. He did not think this was a question which should be dealt with by what might be called panic legislation. He was neither surprised nor sorry to find that there was a disinclination to go back to personal flogging, unless it was proved to be absolutely necessary; but, at the same time,

55
by watching carefully the sentences passed throughout the country, he was fully convinced that the bringing forward of this subject had had the effect of making magistrates impose heavier sentences for brutal assaults than before. The Government, therefore, decided before going on with the Bill to renew the inquiry as to the necessity for it. That inquiry would be made in the Recess, and the matter, if necessary, would be brought forward in another year.

COUNTY COURTS—IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT—CASE OF WILLIAM SMALLBONE.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I must ask the indulgence of the House for two or three minutes while I make a few observations by way of personal explanation. It will be in the recollection of the House that on Thursday last I answered certain Questions, put to me by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), relative to the imprisonment in Winchester Gaol, under an order of the County Court Judge, of a man named William Smallbone, and of his subsequent release from prison by an order of Baron Huddleston. I have this morning received a letter from that learned Judge, who appears to consider that not only did my answers unfairly reflect upon him, but that my statement of facts, so far as it had reference to the proceedings before him, was essentially inaccurate. I need hardly state that my high esteem and respect for Baron Huddleston would at all times prevent my intentionally expressing, either in this House or elsewhere, except under a pressure of duty which certainly does not exist in the present case, any opinion reflecting upon the performance of his judicial duties; and I do not think that the words which I used, and which are accurately reported in The Times of last Friday, can be considered as haying that effect. The learned Judge appears to be under the impression that I charged him with forgetfulness of the Debtors Act of 1869. The inaccurate reports in some other newspapers may have led him to that conclusion, but I am sure that upon reference to what I said it will be clear that my expression, "Judge, Registrar, counsel, and solicitors were apparently
  56
  forgetful of the provisions of the Debtors Act of 1869," had reference to the County Court Judge who committed the man to prison, and not to the learned Judge who released him from it. My further observation that the mistake was not discovered when the parties were before Baron Huddleston had reference to the legal advisers of Smallbone, who, according to the information afforded to me, were asking for his release, not upon the ground that the order for his committal was illegal, but that he was an old man, ill, and unable to pay. That such was the impression which it was my intention to convey, is, I think clear from the context. But, however that may be, I should not be acting consistently with my own views of what is right were I not at once, and unreservedly, to say that, if any observations of mine were so made as to cause pain or annoyance to Baron Huddleston, I extremely regret it. That learned Judge, however, further complains that my statement was inaccurate in so far as I said that Smallbone had been released by him from prison on the ground of old age, ill-health, and inability to pay. He informs me in his letter that the Act of Parliament of 1869 was referred to in the proceedings before him, and all its provisions carefully discussed, and that very little was said as to the man's age, health, or inability to pay, and he adds that he discharged the man on the ground of the illegality of his imprisonment and the irregularity of his committal, and upon no other grounds, and that the other circumstances did not in any way affect his judgment. Sir, I of course accept the statement of the learned Judge, though it entirely contradicts the information which had been given to me, and I again express my regret that I should have been misinformed and thus led into mistake. I must. Sir, however, remind the House that the subject-matter of the Questions of the hon. Member for Londonderry was one in no way under the cognizance of the Attorney General; that the County Court Judges are in no way responsible to him for their conduct; and that he possesses no means of investigating any cases, or alleged cases, of mistake or error of judgment on their part. A gentleman connected with the legal department of the Treasury, and of great experience, procured for me,

  57
  at the request of the Lord Chancellor, the information upon which I answered the Questions of the hon. Member, and into the accuracy of such information I had no means of inquiring, even if I had had any reason to doubt it. Inquiry will, of course, now be made into the cause of the inaccuracy of the information so procured as to the proceedings before the Judge in Chambers.

ARMY—THE SUMMER MANŒUVRES—COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CLOTHES AND ACCOUTREMENTS.
COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, owing to the unusual inclemency of the weather and the consequent extreme wear and tear of the clothes and accoutrements of both officers and men during the late Summer Drills, it is the intention of the Government to grant any compensation?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that in consequence of the unusually severe weather to which the troops had been exposed, his attention had been directed to the subject referred to in anticipation of the Question. He had already taken steps in respect of it in the sense his hon. and gallant Friend suggested.

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

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 7 (Amount of tenant's compensation for first and second class).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, the omission in page 3, lines 19 and 20, of the words "with a deduction of one-twentieth," and the insertion of the words "so far as it adds to the letting value of the holding at the determination of the tenancy." The Bill, as it stood, was not on a satisfactory footing with respect to compensation for unexhausted improvements, for, as had been admitted by hon. Member after hon. Member, even on the Ministerial side of the House, the measure did not secure to the tenant such compensation, but only the value, less an arbitrary deduction which in 20 years would absorb the whole. No division had taken
  58
  place upon the subject, and he therefore wished to give the Committee an opportunity of asserting the principle that the landlord should be made to pay for the value which the tenant left in the holding. He denied that there was any probability of conspiracies between a limited owner and a tenant to defraud the remainderman by pretended improvements, and he held that the provision regarding "letting value" was amply sufficient to protect the latter.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the question raised by the Amendment had been discussed the other day. So far as he could see, the hon. Baronet was opposed to any limitation of compensation. The Committee, however, were of opinion that there ought to be some limitation. He hoped they would not sanction an Amendment which was opposed to the principle of the Bill.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he preferred the proposal of the Bill to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, inasmuch as it introduced the principle of "letting value" which would involve points difficult for the referees to decide.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Motion of Colonel WILSON, Amendments made, in page 3, line 20, by leaving out "one twentieth or of one seventh," and inserting "a proportionate" and leaving out "according to the class."
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONmoved, in page 3, line 22, after "made," to leave out to the end of the clause and insert—
  "Provided that compensation shall he pay-able only where the outlay is of such a nature, and has been executed and maintained in such a manner, that the benefit of it, if any, will he reaped either wholly or in part by the succeeding tenant whether owner or occupier."
  On a former occasion an Amendment of his had been met by the opposition of the Government, on the ground that they had taken the opinion of the Farmers' Club, and that that opinion was against it. He, however, had since ascertained that the opinion of the Farmers' Club was expressed in approval of his Amendment, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who

  59
  had charge of the Bill, would now accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, to leave out from the word "unexhausted," in line 22, to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "Provided, That compensation shall he payable only where the outlay is of such a nature, and has been executed and maintained in such a manner that the benefit of it, if any, will be reaped either wholly or in part by the succeeding tenant, whether owner or occupier,"—(Sir George Jenkinson,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HUNTobjected both to the merits and to the time of the Amendment, and pointed out that the paragraph now under consideration was eon-fined to "first-class" improvements, in consequence of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) to strike out the second class. The Proviso, therefore, of the hon. Baronet was not required.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked if the Government had consented to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire, restricting the operation of the clause to limited owners?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had so expressed himself.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was in favour of some such Proviso, as he did not think it right that the real owner should suffer from the follies and crotchets of his predecessor.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he would not object to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he could not help remembering with satisfaction his prophecy on the second reading, that the Government, in bringing forward this Bill, would find that it entailed dealing with other questions regarding land, and notably with the laws of entail and settlement. He remarked that if the Amendment was to be withdrawn he should move that the latter part of the clause be omitted to afford the Government an opportunity of explaining its effect. It introduced the letting value principle, against which he had already protested, and would create consequent difficulty and confusion.
  MR. KNIGHTthought the whole difficulty might be met if the Government would agree to leave out the word "letting." Then all that would have
  60
  to be determined was, whether the value of the property had been increased by the improvements.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the phrase "letting value" had been introduced simply for the protection of the remainderman. Even although the word was left out, the value of the land would still have to be determined by the number of years' purchase it was worth, which was tantamount to its letting value.
  SIR HENRY JAMEScontended that if the words were retained the interests of the tenant would be sacrificed to the law of entail and settlement.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that it had now been admitted that the law of entail and settlement stood in the way of the landlord and tenant making agreements for an improved cultivation of the soil—a point which he had always asserted. Formerly this question of value was a claim to the outgoing tenant; now it was a limitation upon him; but in either case the same difficulties would arise. There would be new valuations, the arbitrators would be puzzled, and endless complications would arise. Moreover, he could not see how the letting value could work under limitation.
  MR. DISREAELIsaid, the words objected to applied to all limited estates. He believed that they would form a prudent check, and that the only practical result would be that they would prevent improvident investments and rash speculations.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Bill would create a new right on behalf of the tenant, and, as he understood, the objection of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford was that this right did not go far enough, inasmuch as it did not alike attach to the tenant who held under an absolute owner and to the tenant who held under a limited owner.
  SIR HARCOUET JOHNSTONEsaid, that he had consulted with the farmers in his own neighbourhood, and found that they did not believe in the letting value a bit. They were satisfied as long as they could work out their own outlay by a term of years, and the idea of importing letting value into the Bill had been from the beginning a perfect absurdity.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought it would be by far the most convenient course to leave out these

  61
  words altogether. It was not unlikely that the question of the remainderman would crop up again in certain clauses of the Bill, and therefore he considered it would be better for the Government to introduce a clause for the protection of the remainderman instead of inserting it incidentally.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was about to have made some such proposition as that suggested by the noble Marquess. It appeared to him they were mixing up this question of the remainderman in a manner which was not necessary.
  MR. RODWELLsaid, he had not heard a better mode of dealing with the question than by the adoption of his Amendment, to the effect that where the landlord was not, at the time of the consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmaintained that the Amendment which the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire intended to move on the 34th clause would effect this object.
  MR. PELLsaid, he was unable to see how, when the life-owner occupied a large portion of the estate himself, the remainderman could be protected, except by such a provision as this clause contained.
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought the suggestion of the noble Marquess would meet the difficulty.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, the remainderman only came in incidentally. A landlord occupying his own land would not come under the clause at all.
  Question put, "That the words 'but so' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 131: Majority 62.
  MR. RODWELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 22, after "that" to insert—
  "where the landlord was not, at the time of the consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit."
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONthought it would be an improvement to add the following words at the end of the Amendment:—"Or where the consent of the remainderman has not been obtained." He would move that the said Amendment be so amended.
  SIR HENRY JAMESasked how the Amendment would operate in cases where a mortgage in fee existed on the property?
  MR. RODWELLsaid, he could not see that any difficulty would arise in that case.
  SIR HENRY JAMESfeared that they were legislating too hastily, without considering the effect of their Amendments. Many landlords would not like their tenants to know the real facts of the case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would give the observations of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) his best consideration, and he had no doubt that the Interpretation Clause could be so amended as to meet the difficulty which had been suggested.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that the objection made was not directed to the Interpretation Clause; it had reference to that under consideration, and was one of principle. It related to the absolute ownership. Where-ever there was a mortgage, the provisions of the Bill would be rendered imperative by this Amendment.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he did not see how it was possible to frame an Interpretation Clause to meet the necessities of case. No amendment could make the landlord the absolute owner of the estate.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, there were often as many as 10 or 12 remaindermen, and it would be very difficult to get the consent of all of them.
  MR. KNIGHTthought that the tenant ought to be satisfied with the personal security of the landlord.
  Amendment to said proposed Amendment negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RODWELLthen moved in page 3, line 26, after the word "holding," the insertion of the words—
  "The amount of tenant's compensation, in respect of an improvement of the second class, shall he the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement, with the deduction of a proportionate part thereof for each year while the tenancy endures after the year of tenancy in which the outlay is made and while the improvement continues unexhausted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved to amend the said proposed Amendment

  63
  by inserting after the words "the amount of the tenant's compensation in respect of an improvement of the second class" the words—
  "shall be such proportion of the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement as fairly represents the unexhausted value thereof to a succeeding occupier."
  In reply to Sir THOMAS ACLAND,
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Government could not give the exact words, but it was their intention by the clause to allow great latitude to the landlord and tenant to make agreements, provided the interest of the remainderman was properly guarded.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENremarked that the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was precisely the same as that propounded by the Prime Minister on a subsequent clause. The benefit from an improvement did not always result in the first or even in the second year, and instead of drawing a hard-and-fast line, it should be left to the valuers to determine the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that but little benefit was derived from boning or chalking land for the first two or three years, and that therefore it would be unfair in assessing the amount of compensation to charge the outgoing tenant for a larger proportion of benefit from such improvements than he had received.
  MR. MONKsaid, that to reckon the proportion at the same amount for each year would not be fair, because some manures were of little use till the second year.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that the effect of such improvements so far from increasing as time went on was only too transient. He thought the interest of the tenant would be sufficiently protected by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge.
  MR. RODWELLthought his proposal had the merit of being the simpler of the two, and that the good results of the measure would be in proportion to the simplicity of its provisions.
  Amendment to said proposed Amendment negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 8 (Tenant's compensation for third class).
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he proposed to move a re-construction of the clause in a manner upon which he thought there was general agreement upon both sides of the House. The clause provided tenant's compensation of the third class. It seemed to be the general opinion that the manurial value remaining to the incoming tenant was the most satisfactory test which could be applied; and he would accordingly move an Amendment, making the clause stand thus—
  "The amount of the tenant's compensation, in respect of an improvement of the third class, shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be such proportion of the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement as fairly represents the manurial value thereof to an incoming tenant."
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENbelieved the Amendment would very much simplify the matter and save a great deal of discussion. He would only make a verbal criticism. It seemed to him the word "manurial" was hardly admissible, inasmuch as although intelligible it was not English.
  MR. KNIGHTexpressed his regret that part of the Bill was handed over to the valuers, and contended that there was nothing more difficult to ascertain than the manurial value. In his opinion there ought to be some competent authority, such as the Inclosure Commissioners, who should make an analysis of different manurial values and fix some authorized manurial value.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he would like to do away with values altogether, if possible.
  MR. R. E. PLUNKETTfelt some difficulty as to "manurial" value—what did the adjective mean? It would be possible to put upon it great varieties of meaning. Adam Smith said that nations were directed, governed, and "manured," by three sorts of persons. Of course, if the First Lord of the Treasury, who was so great a literary authority, vouched for the word "manurial," and would undertake the parentage of this unusual adjective, he had no more to say; but, if not, he hoped the phrase "value of manures" would be accepted by the House.
  MR. WHITWELLbelieved that these valuations would really be settlements as between neighbours.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had heard of so many errors made by valuers that he thought it desirable not to trust too much to them. He would ask the Prime Minister in all good faith whether he meant to attach to the word "manurial" anything beyond "productiveness" in an agricultural sense. He concluded, however, that there must be some extra meaning to the word.
  THE MARQTJESS OF HARTINGTONagreed that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Wilts (Sir George Jenkinson) relegated the Bill to a considerable extent to valuers. Practically it would be found most convenient for the landlord and tenant to make their own agreements and lay down a scale with regard to manurial value; but what the Committee wanted to know, and did not yet know, was how far landlords and tenants under those agreements would continue under the provisions of the Bill? He admitted, however, that this Amendment was an improvement.
  MR. GOLDNEYbelieved that the 16th section, under which the landlord and tenant might agree as to the amount, mode, and time of compensation, without contracting themselves out of the Bill, sufficiently answered the remarks of the noble Lord.
  COLONEL BRISEthanked the Government for the Amendment.
  MR. WELBYpointed out that the word "manurial" was in common use in agricultural discussions as well as in existing agreements.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if the word "manurial" had not yet become English, it was likely soon to become so, after all the remarks that had been made about it. To prevent any difficulty, as it was unnecessary, he would propose to leave it out of the clause, and to retain simply "the value thereof."
  COLONEL DYOTTsaid, that manurial value was the very essence of the clause, and therefore the word "manurial" ought not to be struck out.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that as the Amendment dealt with the subject-matter of the third class of improvement, the words could have no other meaning than that which his right hon. Friend had in view.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?"
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONobserved, it was only fair that honour should be given to whom honour was due. The Committee had, by a large majority, rejected the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire, and a great deal of time had been spent over this matter of compensation for improvements; but he would leave it to the Committee to say what was the difference in effect between his hon. Friend's proposal and what had been agreed to.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Consent of landlord for first class).
  COLONEL DYOTTmoved, in page 4, line 7, after "first," to insert "or of the second." His object was that the consent of the landlord should be given to improvements of the second class, as well as of the first.
  MR. HUNThoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press the Amendment. As the improvements of the second class stood upon a different footing from those of the first, it would create obstruction and very unnecessarily hamper the action of the tenant. If it were carried, a tenant could not lay dawn half-a-dozen loads of clay without writing to his landlord.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not see the value of giving notice to the landlord of improvements, if he were not to have any notice of their application. Some of those were very large, amounting to £10, £12, or £20 per acre, and the tenant, after he had received notice to quit, might enter upon them. He knew lands upon which bones had no effect, and others upon which marling was carried to such an extent as to positively destroy the production. He also knew lands upon which the application of chalk was deleterious. As the Bill stood, the only check that the landlord had was a notice to quit, and if a difference arose directly after Lady Day, that would practically amount to two years. It would be far simpler to say that the landlord's consent should be requisite, than to place him in the invidious position of enforcing his notice to quit. He should support the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the object of the notice was to give the landlord the right to see that the work

  67
  was rightly done, and that the tenant should not put on cinders and charge for hones.
  MR. ASSHETONconsidered the landlord should have some control over the improvements included in the second class, as he had in the case of the improvements of the first class. In many instances he was a better judge than the tenant of the necessity of such improvements. Besides that, he was the person who would have ultimately to pay for them.
  MR. HUNTpointed out that the landlord could, if he desired, contract that second-class improvements should have his written consent.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, the proposed restriction could subject the tenant to restrictions which would make farming impracticable, would be intolerable to the tenant farmers, and render the Act unpopular. Anyone possessed of agricultural experience would know that, in practice, it would be most vexatious and annoying to require that no tenant could put a load of chalk on his land without "the written consent of his landlord."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAPLINmoved, in page 4, line 7, after "class," to insert "or of the second class when it is made after he has given or received notice to quit." A considerable sum of money would, in some cases, be spent for which the landlord was responsible, and there was nothing unreasonable in giving him the power of saying whether that expenditure should be incurred. In cases where notice to quit had been given, some provision should be made enabling the landlord to put a stop to improvements from which the tenant could not possibly benefit.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the Amendment would come in better at the end of the 10th clause.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would postpone it accordingly.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 4, lines 7 and 8, to leave out from "unless "to" landlord "inclusive, and insert—
  "prohibited in writing by the landlord, or made in contravention of a contract in writing not to make such improvement."
  MR. NEWDEGATEopposed the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the Amendment would render it necessary for the landlord to keep watch over every farm to see what the tenant was doing. While he was attending to his Parliamentary duties in London, one of his tenants in Northamptonshire might be executing improvements of which he knew nothing. Every landlord would require the eyes of Argus, if this Amendment were agreed to.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONmoved, in page 4, line 8, to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "and unless at the expiration of the tenancy the improvement is either in substantial repair, good working order, or condition of growth."
  MR. HUNTdid not see any objection to the adoption of the Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENpointed out that these were precisely the points which the valuers would have to consider, and hoped the Government would re-consider their decision.
  MR. M'LAGANalso trusted that the Government would not accept the Amendment, as it would amount, in his opinion, to simple confiscation of the tenant's property.
  MR. CHAPLINapproved of the proposed Amendment.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaw no harm in the introduction of these words.
  MR. JACKSONthought they were not inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill.
  SIR HENRY JAMES, after an allusion to the thin appearance of the benches, remarked, that although they might not be able to defeat the power of the Government, and also the influence of the landlords, on whichever side of the House they sat, yet they could make apparent the effect of this Amendment, which was nothing more than confiscation. The Amendment had reference to permanent improvements under Class I, upon which the tenant with the consent of his landlord might have spent hundreds of pounds, and yet if the valuer at the expiration of the tenancy should determine that the buildings were not in substantial repair, the tenant's property in them was confiscated. ["No, no!"] The effect of the Amendment

  69
  would be that if the tiles were off a building it would become the property of the landlord without any compensation being paid to the tenant.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, that if the valuers knew anything about their business they would not because a few pounds' worth of tiles were off confiscate the tenant's property in the improvement. He thought, however, that the words of the Amendment were a little too strong, and suggested the substitution of "tenantable" for "substantial," and the omission of "condition of growth." He would propose an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to that effect.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was under the impression that the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Cheshire were unnecessary, and therefore objectionable, because in the case of improvements for which the written consent of the landlord was necessary, the latter would guard himself by making all the proposed stipulations for himself. The term "substantial repair" was rather too strong, and he would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, and leave it to the Government, with the assistance of their legal Advisers, to see whether other words might not be introduced later on which would effect the object he had in view.
  Amendment to said proposed Amendment and proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CUSTmoved, in page 4, line 8, at the end of the clause, to add—
  "And unless he has within one year of the completion of the improvement deposited with the landlord or his agent vouchers of the various items of the outlay which he has incurred."
  MR. MARK STEWARTthought that the adoption of the words would be productive of very little good, as it would be difficult to prove the claims.
  MR. D. DAVIESwas against raising difficulties in the way of effecting permanent improvements to be executed with the consent of the landlord. He considered that it would be for the interest of the landlord to leave as much liberty as possible to the tenant.
  MR. CAWLEYthought that the introduction of the words proposed would lead to uncertainty.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought it would be most unfair to take those vouchers out of the hands of the tenant, and expressed a hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. F. MONCKTONproposed to add the following words at the end of the clause:—
  "Nor unless, within six months after a completion thereof, he has given to the landlord a written statement of the amount expended in the execution of the said improvement."
  MR. GOLDSMIDconsidered that the words were unfair and unnecessary. The landlord would have no difficulty in ascertaining how much money had been spent, and would make his agreement accordingly.
  MR. GLARE READhoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, because the landlord could stipulate what kind of agreement he would have.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Notice to landlord for second class).
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENmoved to substitute "three months" for "21 days," as one of the limits within which a tenant might give notice that he intended to execute improvements of the second class.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsupported the Amendment, as he was in favour of reasonable time being given for such a purpose, and 21 days would often be totally inadequate.
  MR. GREENE, in opposing the Amendment, said, he could not see any necessity for the existence of the clause itself.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the object was that the landlord might have notice of what was going to be done, and might not be kept long in suspense. He thought six weeks on the one hand, and a fortnight on the other might be substituted for 21 and seven days respectively, as proposed in the clause, and would propose an Amendment accordingly.
  Amendment (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Hunt) agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. HUNT, clause further amended by the addition of the words—

  71
  "Or where it is executed after the tenant has given or received notice to quit, unless it is executed with the previous consent in writing of the landlord."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Restrictions as to third class).
  On Motion of Mr. GOLDSMID, Amendment made in page 4, line 14, by inserting the word "ascertaining," in lieu of the word "ascertained."
  COLONEL DYOTTproposed, in page 4, line 15, after "class," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert—
  "The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of outlay for the purposes enumerated, unless he has given not more than twenty-one and not less than seven days' previous notice in writing to the landlord or his agent of his intention to make such outlay, specifying the probable quantity and description of artificial manure proposed to be applied, and the quantity and description of artificial food proposed to be consumed during the last year of the tenancy, and has obtained the concurrence of the landlord."
  MR. MARK STEWARThoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press this Amendment. It would be destructive, if carried, of all incentive to high farming.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HUNT, in pursuance of an understanding with the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), brought up in manuscript an Amendment, which he moved as an addition to the clause. It was as follows:—
  "And there shall be deducted the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding of any hay, straw, roots, or green crop sold off the holding within the last two years or other less time that the tenancy has endured."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who took exception to the Amendment being produced in manuscript, and in the absence of the hon. Member for Berkshire, contended that it would open up a very difficult question for valuers—["No!"]—namely, the quantity of manure which might have been produced by a particular quantity of hay, &c. Whatever hon. Gentlemen might say, that certainly appeared to him to be a peculiarly difficult question to solve. He suggested that the consideration of the Amendment should be postponed until the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, the principle proposed by the Government was only that
  72
  which was carried out on every well-managed farm. He believed it would commend itself to incoming tenants.
  MR. GOLDSMIDdid not believe any such difficulty as that imagined by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford would arise. Permission to sell hay was nearly always given on the condition that an equivalent amount of manure should be brought to the farm. The hon. Member pointed out that Clause 6, which was already passed, would require some alteration in order to accord with the Amendment now proposed.
  MR. TORRobjected to the introduction of these infinitely small matters into the Bill. He believed them to be impracticable, and was convinced that they would defeat the object of the Bill.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYfelt that if the Amendment had not been proposed by the Government, he, in common with every other landlord throughout the country, would have been obliged to contract imself out of the Act.
  MR. CLARE READwas decidedly of opinion that a man who sold off all his hay ought not to receive compensation for manure which he might bring back. His duty was to consume his hay on his farm. As for the fears of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford, he would say that if a valuer could not tell the manurial value of a ton of hay, he would not be able to tell the manurial value of a ton of cake. The matter was one from which no difficulty was experienced in practice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not think that a tenant who sold hay, the produce of his holding, and brought home manure, purchased with the proceeds, should be entitled to receive compensation for it.
  MR. MELDONthought the proposed Amendment would be a direct breach of contract. It was endeavoured by the Government to make the country believe that they were going to do something for them.
  COLONEL BRISEdid not think the Amendment of the Government necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill? "
  MR. WHITWELLmoved its omission. Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 76: Majority 101.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 12 (Deductions from compensation for taxes, rent, &c.), and Clause 13 (Set off of benefit to tenant) agreed to.
  Landlord's compensation.
  Clause 14 (Landlord's title to compensation.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESmoved the omission of the clause. He said, that this was the first of the procedure clauses in the Bill, and if his Amendment were agreed to no fewer than 16 clauses would be got rid of, besides shortening the discussion in Committee by many hours. The clause would entitle a landlord to proceed under the Bill where a tenant committed waste, or broke a covenant or other agreement connected with the contract of tenancy. Now, that would give a wide scope of claim by the landlord under the Bill, and he would be enabled to raise many nice questions which there was no proper tribunal to try. Why should this exceptional privilege be given to the landlord, instead of leaving him to resort to the ordinary tribunals? The landlord could claim under the Bill, even when the tenant made no claim against him, and no statute of limitation would bar the claim. Further, the tribunal constituted under the Bill had no power to determine many of the questions that might be raised; because it was provided that it could only determine the amount of compensation and the time when it was to be paid. If appeal was to be allowed to the County Court Judge on the subject of amount, why should they not send before a legal tribunal, in the first instance, questions as to breach of covenant and committal of waste? Under the clause as it stood power of appeal was only given to the landlord and not to the tenant, while, should it remain unaltered, a most expensive and objectionable mode of procedure would be established.
  MR. JACKSONsupported the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. Without going into the more technical questions which had been raised, and regarding this question from a landowning point of view, he considered that the Government's clauses were dangerous, as they would take these matters
  74
  from under the cognizance of the ordinary Courts of the land and create a special tribunal less competent to deal with them. No doubt arbitration was the best way of settling disputes of the character which would arise under this Bill, but he preferred arbitration chosen by the parties to arbitration forced upon them in derogation of legal rights. The best way to prevent litigation was to give facilities for enforcing legal rights, and as the result of the Bill would after all be the creation of legal rights expressed in money value, the best way of arriving at what the law was, would be to let the questions of law be tried by the Courts. The common sense of the parties would find the way to assess the amount. But under this Bill there would be no means by which doubtful points of law could be taken as a matter of right before the Superior Courts of Law. He doubted whether under the Bill a landlord and tenant could agree to take any case to the ordinary tribunals, and he certainly thought that was a matter which deserved the attention of the House and the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he fully admitted the importance of the matters referred to by his hon. and learned Friends; but he hoped that the Committee would give its attention to the particular subject under consideration, which was whether the 14th clause should be retained or not. It appeared to him that the clause was one to which no reasonable objection could be taken. It was not a clause of procedure, but of definition. It defined that which was to be the subject of procedure. It would enable a landlord who had a claim against his tenant at the end of the tenancy, arising from breach of contract or otherwise, to set off such claim, as far as it went, against any claim for compensation which the tenant might have against him. He thought it was only right that the landlord should have such a power, and the referees after investigating the case would make the award either in favour of the landlord or tenant. The question how far the tribunal constituted by the Bill was a satisfactory one would arise under a subsequent clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmaintained that if the tenant had committed a breach of covenant, the landlord might

  75
  proceed against him quite independently, and use the machinery of this Act for that breach of covenant; but there was no similar provision on behalf of the tenant. This clause had, he thought, found its way into the Bill by mistake. There was scarcely anything a tenant could do that might not be regarded as waste at common law, and if the landlord was to have the means of proceeding against the tenant with respect to waste, it was necessary that the term should be defined in the Bill. It was evident that the draftsman of the Bill did not understand the meaning of the word "waste" in law, which included an improvement which altered the condition of the property.
  MR. STORERobjected to the means afforded for inflicting injury upon the tenant farmer, especially through the means of petti-fogging attorneys. There were many improvements which tenant farmers might make, and which they would make, which were not included in the Bill.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford had complained that the draftsman had not afforded a proper definition of waste; but he thought sufficient definition had been given during the progress of the Bill in "another place" in such matters as diminishing the letting value of the holding, causing or permitting land to be neglected, damaging the timber, injuring pasture, neglecting outfalls and water courses, neglecting the repair of roads, and other matters of a similar kind. He thought these heads comprised what might be called a definition, and therefore the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to be well founded. Without any further definition of what was waste, there was not any adequate Court that could not at once settle the question.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the highest legal authorities might be able to define what waste was; but what would be the position of the unfortunate tenant against whom the landlord brought a charge of waste? Probably a great deal of time would be saved if the Government would agree to omit the clause, and consider what better words might be introduced. He thought the object of the right hon. Gentleman had not been carried into effect by the clause. He considered that the
  76
  clause went much further than was consistent with the object of the Bill.
  MR. HUNTthought that if the clause stood alone, it might bear the interpretation put upon it by the noble Marquess; but it was to be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the Bill, and especially Clause 15, which dealt with the notice of intended claims. How-over, if the present words were not satisfactory, the Government would be prepared to make the necessary amendment in the Bill at its next stage. In the meantime, he hoped the clause would be retained.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the words agreed upon in the House of Lords did not form a definition of the general term "waste," but were only a limitation of it. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that any properly constituted Court should construe what waste was; but under the clause, that was not left to a properly constituted Court, but to three country surveyors to determine.
  MR. MUNTZregretted more than ever that he had not been brought up a professional man, for he could see in this Bill such ample prospects of litigation as would make this land of ours, hitherto prosperous and happy, a hell upon earth. Why were we to deviate in this matter from the common law which had hitherto answered perfectly well? Why put landlord and tenant in such a position by the Bill that they would contract themselves out of it as the only way of avoiding litigation? The best friends of the landlords were the tenant farmers, yet the Bill was doing much to destroy the amicable relations which had hitherto existed between them.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYapproved of the clause, and would much prefer valuers who understood agricultural matters to Judges at Westminster, who possibly did not know wheat from barley. The anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) to get the matter into the hands of the lawyers reminded him of the farmer's song—
  "If you' re fond of pure vexation
  And long procrastination,
  You' re just in the situation
  To enjoy your suit at law."
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 106: Majority 88.
  Clause agreed to.
  Procedure.
  Clause 15 (Notice of intended claim.)
  MR. MARK STEWART (for Sir JOHN KENNAWAY)moved, in page 4, line 39, to insert the words "one month at least," before the termination of his tenancy, in reference to the notice to be given by a tenant claiming compensation.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the hon. Member must be under a complete misapprehension in suggesting this alteration.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that communication would have previously been made on the amount of claims, and therefore it was not unreasonable that the tenant should give a month's notice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GOLDSMIDmoved to report Progress, calling attention to the fact that there were 40 other Orders, the first of which was the Militia Bill.
  MR. DISRAELIopposed the Motion, which he hoped would be withdrawn until this clause had been disposed of.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would, with the permission of the House, take the Bill at a Morning Sitting to-morrow at 2 o'clock; and, as the evening Paper was virtually empty, he trusted that the Committee would pursue their labours upon the Bill at the Sitting at 9 o'clock.

MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Hardy, The Judge Advocate, Mr. Stanley.)
MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 202.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 19th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 50 (Her Majesty may accept voluntary offers of Militia to serve in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Malta, and Gibraltar).
  MR. HAYTERmoved, in page 14, at end of clause, to add the words—
  "Provided always, That in case of European War, the Militia shall he liable for active or foreign service, within the limits of Europe, and
  78
  such liability shall he entered on their original enlistment paper."
  The hon. Member said, the main object of the clause was to extend the service of the Militia to Malta and Gibraltar. He proposed that the clause should be extended so as to enable the Militia to relieve the Regular troops in garrisoning Antwerp or other towns in the event of a European war. During the last great war the plan adopted was to take driblets of men from the various regiments of Militia. In three cases known to him Militia officers had obtained 100 men from Militia regiments for the Line, and obtained commissions in Line regiments as a reward. This system was very unpopular among the colonels of Militia, because they lost men at the very time when they were required for active service. The proper plan of proceeding was to call upon the entire regiments of Militia. He had received a considerable number of communications, giving the opinions of commanding officers of regiments to show that his Amendment would not militate against enlistments for Militia regiments.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, that was one of the most extraordinary proposals ever made, and, if the Ballot were enforced for the Militia, would place the Militia in a worse position than the Regulars, who would be enlisted voluntarily. He had regarded the Notice of the Amendment as a joke.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the resort to the Ballot in the case of the Militia was a source of difficulty when, in time of war, it was desired to send the Militia abroad. But the proposal was no doubt made by his hon. and gallant Friend to authorize the Militia to volunteer their services, of which there were many precedents in the history of the Militia. At the same time, he regretted that the Bill had not been sent to a Select Committee, as he felt persuaded that in that case a great deal of valuable information would have been obtained with respect to the Militia, and many useful alterations would then have been introduced into the present Bill based on the experience of former years, and found on record in some of the Acts which this Bill proposed to do away with.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHthought the Militia should continue a Home force, ready to volunteer for foreign

  79
  service when necessity required it, without being under a contract to do so.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYgave the utmost credit to his hon. and gallant Friend opposite for the goodness of his motive in proposing his Amendment; but he would point out that it was perfectly incongruous, and would not be in harmony with the general spirit of the clause. Its effect would be that the Militia would be absolutely compelled to serve abroad in the event of a European war, whereas they would not be liable unless they volunteered to garrison the British colonial possessions. Besides, the new system of cadres had put the Army on a different footing, and until the experiment had been tried more fully it would be injurious to adopt this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 51 to 63, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 64 (Deserters may, when Militia not embodied or assembled for training, be proceeded against summarily before justices, or tried by court-martial).
  MR. GOURLEYmoved an Amendment which would remove the trial of deserters from a military to a civil tribunal.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 65 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 87 (Power to Her Majesty to regulate the Militia by warrants and regulations, &c.).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved an Amendment specifying that annual Returns of Warrants, Orders, and Regulations relating to the Militia should be laid before Parliament. That provision was now the more necessary, seeing that the course now followed in respect to the Militia was entirely at variance with the practice of former times. That practice required all the Regulations connected with the Militia to form part of the Act, or Regulations were appended to the Act, so that the entire law affecting that Force was publicly known and could be referred to in one or more Acts, readily procurable by everyone. Now the law vested in the Secretary of State the fullest authority to issue Regulations and War-
  80
  rants dealing with every question connected with the pay, pensions, clothing, arming, drilling, organization, and officering of the Force, and unless those Regulations were annually placed before Parliament and printed, it would be very difficult for any Member or for any one outside the War Office to ascertain what were the Orders affecting this great Force. But he hoped that the Secretary of State would consider those points and cause an annual compilation of all Regulations, including the Laws to Acts of Parliament to be made and made available for purchase by all who desired to know about the Militia. He was confident that consideration would be given, and would therefore withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKmoved a new clause, enabling the Secretary of State for War to enlist from the respective Militias raised in England, Scotland, and Ireland, a number of men which should not exceed at any one time one-third part of the respective quotas of the Militia now for the time being fixed by law to be raised therein respectively. This would raise the Reserve from 30,000 to 40,000.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, admitting the importance of the question of the Militia Reserves, expressed a hope that he would not be called upon to adopt the proposed clause in the present Bill, but leave the matter in his hands to deal with it next Session.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKwithdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 155.]
(Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 155.]
  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

    WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment of Second Reading[14th June] read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

POLLUTION OF RIVEES BILL. [Lords.]
  [BILL 252.] SECOND READING.

    WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

SAVINGS BANKS (&c.) BILL. [BILL 198.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
SAVINGS BANKS (&c.) BILL. [BILL 198.]
  CONSIDERATION. WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) SALARIES.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. RAMSAYin moving that the House go into Committee that day three months said, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said that the object of the Government was to enable an additional Sheriff substitute to be appointed by Glasgow. No person was more sensible than he of the need there was in Glasgow for more judicial power, but he would remind the House that the application by Glasgow for a stipendiary magistrate had been refused by the Home Secretary. In other parts of the country there were Sheriffs substitute who had nothing to do, and he thought one of these should be employed, so that instead of increasing the expenses they should go towards economy. He would move the postponement of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Ramsay,)—instead thereof.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the House would permit the Bill to be brought in. He admitted the judicial system of Scotland required revision, and said that the subject would engage
  82
  the attention of the Lord Advocate and himself during the Recess.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALEOURalso advocated the withdrawal of the opposition for the present, and to contest the proposals of the Government on the separate clauses of the Bill, and to this way he was quite prepared to give his cordial aid to his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) in every stage of the Bill which was partial in its reforms, instead of being general for all Scotland.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsuggested that the best way to save the time of the Government was to oppose Bills when they were introduced.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 29: Majority 28.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Debate arising.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Stacpoole,)—put, and negatived.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Matter considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of the Salaries of certain additional Sheriffs Substitute in Scotland.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  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 Superannuation 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, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the appointment of certain persons who entered the employment of the Home Government of India before the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-ninth and thirtieth years of Her Majesty, chapter one hundred and eleven, relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, ordered to brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, and Mr. CUBITT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 266.]

  RESTRICTION ON PENAL ACTIONS AND REDEMPTION OF PENALTIES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-first year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter forty-nine, intituled, "An Act for preventing certain Abuses and Profanations of the Lord's Day called Sunday," and for further amending the Law concerning the Remission of Penalties, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 267.]

  SANITARY LAW (DUBLIN) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to amend an Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the thirty-third and thirty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and six, intituled "An Act to amend the Sanitary Act, 1866, so far as relates to the city of Dublin," ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Lovat, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Aliens and Naturalization* (226); Alkali Works* (227); Chain Cables and Anchors* (228); Issue of Writs during Recess* (229); Meeting of Parliament* (230); Parliamentary Proceedings (Oaths and Costs)* (231); Public Schools* (232).
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision (194); Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland)* (191); Conspiracy and Protection of Property (220); Employers and Workmen* (218).
Committee—Report—Washington Treaty (Claims Distribution)* (216).

THE IRISH PEERAGE.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  The Queen's Answer to the Address of the 9th instant reported as follows:—
  2
  "Relying on the wisdom of Parliament, I do not desire that the powers reserved to Me by the Act of Union of making creations and promotions in the Peerage of Ireland should stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure that may be introduced on that subject."

PRINCE EDWARD'S ISLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD PENZANCErose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Act of the Colonial Legislature for the compulsory purchase by the Local Government of Prince Edward's Island of all or any of the estates of the British proprietors in that island, and to ask what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to protect the just interests of those proprietors; and, whether the amount payable to them for the purchase of their rights is limited to the sum of eight hundred thousand dollars men-

  3
  tioned in the Act? The noble and learned Lord said that he considered this subject to be one of great importance. For some time past what might be termed a "land question" had existed in the island. The numbers of the owners of the soil were very small, and a strong democratic feeling prevailed in favour of the compulsory sequestration of the land by the tenants who held of them. This was not a new state of things in many countries; but in Prince Edward's Island it had had considerably sway, the Local Legislature being more or less completely elected by those whose influence was on the tenants' side. The consequence was that great efforts had been made to bring about this result. Last year a very similar Act to that to which he was now alluding passed the local Legislature but failed to receive the Royal Assent, the Governor General in Council stating in a despatch to the Lieutenant-Governor of the island, that he was advised the Act was objectionable, because it did not provide an impartial arbitration for the purchase of this property. The Act of 1874 was also objected to, because it was subversive of the rights of property, harassing and ruinous to the owners, and a dangerous precedent by the encouragement it held out to agitation. The Act of this year differed from the Act of 1874 in creating a more satisfactory tribunal for the adjustment of these cases. Three Commissioners were appointed—one by the Governor General of Canada, one by the local Government, and the third by the Island proprietors. In 1860 the proprietors, most of them resident in this country, were very willing to settle all disputes, and the matter was referred to Commissioners, who reported that the basis of compromise should be that the lands should be valued at 20 years' purchase, the purchase-money being regulated by the amount of rents stipulated to be paid. This compromise had never been carried out. An Act had now been passed which bore very harshly upon the proprietors. The Commissioners were to settle the amount to be paid, taking into consideration not how much rent had been reserved, but how much was paid, so that proprietors who had been lax in enforcing their rights would suffer accordingly. The Commissioners were also to consider what was the probability of recovering rents; so
  4
  that if the law of the island were lax—as in some respects he believed it was—this fact again would tell against the proprietors. The Commissioners were also empowered to open up old questions whether the original conditions of grant had been observed by the proprietors. The Act purported to be one for changing leasehold into freehold tenures; but all that it really did seemed to be to give to the local Government power to acquire the land compulsorily from the proprietors, while it did not give the tenants any statutory right of purchase. Mr. Childers was going out as one of the three Commissioners and the representative of the Governor General, and he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies whether any instructions had been given to Mr. Childers to take a reasonable view of the rights of the proprietors under the Act, and whether Her Majesty's Government had been able to do anything which would lead to justice being done to the proprietors? Otherwise there was reason to believe that the true value of the land would be largely depreciated in the course of the inquiry by the Commissioners. He wished also to ask the noble Earl, whether the amount payable to the proprietors for the purchase of their rights was limited to the sum of $800,000, which he believed had been paid by the Canadian Government in consideration of the recent Federation?
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I find some little difficulty in replying in any detail to the noble and learned Lord, and for this reason'—that the Act which he has brought under the notice of your Lordships is not an Act which has been passed in the ordinary course of Colonial legislation. In the ordinary course of Colonial legislation an Act passed by the Colonial Legislature is sent home to this country, either for sanction or disallowance by the Crown; and, of course, the responsibility in such cases rests with the Minister who advises the Crown. This Act, however, stands on a different footing. It is passed by the Provincial Legislature of the Dominion of Canada; and under the Canadian Federation Act of 1867 it is provided that Acts so passed shall be allowed or disallowed, not by the Crown on the advice of the Minister in England, but by the Governor General. This Act has followed the usual course. It has

  5
  come under review by the Governor General, who has, I think, exercised his judgment properly in sanctioning it. I should exhaust the patience of the House if I were to go minutely into the history of this legislation. The noble and learned Lord has alluded to it as a matter of extreme difficulty, which has existed for a great number of years. It originated, curiously enough, in a lottery which was held in London rather more than 100 years ago. The lottery, which afforded a curious picture of the Colonial administration of the day, was held for the purpose of putting up a large portion, if not the largest portion, of Prince Edward's Island in lots. In one day no fewer than 67 lots were raffled for, each lot containing 20,000 acres of land. Certain conditions were attached to each lot; but, in most cases, they had not been complied with by those who obtained them. The consequence was that property which was then lightly won was lightly treated. The conditions as to settling the lots with colonists were, in the main, not complied with; and in addition to that, the properties were subjected to the difficulty of absenteeism. The result of these two evils was, that complaints not unnaturally sprang up in the island. The tenants who held the properties found out that the owners were not complying with the conditions. They themselves, on the other hand, departed from their conditions with their landlords, and either did not pay the rent at all, or else allowed it to fall into arrear. The ultimate result was a complete state of confusion and recriminations between the two parties. This went on, and about 10 years ago a tenant's league was formed in the island for the purpose of disputing the possession of the property with the descendants of those who held the original lots. A Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the matter. The Commissioners say in their Report—
  "The tenantry of Prince Edward's Island share the common sentiment of the continent which surrounds them. The prejudice in favour of a freehold tenure, if it is one, is beyond the power of reason. The proprietors cannot change the sentiment; the local Government have no power to resist it; and the Imperial Government, having become weary of collecting rents and supporting evictions in Ireland, can hardly be expected to do for the landlords in Prince Edward Island what has ceased to he popular or practicable at home. It is, therefore, imperative upon all the parties concerned to convert
  6
  this tenure. Agrarian questions now occupy the public mind incessantly in this fine colony to the exclusion of all sound politics. A public man is valued in proportion as he is subservient to the proprietors or friendly to the tenants, not for the measures of internal improvement of inter-colonial policy he may propound: and the intellectual and social life of this people is exhausted and frittered away by disputes and contentions detrimental to the interests of all parties."
  The Report of the Commissioners presented no exaggerated picture of the state of things in the island, and showed the advantage of putting an end to it by any system of legislation which was likely to meet with a reasonable amount of acceptance by the contending parties. I am not at all disposed to say that the Act is perfect. Indeed, I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is open to very many charges in various points. The main purport of the Act I take to be this—It requires that a certain notice should be given to the proprietors of the intention of the Government to purchase the land, and provides that three Commissioners shall be nominated, who are to have the power of determining the price. A proprietor may appear by counsel and he may appoint a solicitor; and although he has no appeal from the decision of the Commissioners, yet the Supreme Court of Canada may remit the report of the Commissioners for subsequent revision. I cannot state that the Act is in every respect satisfactory; but I am bound to say that, in my opinion, it is not altogether unfavourable to the proprietors. This Act does not lay down the principle of compulsory purchase for the first time. That principle was laid down before in Prince Edward's Island, and this is a supplementary Act, which is rather in favour of the proprietors than otherwise, as it provides on the whole a fair and equitable machinery to enable them to obtain compensation for their land. My noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), when he was Colonial Secretary, accepted an Act passed in 1872 on the subject, and also the subsequent Act passed in 1873. Those Acts embodied the principle of compulsory purchase. I think the House will admit that a very wise and proper choice has been made of the gentlemen who are nominated Commissioners, and who will give a fair consideration to the claims of the proprietors. The Home

  7
  Government is not in any respect whatever responsible for this Act. It is a measure which was disposed of in Canada by the decision of the Governor General, and consequently instructions from home would really be superfluous, or, rather, more than superfluous. At the same time, Mr. Childers has been placed in personal communication with Lord Dufferin, and it is quite understood that his Lordship will give whatever consideration is proper to all the representations which may be made to him on either side. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Penzance) has referred to the sum of $800,000 mentioned in the Act. If I understand rightly, the Question of the noble and learned Lord is whether the compensation to be awarded under the Act is limited to this sum of $800,000. I do not think it is; I have no reason whatever to believe that it is so. The only allusion to this sum is to be found in the Preamble, and not in the enacting part of the measure. In conclusion, I will only remind the House of what I originally stated—namely, that this measure is one which has been passed by the Colonial Legislature of Prince Edward's Island, and which consequently receives the sanction, not of the Crown through the Imperial Government at home, but the sanction of the Governor General of Canada. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I quite admit there is much to be said on both sides. I think, however, my noble Friend the Governor General of Canada has exercised a wise discretion in assenting to this measure, which I trust will not only put an end to a controversy which has raged for 15 years, but will put an end to it as much in the interest of the proprietors as to the interest of any other class of the community.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  (NO. 194.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, this was the eleventh volume of the work for the revision of the Statute Law that had been presented to Parliament, the object sought to be obtained being to expunge the dead from the living statutes—a course the im-
  8
  portance of which he need not dwell upon to justices of the peace, solicitors, and the public. The work had its origin in an attempt to issue a new edition of the living statutes; but soon after the work commenced a difficulty arose how to distinguish what were living from what were dead statutes. Acts that repealed others gave no difficulty, and did not require to be printed, but an immense number of Acts stood in a different position—some were virtually repealed by new Acts which covered the same area as the old ones, and others were repealed because the provisions in the new Acts were inconsistent with the old ones. Under these circumstances, it soon became apparent that it was impossible for any draftsman to undertake the responsibility of saying what were old Acts that might be safely omitted from the edition, and therefore it was found necessary that, as the work of revision progressed, it should receive at the end of the Session the authoritative declaration of Parliament as to what Acts should be omitted from the new statutes. The work had been done under extremely able hands—at first under the able superintendence of Messrs. Reilly and Wood; then the task fell to Mr. Wood alone; and subsequently Mr. Rickards was associated with that gentleman in the prosecution of the work. By the labour of these gentleman 10 volumes had already been completed, and had received the sanction of Parliament by means of Bills similar to that he now presented. The number of Acts passed since the 53rd Geo. HE that had been repealed or expurgated by this means were 7,000 repealed and 2,000 partially repealed statutes. Parliament had from time to time accepted these Bills upon the names of the professional draftsmen under whose care they had been prepared. Every Bill prepared by the draftsman stated the ground upon which any particular statute was declared to be repealed or partially repealed—but when the Bill was passed these notes were omitted from the Act. The draftsmen had also submitted their labours to different Departments and Public Offices before presenting them to Parliament, and in that way they had insured a certain degree of accuracy which could not possibly have been arrived at in any other way. Seven octavo volumes had been published

  9
  dealing with the statutes down to the last Session of William IV., which were equal to three ordinary quarto volumes of the statutes they were in the habit of using. The eighth volume would be published in the ensuing autumn, and the 9th early in 1876; and he expected that six more volumes would complete the Statute Law down to 1868—the period originally contemplated—which would be equal to seven quarto volumes. In addition to this there had been published yearly a chronological table and index of the statutes, giving the title of every Act passed, and stating what had become of it—whether it was living or dead; and the second part of the volume contained an index of the statutes in force. The price of these volumes was exceedingly moderate. He did not mean to represent this work of Statute Law Revision as final or complete; but it was extremely substantial. He looked forward to the time when there would be a cheaper edition of the statutes in a still more useful form, and also that they might anticipate in a short time being able to make a division in English, Irish, and Scotch Acts, so that the statutes might be had of each country in a separate form. The perfection of the revision of the statutes would greatly facilitate their consolidation, and he proposed to lay on the Table of the House a Copy of the Papers that had been laid on the Table of the House of Commons, containing Minutes and Memoranda of the Statute Law Commission upon the subject of consolidation of the statutes and the proposals they had made. The Government, acting on the proposals, had prepared as a sample of the consolidation, seven consolidation Bills dealing with particular subjects of the law, which would be laid on the Table for consideration during the Recess, and it would be found that where any change had been made in the wording of the enactments there had been none in their spirit. They were in a sense specimen consolidation Bills, and they dealt with subjects on which there was a considerable amount of legislation—such as the administration of oaths, the issue of writs by the House of Commons, the regulation of chemical works—and where consolidation was much required.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

OTTOMAN PORTE, &c.—RESOLUTION.
LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Identic Note of Austria, the German Empire, and Russia to the Ottoman Porte of 20th October, 1874; to the reply of the Ottoman Porte of 23rd October, 1874; and to the Correspondence recently presented on the subject; and to move to resolve—
"That this House concurs with Her Majesty's (Government as to the illegality of the demand addressed to the Ottoman Porte by the Three Powers, Austria, the German Empire, and Russia, in their identic note of 20th October 1874;"
And—
"That this House regrets that no effectual measures seem to have been taken to prevent or to retard the definitive conclusion of a treaty between Austro-Hungary and the Danubian principalities,"
said*: My Lords,—Just before Easter the noble Earl the Secretary of State told the House that the Papers, which form in some degree the subject of my Notice, would in a few weeks be on the Table. Last Monday, for the first time, they were in the hands of Members. The conception of the noble Earl, as to the period involved in a few weeks, seems to be drawn from an age in which longevity went further than it does even at present. No doubt, when men lived 150 years, a few weeks was a correct description of the interval between Easter and the Dog Days, as at that time there may have appeared to be only a few hours in a fortnight, or a few minutes in a day. What renders the delay a little more remarkable is, that the last despatch is dated January 20th, so that on the face of it there is not any reason why the whole book, which is less than 30 pages, should not have appeared in February or March. However, I do not wish to criticize the noble Earl upon the point, but merely to excuse myself for being forced to address the House at what I know appears an inconvenient moment. It is no great fault—perhaps it is a kind of merit—in a Secretary of State, who seems born for higher things, to fall into the habits and traditions of the office he presides over. And these are well known to be,

11
either to avert debates, or, if they must occur, to bring them on, when men have to perform the thankless operation of beating iron cold, or by the lateness of the Session bring the ashes of their mind in contact with the rising floods of Parliamentary indifference. My Lords, whatever may be thought on other questions, the House, I am convinced, will favour my decision of adding Resolutions to the Notice. A noble Duke upon the other side, who has long engaged the deference of all who belong in any way to Scotland (the Duke of Buccleuch), has quite recently laid down that if you want debate you must have Resolutions. It would also have been arrogant on my part to expect any of your Lordships to listen to an exposition of the Papers which could not lead to a result. Beyond that, it seems to me that when any one has taken up a subject of this character the House has a right to ask that he should point out some mode by which their judgment may be felt, by which their power may be usefully exerted with regard to it; although he does so at considerable risk, and although the House has a complete discretion of adopting his proposal or rejecting it. The practical effect at which these Resolutions aim may be uncovered in a moment. It is to localize and to restrict an infraction of the Treaties of 1856, acquired by the blood and consecrated by the honour of Great Britain—an infraction which the noble Earl the Secretary of State condemns, but which, as regards the conduct of one Power, at least, he has not succeeded in averting. My Lords, I need not dwell at all upon the former Resolution, since it is one of approbation and concurrence as regards the Government. It seems to be a just and proper tribute to their resistance of the Identic Note which the three Powers addressed to the Ottoman Porte on the 20th of October. As to the nature of that demand, Her Majesty's Government offered, as you may see in all of their despatches, an unqualified opinion. They deserve the greater credit because none of the other Western Powers were so placed as to hold decided or effective language on the subject. It is true, indeed, that Austria, as the Papers show, evidently doubted the legality, but was not on that account less forward in her action. With regard to the second Resolution, it is one of admonition, not
12
of censure—to the effect that, unless there is something unexplained, something in the background, the Government ought to have done more to prevent or to retard the definitive conclusion of a Commercial Treaty between Austria and Roumania, when they viewed it as regretable. I readily admit my obligation to support this Resolution. Indeed, the point is so important that here I should desire to bring a short and easy train of reasoning under the judgment of the House, which may perhaps be calculated to force the gravity of the transaction home to minds which have not previously considered it. The principle of the three Powers, whose union has been so often serious to Europe, from the anarchy of Poland, at the end of the last century, down to the extinction of Cracow in 1847, is that the Vassal Principalities of Turkey shall negotiate Commercial Treaties, independently of the Empire in which they are incorporated. A congeries of minute arguments has been heaped up to show that trade requires the arrangement. But the noble Earl the Secretary of State has justly pointed out that the question is not commercial, but political. It is not a question of what tends to importation, as if revenue was the single object of societies, but of what the Law of Nations interdicts and sanctions. Now, the Law of Nations indicates distinctly that the power to negotiate Commercial Treaties is the power to negotiate without restriction upon everything. In the early spring, and again within the last few days, I felt bound to look through all the chapters upon Treaties in Vattel. He is still. the recognized authority of Europe, and I first learnt to refer to him from Lord Palmerston himself. Nowhere does he sanction the distinction which the three Powers have affected to establish. Nowhere does he view Commercial Treaties as legitimate, unless they are the exercise of a general negotiating faculty. Wheaton, whose treatise is received on the other side of the Atlantic, has a passage which ought not to be passed over, because it solves the question by deduction. It is—and I could give the page to noble Lords—to the effect that the validity of treaties ceases when either of the contracting parties forfeits independence. What follows? That their validity will not begin until dependence has been

13
abrogated. We learn, therefore, from Vattel, that to negotiate Commercial Treaties is to negotiate all treaties, and from Wheaton, that the vassal principalities must throw off their dependence, before any contract can bind or regulate their conduct. Every one is thus led to see—without too much mental effort—that the arrangements proposed by the three Powers would be a large and a decided movement in the path of separation. But although untenable in principle, they might still be no more than the assertion of an heretical and unproductive theory, if the communities in question were not imbued with any separative tendency. Here facts come in to enlighten us. We know—and the noble Earl, the Secretary of State, himself has reprimanded—the aspirations of the Roumanian Government for a nationality they would be incapable of holding against the Powers on their frontier. We know the restless movements of the Servian principality from the time when, in 1863, the withdrawal of the Turkish garrison was urged upon our Government. The scheme of the three Powers is not then a barren declaration, but a living torch, addressed to an inflammable material, Which rushes forward to accept it. The next link is one the House can easily appreciate. When the Danubian Principalities are severed from the Empire which controls them, Commercial Treaties would be themselves a constant pretext for occupation by the neighbouring authorities. They have merely to allege that a stipulation has been violated, and send an army to the Danube to promote the execution of it. But all those who call to mind the campaign of Catherine II. against Turkey, or the campaigns of 1828–9, or that of 1853, will be agreed that the Danubian Principalities are the route to Constantinople, in a strategic sense, as distinctly as Herat is thought by eminent authorities to be the gate of India. No sooner, therefore, are they occupied than the guarantee of April 15th, 1856, which engages you by arms to support Ottoman integrity, begins to force itself upon you. And here, let me remark, that the moment would not be similar to that of 1854, when my noble Friend the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) came down to this House, and gave all the arguments against going to war, explaining, as he did, that no engage-
14
ment bound the country; that it was free to linger in repose; that policy alone sufficed to govern its decision. In spite of my noble Friend the war occurred. It culminated in the guarantee I have alluded to. The question would not now be one of prudence, but of faith. Great Britain would be compelled to take up arms or sacrifice her honour. And while this great debate was agitating Parliament, millions of British capital, the fortunes of many men who have promoted the development of Ottoman resources, would be in utter insecurity. The whole chain is now before the House. Under these circumstances, it was evidently a British object, if you could, to divert Austria from an application of the principle the three Powers had laid down, and which is fraught with danger to this country. So long as Austria refrained, the principle of which the Ottoman authorities had exposed the character, might never have been executed, and even speedily renounced. Here, then, we are bound to ask my Lords, has the Secretary of State done what could be done for so legitimate a purpose; has he pointed out to Austria the many grounds on which the final step might be retarded; has he shown that at the best it was a question between commercial and political advantages of which the latter far outweighed the former; above all has he given prominence to the very guarantee I have alluded to of April 15th, 185C, which binds Austria with Great Britain and with France in the defence of Ottoman integrity? The position in which Austria stood as defined by that compact was remarkable and gave the noble Earl a locus standi for remonstrance—although friendly—which could not possibly escape him. Austria had the strongest interest in avoiding whatever tended to endanger the stability she might be called on to defend. She had besides the strongest obligation to avoid it. When a Power undertakes by force of arms to guard a system from infraction, no one would deny that she is equitably bound to abstain from measures which, positively are, or demonstrably tend to be, one. If any one was under an engagement to protect an edifice from fire, you would not say he was at liberty to act, from time to time, as an incendiary within it. A mass of arguments beyond my power to convey, beyond the patience of the

15
House to listen to, might be constructed by despatch writers so competent as the noble Earl and his supporters, to arrest for a long time the course which Austria was meditating', and which has now become a grave event, although it is not yet appreciated properly. Have those arguments been used although they are not given in the Papers? Neither before nor since the Identic Note is any trace of them exhibited. If modesty has led the noble Earl to keep them back, when this appears, I shall be ready to acquit him. There is one circumstance, however, which ought to be alluded to in passing—although I shall not dwell upon it. On the 19th of April, I moved for the production of the Treaty which binds Austria so remarkably, and fixes her position on the Eastern question, because I knew from the best authorities that its production at that moment was the only chance of acting, in our sense, on the still hesitating, still undetermined attitude of statesmen at Vienna. Without any argument at all, the noble Earl repelled the Motion, in a way by which his own responsibility was seriously heightened. In short, he took a course which nothing could defend, except the opposite result to that which has arisen. Had the negotiation of Austria and Roumania blown over—and there was considerable hope of it—the noble Earl might have come down to this House and said—"Your proposition was superfluous. We have gained our point without you. It was not essential to produce the Treaties you required. We have saved the country eighteen pence or half-a-crown which their production would have cost it, thus showing how adroitly we can blend finance and foreign policy together." And it is, my Lords, a great flight of statesmanship to do so. But the result has shown—what I was thoroughly convinced of—that the proposal was not superfluous, but opportune and indispensable. Up to the end of time, the noble Earl can never possibly establish that, had he acted differently, had he acted as usage would suggest, and something more obligatory called for, the negotiation then suspended would have come to the maturity, which he, as well as I, was anxious to avert. The only inference I draw from this regretable proceeding is that, if the noble Earl repelled one method as improper or un-
16
necessary, he was bound to resort to some other he preferred, or to succeed by abstinence from any. When it turns out that, according to his own Papers, which for six months have been revising, to which he might give any form he chose, he has done literally nothing, when that inaction has been accompanied by failure, no Opposition, however enervated and divided, no Member of an Opposition, however favourable to the Government, could pass his conduct without question. The second Resolution, therefore, was inevitable; but it leaves it open to the noble Earl to say that judicious measures were adopted at Vienna, although without success, and that he does not think it prudent to convey them to the Legislature. So far, I well know your Lordships go along with me. But it is not enough to prove the justice of the Resolutions, unless one can establish their utility. The House may fairly say that they are not bound to move out of their way to uphold the Secretary of State when he has taken a sound line, and to admonish him when he has been feeble or inadequate, unless a good effect upon the Continent of Europe can be traced to their proceeding. I approach that consideration, and all the more because it may be rapidly disposed of. Let the House only glance at the exact stage of the transaction. The three Powers laid down a new principle. The Ottoman authorities immediately exposed its inconveniences. The British Government upheld the Ottoman authorities. No kind of refutation was elicited. The whole thing remained suspended, and might have disappeared. One Power alone, after a labyrinth of difficulties, resolved to execute the project of which the standard was unrolled. My Lords, it is a perfect fallacy—although some who think with me were first inclined to adopt it—to assume that nothing now remains to be contended for, and that the Austrian step disposes of the subject. The extent of the blow to Ottoman integrity, the extent of the disparagement which falls upon the system of 1856, will be proportioned to the mass of States who follow that example, who so act as to encourage and confirm the separative forces of the Vassal Principalities. If no one joins, the evil will be localized. If many join, the crisis we are anxious to avert will be precipi-

17
tated. Neither Russia nor the German Empire, although they shared in the Identic Note, have, since the Ottoman reply, done anything whatever. But even in Italy and France—although there is not time to prove it—a struggle appears to be going on between commercial and political ideas, of which the termination is uncertain. The opinion of this House—which, as I have often seen, has a prestige abroad even superior to that which it enjoys within the limits of the kingdom—would be the very barrier to check and guard the oscillating Powers. And the opinion of the House would be sufficiently conveyed in both the Resolutions. Both imply that the position of the Identic Note is not to be sustained. Both imply that the Austrian measure ought not to be generalized, while both are qualified to isolate it. My Lords, if anyone maintains that the undetermined Powers cannot be held back; that they are too intent on the supposed material advantages of these direct engagements with the Vassal Principalities; there is one part of the subject he has not yet attended to. My Lords, the three Powers themselves, when they resolved on the Identic Note, can hardly have observed the lever they were going to furnish to the general disturbers of political society. Indeed, the more we mingle in affairs, the more we see that critical decisions are often come to in a hurry. No sooner is it laid down that dependencies may enter into Treaties which involve a general negotiating faculty, and lead on by easy passages to the right of making peace and war, than every State which is not perfectly compact and homogeneous becomes threatened. If those who rule at Constantinople are forced to tremble for Moldavia, Wallachia, and Servia, Prance may be disquieted for Algeria and Corsica, the Italian Kingdom for Sardinia and Sicily, Great Britain for various possessions among the quarters of the globe. On the Austrian Empire the principle is calculated to rebound with a disintegrating force which clearly has not been anticipated. For the House will bear in mind that you cannot possibly maintain a special right upon this subject in the Vassal Principalities of Turkey. The despatches of the noble Earl completely overthrow that proposition. The principle is not a local, but a general
18
one. To describe it briefly, it amounts to a new and ingenious road across the lines of public law to the dismemberment of Empires. It is just, therefore, that a House like yours—which, although night by night, we see it plunged into the business of a vestry or a school board, will not forget its mission as a guardian of sound principles and elevated interests—should do something to restrain the Powers which only verge upon, which only contemplate an error, unworthy of themselves, injurious to us, and tending to the loss of national cohesion in large and complex States, whatever age, whatever clime they may belong to. My Lords, one among many views which leads me to think the evil may be localized, is that the Cabinet of Germany have not the slightest motive to extend it; that, as these despatches show, they were drawn into the Identic Note reluctantly and doubtfully; that many European Governments look up to them for counsel at this moment; that they are themselves directed by a mind to which, ideas more just, or more complete than those which guided it at first have often been admitted. But everyone may form his own opinion on this subject, which I scarcely touch upon in passing. My Lords, it is not unusual to anticipate objections on a Motion of this sort, and to reply to them. The practice seems to me a dangerous one, as it is likely to fatigue the House, and indeed I know but one mode of thought with which the Resolutions are in conflict. It is that mode of thought—and many hold it conscientiously—which looks to a regular alliance between Russia and Great Britain as a specific for the maladies to which Europe is exposed. It cannot be denied that any course which discourages or limits the execution of the Identic Note, is unfavourable to the objects Russia has been long accustomed to pursue in the Danubian Principalities. The eloquent historian, Lamartine, pointed out that the sword of Russia had composed the Treaty of Kainardji, by which Turkey was so much humiliated in 1774. Since then, her policy in the Danubian Principalities has never been reversed, although late events may sometimes have interrupted it. To adopt a Motion to disturb it, or to check it, is not the part of men who wish to substitute an intimate relation with that country, for

19
those paths which Mr. Canning and Lord Palmerston bequeathed to us. But the House might be justified in asking, how far that alliance can be compassed, except by sacrificing all the objects for which our foreign policy continues. At present, it is usual to remark that the European balance has been wholly superseded. It may be so. But it is only superseded and eclipsed because Russia draws into her system important Powers which used to counteract her. Should Great Britain fling herself as an additional and a subordinate ingredient into that sinister, dark, and overgrown preponderance, the dismay of those States which prize their independence without large armies to uphold it will be as boundless, as it must be certainly, well-founded. Even, therefore, should it be proved to-night that Resolutions such as these are little favourable to united action with St. Petersburg, they ought not on that account to be rejected by your Lordships. Nations which aspire to exist can hardly be unfaithful to the purpose which renders their existence sacred to the world. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Resolutions.
Moved to resolve, That this House concurs with Her Majesty's Government as to the illegality of the demand addressed to the Ottoman Porte by the Three Powers, Austria, the German Empire, and Russia, in their identic note of 20th October 1874.—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not wish to complain of the delay which had occurred in the presentation of the Papers which the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs promised on the 25th of February last should be laid on the Table of the House in the course of a few weeks, although that delay seemed to him to be somewhat unusual. It was, however, fully compensated for by the contents of the Papers themselves, for he did not believe that so many extraordinary propositions had ever been contained in so small a compass as were to be found in the space of this Blue Book. Some time last year, it appeared, a demand was addressed by Austria to the Porte for the right of concluding an independent Commercial Treaty with Roumania, and several propositions were laid down by Count Andrassy with respect to Servia, which, by some misapprehension, he omitted to prove. The question was
20
complicated by a very extraordinary Paper that was brought before the Foreign Office, and which was signed by Prince Ghika, in which it was asserted that a modification of the Customs system of the Principalities could only be effected in virtue of a special Convention concluded between Roumania and a Foreign Power. That was a most illogical and untenable proposition. It might be alleged that the material interests of Roumania and those of the Ottoman Porte were distinct; but the Porte itself acknowledged that to be so, and it promised to consult with the Principalities in regard to their distinct interests, and to accede to any special arrangements which might be necessary for them. All that the Porte required was that the Principalities should not assume a power which did not belong to them. It was clear that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary regarded the Convention with Roumania as utterly indefensible, for he had declared that Her Majesty's Government were convinced that the pretensions of Roumania were inconsistent with the terms of existing treaties, and that they could not believe that any of the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Paris would infringe that important international instrument. That vigorous language, however, had not been backed up by any vigorous action—all that the noble Earl did when the matter came to a head was to make a proposition to the German Ambassador, which he promised to communicate to his Government—and the matter then disappears from the Blue Book. In another despatch the noble Earl let down the three Powers in rather an easy manner, remarking that too much importance should not be attached to the political aspect of the question, which lost much of its significance from the declaration of those Governments that they had no intention to weaken the ties which bound the Principalities to Turkey. The direct action of the three Powers in negotiating with the Principalities had done as much as could possibly be done to sever those ties; and if Her Majesty's Government were satisfied that the three Powers had no intention of doing what they actually had done, diplomatic action would seem to be useless. It was clear that the object of those Powers could not be a merely commercial one, because such an object could have been attained

21
with the consent of the Porte, which was quite willing that a commercial Convention should be concluded. The noble Earl had proposed a Conference; but the proposal was at once declined by those Powers—which showed that their object was not commercial only. It was not pretended that anything was to be gained by treating the sovereign authority of the Porte with discourtesy. They must have had in view a political object of some sort. He did not pretend to offer an opinion as to what that political object was. The noble Earl had suggested several methods by which, without detriment to the authority of the Porte, the commercial objects professedly aimed at might have been attained: but the German Ambassador declared, with the somewhat cynical frankness that characterized the diplomacy of his nation, that the positive interests of his country could not be endangered by questions of mere form—holding that she had a right to conclude a direct special Customs Convention with the vassal provinces of Turkey. The Turkish Government had not been treated with common courtesy, and whatever might have been the object of those proceedings, their result was perfectly obvious—a great change had occurred in the Eastern Question, and it could not be doubted that if the Principalities possessed the right of making independent treaties, their position was essentially altered. Nor could it be denied that if treaties were ridden rough shod over in that manner on the plea of material interests, which were undefined, danger must arise both to the security of nations and to the peace of Europe.
LORD HAMMONDsaid, that if they sanctioned the pretension of the Principalities to conclude Commercial Conventions, they would sanction that which was entirely inconsistent with the suzerainty of the Sultan, and which was wholly without warrant. The three Powers rested the demand addressed by them to the Porte upon the terms of the Treaties of 1856 and 1858; the Firman of 1866 and the Treaty of 1856 declaring that the Principalities should continue to enjoy under the suzerainty of the Porte the privileges and immunities they then enjoyed, including full liberty of worship, legislation, commerce, and navigation. He believed that on many occasions the Principalities
22
had entered into arrangements with the Governments of neighbouring Powers without applying for the consent of the Porte; and the present complaint of the Porte hardly came with a very good grace, when it was remembered that, in the words of our late Consul General in the Principalities, "with regard to Consular jurisdiction, that treaties and capitulations were virtually a dead letter" there. If now the Porte held the Principalities to the Treaties, it should also have required them not to depart from those Treaties where the interests of the Powers were concerned. He believed that the Customs tariff had never been strictly observed in the Principalities; and in various existing Treaties it was not made imperative upon the Powers to ask the assent of the Porte for any arrangements they might make with States under the suzerainty of the Porte. In his opinion, too, it was very inopportune on the part of the Porte to raise these doubtful questions. The Government of the Porte were sure to be met by rejoinders which were more or less well-founded, and which might weaken the position of the Porte when it came by-and-by to apply for the assistance of the Powers in matters of graver interest. He thought the Porte should rest satisfied with the assurance—a valuable one—given it by the German Ambassador—that Germany had given and would give no encouragement to any designs which would bring about the separation of the Principalities from the Turkish Empire, or would injuriously affect the position and rights of Turkey. The House would, in his opinion, be hardly justified in imputing to the Powers that they were open to the charge brought against them by the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden); and with regard to the Resolution expressing the regret of the House—
"That no effectual measures seemed to have been taken to prevent or retard the definitive conclusion of a Treaty between Austro-Hungary and the Danubian Principalities,"
such a Resolution would be equivalent to a Vote of Censure upon the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, who, he thought, did not deserve it. In conclusion, he wished to say a few words upon the desire of the Principalities to separate themselves from Turkey. Such a desire on their part was no secret—but was very unwise. Practically, they were now

23
in the enjoyment of independence, commercially and otherwise; but directly they withdrew themselves from the guarantee which at present secured to them this quasi-independence they would have little chance of long remaining an independent State. Russia might, perhaps, hold her hand from a feeling of grace and from religious sympathies; but the temptation would be strong, and incorporation with that Empire would bring Russia on the Danube, from which it was the object of the Treaty of 1856 to exclude her. On the other hand, nothing could be more fatal to Austria than any encouragement given to the Principalities to shake off their connection with Turkey. Austria must know that if they did so, they would be either incorporated with Russia, or, if they remained independent, would seek to extend their power by incorporating with themselves some of the neighbouring Austrian Provinces. Community of origin would be a great temptation on the part of some of these Provinces to coalesce with the Principalities, but he did not think it could be the wish of any Englishman that Austria should be weakened by the severance of any further portion of her Empire.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, before I say anything else on the subject, I hope I may be allowed to congratulate your Lordships on having heard the opinion—expressed I believe for the first time—of that Member of your Lordships' House who of all who sit here has the largest and longest experience of the Foreign Affairs of this country (Lord Hammond). I do not, however, entirely agree with the conclusions of my noble Friend. Still, although I am compelled to dissent from his conclusions, I think that the point of view from which he regards the question supplies a very useful and necessary corrective to the exaggerated apprehensions of the noble Lord who moved these Resolutions—apprehensions which were, I think, to some extent, shared by the noble Earl who succeeded him. The noble Lord who moved the Resolutions complained that an unreasonable delay had occurred in the production of the Papers, and that there had been a violation of a promise on my part. It is quite true that some delay has occurred; but it has arisen from two causes. I kept the Papers back,
24
partly in the hope that before they were laid upon the Table we might have arrived one way or the other at a definitive settlement of the question—in which event the Correspondence might have appeared in a more complete form than it actually does appear—and partly, they were kept back for the purpose of consulting on the question of publication the other parties to the Correspondence, without whose consent I could not fairly lay them upon the Table. But, so far as my recollection serves me—though I may have spoken in general terms of laying the Papers in the course of a few weeks—the only promise I gave to the noble Lord was that they should be laid upon the Table in time for a discussion during the present Session. They are upon the Table now, and the noble Lord has brought the subject forward for consideration at least a fortnight, I am afraid, before the time when we may hope to look forward to the close of the Session. Therefore, I think the noble Lord cannot fairly complain that the pledge I gave has not been fulfilled. I will now pass to the substance of the noble Lord's Resolutions. The Motion of the noble is in effect a Vote of Censure of the Government. He asks you to express regret that certain things have not been done.
LORD CAMPBELLinterposing, explained that what he said was, not that certain things had not been done, but that we could not see that they had been done.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I put the interpretation which I think most people would put upon the Motion. The noble Lord is, of course, quite free to understand his own Resolutions as he thinks fit. The question, however, is not what the noble Lord intends, but what his words imply. One of his Resolutions implies that certain steps, if they have not been taken, ought to have been taken. Now, I do not think your Lordships will, upon the statement which you have heard, endorse that view, and if a division is called for, I shall appeal with confidence to noble Lords on both sides to reject it. In answering the noble Lord, I shall not go back to the partition of Poland, nor discuss the expediency or otherwise of forming a close alliance with Russia. How does the matter stand? The whole story is told in these Papers, and I shall recapitulate

25
it very briefly. The Government of the Principalities on the one hand, and the three Governments of Austria, Russia, and Germany on the other, desire to conclude Commercial Conventions with one another. The Government of the Porte objects on the ground that such Conventions are not within the right of the Government of the Principalities to contract without sanction from Constantinople. We and the French Government agree with the Porte in the construction which we place upon our Treaty obligations. The three Governments of Eastern Europe, on the other hand, regard such Conventions as within the right of autonomy which the Principalities confessedly enjoy. They accordingly proceed to make their Convention, and the noble Lord is of opinion that we ought in some way, which he does not explain, to prevent that transaction from taking place. Let me remind the House within what very narrow limits this question really lies. It is admitted on all hands that the Roumanian Government has not the right to make treaties properly so-called—treaties of a political character dealing with general interests. It is equally admitted that there is a certain class of Conventions with neighbouring States which the Roumanian Government is entitled to make by the Firman of 1866. And that, let me say in passing, disposes of his argument as to the impossibility, according to International Law, of any Convention being entered into by a dependent State. The whole difference between the two parties in this dispute consists in this—whether Commercial Conventions such as are now proposed come within one category or the other. We think they are excluded, for reasons which I will not dwell upon because the noble Lord accepts them as valid. The Austrians think they are included, grounding themselves mainly on the right of the Principalities to make their own internal financial arrangements, and on the words of the Firman of 1866. Now, is this a question which can be treated as one of European magnitude and importance? It can only be important in one of two ways—either as regards its immediate practical results, or as a step to the ultimate separation of the Principalities from Turkey. As to the practical results, they are, none. I am not authorized to say that if the consent
26
of the Porte had been asked to the making of these Conventions, it would have been conceded without difficulty; but I believe that to be the case. The commercial arrangements of Roumania have no interest for Turkey. The Roumanian Exchequer is separate from that of Turkey; a surplus there is of no assistance to the Sultan, and a deficit there is of no importance, so long as the very small tribute to which Roumania is liable continues to be punctually paid. In fact, one argument against these Conventions is that they are utterly unnecessary. If the Roumanian authorities like to reduce their Customs duties to the lowest point, they can do it. Nobody will object and nobody will interfere. If they like to raise them within certain limits, to which they are bound by European Treaties, they can equally do so. They can make, and they have made, informal understandings with other States as to rates of duty to be levied, and they might have continued to do so. As regards material and practical results, it makes absolutely no difference which way this matter is settled. Well, then, is the conclusion of these Conventions a step to ultimate independence? I will be entirely frank. The Principalities, no doubt, have drifted in the course of the last 20 years into a position different from that which was made for them by the Crimean War. That is only saying that the Crimean War was waged 20 years ago. The Roumanians, as a people, are stronger and more united now than they were then. They may indulge in dreams of a possible future; but I shall be surprised if they take any steps to realize those ideas, and for this reason. Why I say that the Roumanian people will not take steps to separate themselves from the Turkish Empire is, that the only security they have for self-government, or even for existence, lies in the European guarantee which, as a part of the Ottoman Empire, they enjoy. So long as they remain in name a dependency of Turkey they are secure, as far as treaties can make them so, against the risk of being absorbed in any other State. They are not strong enough to stand alone, and they know it. I do not think, therefore, they will risk the forfeiture of the guarantee which now protects them. And I cannot doubt that they clearly understand the situation. That guarantee was not granted to the

27
Principalities for their own sakes—it was granted to them as forming a part of the general system of the Ottoman Empire. So long as they remain within that Empire, they have a right to it, and no longer. I do not think they will be in haste to break off a connection which is not galling or humiliating, and which leaves them complete internal freedom, either for the sake of being absorbed in any more powerful State, or for the bare chance of being able to maintain a precarious independence, exposed to danger from every quarter, and without having a claim on the protection or friendship of any Power. That state of things I consider affords the best security we can have for the maintenance of the status quo. As for this small matter of the Conventions, it leaves things in substance where they were. The Roumanian people, at any rate, do not consider that they have gained a diplomatic victory, for we hear of the supplanting of the Government and of discontent and agitation at Bucharest—which does not look as if the Government were considered to have accomplished a national success. It may be that by better management on both sides this dispute might have been averted. I think that was possible, and in despatches I have indicated more than one way in which it might have been done. But the time for that is past—not by the fault of England. And now it only remains to consider in what way the actual result could have been averted. On that point the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden) has given us no information. He does not suppose that we ought to have broken off relations with the three Powers, because of this difference. Ought we to have withdrawn from the guarantee of Roumania? But that would be only injuring ourselves, unless other Powers took the same course. My noble Friend has suggested several remedies for the state of things which he desires to see put to rights. He has said that we might have laid the Papers relating to the matter before Parliament, and that we might further have appealed to the good faith of the other Powers interested in the question, in the belief that publicity and discussion would have changed the course of the question. We might have made more noise and written excited despatches about the observance of treaties; but what would have been the result of
28
a course of conduct such as this? They would have said—" Your morality is excellent; but while we have just as much respect for treaties as you have, we have our own method of interpreting them, which unfortunately differs from yours." If we had endeavoured to create out of this a great European question, we might certainly have succeeded in making ourselves ridiculous; but we should have done no good to the Porte, and I do not think we should have been thanked for our trouble. Whatever is still possible to smooth over the difficulty and to save the dignity of the Porte shall be attempted; but I believe at this moment the Turkish Government, which certainly is mainly concerned, is not only satisfied, but grateful for the line we have taken. I do not think, therefore, that your Lordships will be more Turkish than the Turks themselves, and censure us for results which we did not bring about, and which, as far as I can see, no language or action on our part could have averted.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYagreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) in deprecating the use of violent language, or the adoption of what would be called a rash or ill-judged course in reference to this matter. It was never desirable to adopt strong language, and in this matter it would have been more than usually rash to have done so. He agreed in thinking that it would be the greatest possible mistake to erect the subject which had been brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden) into a great European question. He would not for a moment presume to set up his opinion on a question of the interpretation of treaties against the view which might be held by the Foreign Office. On the other hand, he thought great weight ought to attach to the views which had been expressed by the noble Lord (Lord Hammond), who was for so many years Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Looking at the question by the light of the Firman which was issued by the Porte, he was in considerable doubt whether the commercial arrangements which had been entered into by the Principalities were such as they were excluded from making by their general relations with the Porte. It would, in his opinion, be idle to address strong language to the other Powers, because

29
their views on these points differed from those entertained by Her Majesty's Government. The general position of the Principalities was of a very artificial character. For many years past they had endeavoured to set themselves up as something greater than they really were, and, in all probability, they would continue in the same course. This being so, he thought it fair to regard the question as one concerning which the principle of self-interest would weigh with the Principalities—and as the noble Earl had said, self-interest was more binding than treaties—and prevent them from going as far as some persons thought them likely to go. The Principalities were not likely rashly to sacrifice a position in which they would lose the advantages of the European guarantee—within which they were now included—and become a mere shuttlecock between two great Powers. On the whole, he thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had taken a very prudent course in advising the Porte not to attach exaggerated importance to the question in its present position, but to suffer it to be looked upon as a question of arrangement between neighbouring States, and not as one involving great questions of treaty obligation, and likely to imperil the arrangement made in 1856 with regard to the whole question.
LORD CAMPBELL: If no other noble Lord is going to address the House I shall feel bound to make some comments on what has passed, and to announce the course I propose about the Resolutions. As regards my noble Friend upon the right (the Earl of Rosebery) he has shown an aptitude in foreign, not unequal to that which he was well-known before to have upon domestic topics, and has taken the first step in what I trust may be a long continued effort to uphold the validity of Treaties and the honour of his country. The noble Lord, who may be justly regarded as the Nestor of the Foreign Office (Lord Hammond), and the noble Earl on the front bench (the Earl of Kimberley) who has gone with him, have adopted the position of the Identic Note; they have supported the legality of the demand which it embodied; they are at utter variance with the Secretary of State, they are exposed to the reply which his despatches have brought forward, and I am not compelled in any way to answer them. But when I come
30
to the noble Earl the Secretary of State himself, the importance of his office renders it incumbent on me to encounter some of the remarks of which I was the object. The noble Earl ascribed to me the view that a Parliamentary discussion, some time back, would have been the proper method for giving a more favourable turn to the transaction now before us. Undoubtedly I do maintain that, if a Parliamentary discussion were to happen, its chance of retarding the Austrian negotiation would have been greater before, than after the negotiation was concluded. But Parliamentary discussion was not, as it occurred to me, the most important weapon to rely on in the business. The noble Earl has said much to extenuate the gravity of what he was not able to avert, and denied that in Moldavia and Wallachia there is the separative tendency which I imputed to them, and which forms an important link in the case I urged upon your Lordships. How comes it, therefore, that the noble Earl, in language I will read, officially rebuked the aspirations of Prince Charles and of his councillors for an independence they would not be able to perpetuate? [Lord CAMPBELL here read the passage.] The noble Earl has charged me with general exaggeration in the importance I attached to the formation of these Treaties. What have I done except adopt the language of the Ottoman authorities, "that they are the earliest stage in the road of demands still more important, still more inadmissible?" The variance is between the noble Earl and men whom patriotism, interest, experience enlighten, who have a local knowledge of the countries in dispute, whose minds are constantly employed upon the subject. I venture to prefer the judgment which they form at Constantinople to that which he may form at Downing Street—were he without a bias—upon some parts of the question. Is there no such thing as ability, sagacity, or insight on the Bosphorus? Is statesmanship unknown, or is diplomacy uncultivated on those waters? The noble Earl has asked me, in a manner the most pointed, "what ought we to have done?" My Lords, there never was a question easier to satisfy. If either before the Identic Note of October 20th, or during the long interval which followed, one despatch had been submitted to the Austrian Government, pointing out—

31
however guardedly and cautiously—that the course they meditated would not harmonize with the engagements which bound them to Great Britain and to France upon the Eastern question; that the advantages they sought might be more legitimately compassed; it would have seemed to me the conduct of the Government ought not to be impugned. Will it be said that such a task was beyond the faculties of the noble Earl, and those who sit around him here, or those who aid him at the Foreign Office? My Lords, the noble Earl regards the second Resolution as a censure. In that event, however just its terms, I shall withdraw it. Dissatisfied with the proceedings of the noble Earl in this affair, I do not fail to recognize his international utility in the function of maintaining peace between two contending Powers, or Powers not unlikely to contend. It would not, therefore, be consistent with my views as to the interest of Europe by any vote to weaken his authority at present. As to the former Resolution, nothing will induce me to withdraw it, and nothing will, I hope, prevent the noble Earl from acquiescing in it. It is a tribute to the Government as against the Identic Note, and it must tend to counterbalance the effect of the Austrian example on those States which at this very moment are doubting whether to be swayed by it.
THE EARL OF DERBYacknowledged the friendly tone of the noble Lord's speech towards the Government and himself, and hoped that the noble Lord would rest satisfied with the discussion which he had evoked, and withdraw both Resolutions. He (the Earl of Derby) could not object to the first Resolution in the abstract, but it would afford no security that it would be unanimously accepted by the House; and looking at the state of the House and the number of Peers who were absent, and had taken no part in the discussion, any Resolution agreed to in such a manner would not have any weight with or influence over European nations.
LORD CAMPBELLadhered to his opinion, that the proper course would be to withdraw the second Resolution; and, as to the first Resolution, its acceptance or non - acceptance, entirely depended upon the Government. As to the first Resolution, if the Government would not adopt it, he must
32
leave to them the responsibility of rejecting it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that this was one of those cases of pressing a Resolution which no one particularly desired to oppose; but, at the same time, if it were accepted, it might give rise to some misapprehension in other quarters. The second Re-solution being withdrawn, there would be no necessity for the first; and it appeared to him that the better course would be to agree to a Motion that the Resolution should not be put. He therefore moved the Previous Question.
A question being stated thereupon, the previous question was put, "Whether the said question shall be now put?" Resolved in the Negative.
Then it was moved to resolve, That this House regrets that no effectual measures seem to have been taken to prevent or to retard the definitive conclusion of a treaty between Austro-Hungary and the Danubian Principalities.—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CONSPIRACY AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BILL.—(No. 220.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
CONSPIRACY AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BILL.—(No. 220.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would briefly explain the purpose of this Bill, and also that of the Employers and Workmen Bill, which stood next on the Paper. The latter Bill was confined to civil remedies for breaches of contract between employers and workmen, while the other, while it provided that no combination should be deemed criminal if the act proposed to be done would not be criminal if done by one person declared certain breaches of contract, though done by one person to be criminally punishable, and others involving injury to persons and property to be also punishable. The Employers and Workmen Bill, he might add, was intended to replace the Master and Servants Act of 1867, sometimes called Lord Elcho's Act, while the other measure was intended to replace the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871. As far back as 1350 there was an Act—the 23rd of Edward III,—called the Statute

  33
  of Labourers. That Statute, after reciting that a great part of the people, especially workmen and servants, had of late died of the pestilence, and that many, seeing the necessity of masters and the great scarcity of servants, would not serve unless they received excessive wages, and that some would rather beg in idleness than by labour get their livings, proceeded to enact that all agricultural labourers should be bound to work for the wages usually paid in the 20th year of Edward the Third's reign (1347) or the five or six years before, and subjected them to imprisonment for disobedience. From that period up to 1867 there had been almost incessant legislation on the subject, which was directed to two separate objects—the making service compulsory, laying down the rate of wages to be paid, and the imposing of criminal penalties on workmen, but not upon employers, who were left to be dealt with by means of civil remedies only. The first of those objects—compulsory service—was given up in 1824, but the system of criminal punishment continued until 1867. The Act passed in that year, following the Report of a Committee of which Lord Elcho was Chairman, placed for the first time employers and workmen on the same footing; but the misfortune was that it left certain classes of breaches of contract to be punished either civilly or criminally at the option of the Justices. The 14th section of the Act was as follows:—
  "When on the hearing of an information or complaint under this Act it appears to the justices, magistrate, or sheriff that any injury inflicted on the person or property of the party complaining, or the misconduct, misdemeanour, or ill-treatment complained of, has been of an aggravated character, and that such injury, misconduct, misdemeanour, or ill-treatment has not arisen or been committed in the bonâ fide exercise of a legal right existing or bonâ fide and reasonably supposed to exist, and further, that any pecuniary compensation or other remedy by this Act provided will not meet the circumstances of the case, then the justices, magistrate, or sheriff may by warrant commit the party complained against to the common gaol or House of Correction, there to be (in the discretion of the justices, magistrate, or sheriff) imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months."
  Thus, there might be conflicting decisions in the very same county, for what in the eye of one magistrate might appear to be an aggravated offence, might not appear so to another. The result
  34
  was that the present Government, on coming into office, found great and general dissatisfaction existing on the subject, and that dissatisfaction was aggravated by further complaints which were made as to the working of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. They, therefore, thought it necessary to obtain some information as to the working of those two measures, and a Commission was appointed, on which sat a noble Lord whom he saw near him, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Recorder of London, Sir Montagu Smith—one of the official Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—Mr. Beuverie, Mr. Macdonald, and others. That Commission obtained information of great value, and presented a very elaborate and able Report, and upon that Report Her Majesty's Government were decided to act. The Government decided to draw a broad line of demarcation between civil and criminal breaches of contract, and to leave that line to be determined, not by the tribunal, but on the face of the Act of Parliament itself. The Employers and Workmen Bill dealt with civil breaches of contract alone, laying down the general rule—apart from certain exceptions which came under the other Bill—that breach of contract which resulted in damages should be treated as giving rise to a civil remedy, and not as constituting a crime. It provided that wherever the damage from a breach of contract did not exceed £10 it might be dealt with by the petty sessions, and where it exceeded that amount must be dealt with in the County Court; that both as to the petty sessions and the County Court there was to be no imprisonment whatever, except that kind of imprisonment which resulted occasionally in County Courts where a debt had not been paid by a person against whom a judgment had gone, and as to whom the Judge came to the conclusion that he had the means of paying, but did not choose to pay. In those cases, and those cases only, the petty sessions or the County Court was to be allowed to commit the defendant to prison, not as a criminal, but as a debtor, subject to the checks and safeguards existing in regard to ordinary cases of debt in the County Court. The Bill also authorized the petty sessions or the County Court, as the case might be, to adjust a set-off on the side

  35
  either of the workman or of the employer; it empowered the Court to rescind the contract under certain circumstances if it thought fit; and it provided that, where the Court might otherwise award damages, it might, if the defendant was willing to give sureties for the performance of the remainder of his contract, accept such sureties' security with the consent of the plaintiff. As introduced into the House of Commons the Bill contained a further provision, which he regretted had been omitted—namely, it enabled a person summoned for a breach of contract, and against whom damages might be awarded, to offer not merely the security of some other person, but his own security, by which means if he did not perform his undertaking to fulfil his contract, he might be imprisoned for a limited time. That would have enabled a workman who was not in a position to obtain a surety to give a security which might be accepted. But it having been represented that that provision was not acceptable to the workmen, who looked upon it as a revival of imprisonment in another form, the Government had thought it better to omit it. The breaches of contract which were to be made criminal in future were included in the Conspiracy and Protection to Property Bill. That Bill dealt first with questions affecting the supply of gas and water. It provided that where a person employed by a municipal authority or a company wilfully and maliciously broke a contract of service, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequence of his doing so would be to deprive the public of gas or water, he should be liable, on conviction, to a penalty not exceeding £20 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour. They held that a person thus acting not only committed a breach of contract incurring civil damages, but a criminal offence, for which he ought to be criminally responsible. Some criticism had been passed on that clause elsewhere, it being objected that it dealt only with persons in the service of a company or a municipal authority supplying gas or water, and not with all persons whomsoever—not, for example, with the Company or the municipal body itself, which might be in default, or with the coal merchant, who might not fulfil
  36
  his contract to supply coals for making the gas. The answer to that criticism seemed to be extremely simple. In the first place, to proceed against a Company or a municipal body criminally was not an easy matter; it was not practicable. In the next place, they had an ample security in the case of a municipal authority or a Company for the performance of its duty, because to plunge a town in darkness or deprive it of its supply of water would be fatal to the continuance in office of its office-bearers, and also to its trading prosperity. So, again, with the outside merchant contracting to supply coals. The Company could easily contract with whom it pleased, under such penalties as it pleased, and no penalty was necessary for the case of the coal merchant. The conclusive justification for the form in which the clause stood was that the servants of Gas and Water Companies were persons in a fiduciary position. The Companies must employ servants, and those servants again must be trusted; and a breach committed by them of a contract of that kind, seriously damaging the public interests, was a wholly different species of act from the breach of contract, which might be committed, for example, by a man who was bound to supply coals. Then the next clause, Clause 5, proceeded exactly on the same principle as Clause 4, the only difference being that it contemplated a breach of contract, whether by a person serving or by a person hiring, which involved serious injury to life, personal injury, or which exposed valuable property to destruction or serious injury. There, again, a breach of contract having those consequences was treated differently from a mere civil contract. He now came to the question of conspiracy. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871 repealed all the old trade combination laws as they were called, and provided that certain specific things should be offences; and as to conspiracy, it provided that—
  "no person shall be liable to any punishment for doing or conspiring to do any act on the ground that such act restrains or tends to restrain the free course of trade, unless such act is one of the acts here in before specified in this section, and is done with the object of coercing as hereinbefore mentioned."
  It was supposed by all the parties to that Act that it would have eliminated

  37
  the element of trade strikes; but it did not do that, and convictions had occurred which were somewhat unexpected. They had raised the idea that the code of Criminal Law which had been settled by the Act of 1871 had been stretched and enlarged by means of the application of the Common Law as to conspiracy. He should have been very glad, if it had been possible, to reduce to a code the whole law of conspiracy, and not merely the law of conspiracy as affecting trade disputes or disputes between masters and workmen. But that, he believed, would always be found to be a very hopeless task; and, therefore, what the Government had done was this—they had taken the question of conspiracy as affecting trade disputes, and dealt with it in the manner expressed in the third section, which provided that an agreement or combination between two or more persons to do any act in furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen should not be indictable as a conspiracy if the act was not punishable when done by one person. There was no doubt that the clause on this point was adapted to the end in view. The only objection to it was that they were said to be dealing, not with the general law of conspiracy, but only with that affecting trade disputes between employers and workmen. This was quite true, and the reason was, that while he believed it would be hopeless to reduce to a code the whole law of conspiracy, it was quite possible, taking a particular area of acts, to say what should be a crime committed by one person, irrespective of any acts of conspiracy, and then, knowing the punishment affixed to individual acts, it was open to Parliament to say—"We will not sanction any higher punishment, even when these acts are committed by more than one person." This was what had been done here. A particular punishment had been assigned to individual acts, and then the clause prevented the general law of conspiracy from enlarging the criminal character of those particular acts. The only other question in the Bill requiring notice was one of great importance—the question of violence or molestation. The 6th George IV., the Act of 1826, abolished the Combination Laws, and made violence to person or property, or threats, or intimidation, or molestation or obstruction with
  38
  a view to interfere with masters or servants, a criminal offence. The first impression was that these forbidden acts were physical and mechanical acts; but by construction they were held to include the act of persuading in a peaceable manner. Accordingly, in order to meet this objection, the 22nd Victoria was passed, which provided that an endeavour to persuade in a peaceable manner should not be deemed molestation or obstruction. Still, doubts arose upon the construction of the Act, and then came the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871, which repealed both the previous enactments, and substituted other acts as criminal offences. Great dissatisfaction, however, was felt with the working of the Act of 1871 because the decisions upon it were not altogether uniform. The Recorder's charge in what was known as the Cabinet Makers' Case embodied the law upon the subject. In the course of his charge the learned Recorder said—
  "The question you will have to ask yourselves is whether the evidence shows that the defendants were guilty of obstructing and rendering difficult of access the prosecutor's place of business, or whether anything which they did was calculated to deter or intimidate those who were passing to and fro, or whether there was an exhibition of force calculated to produce fear in the minds of ordinary men, or whether the defendants or any of them combined for that purpose. If you think that, it seems to me, then it will be your duty to find a true bill; but if you think their conduct may he accounted for by a desire to ascertain who were the persons working there, or peaceably to persuade them or any others who were proposing to work there to join their fellow-workmen, who were contending, whether rightly or wrongly, for the interests of the general body, it seems to me that there is no evidence sufficient to establish the charge that is here made."
  This expression of the law in the Recorder's charge appeared to the Home Secretary to be exactly the intention and scope of the Act of 1871, and, so far as he was concerned, his right hon. Friend would have been content to trust that application of the Act in future cases. The working men, too, would, he believed, have been satisfied with this construction of the Act. The House of Commons thought, however, that it was not desirable to leave the question open to any doubt whatever, and words were accordingly introduced into the present Bill in order that future rulings in similar cases should be placed on the

  39
  same footing as in the case tried by the Recorder. After anxious consideration, and with valuable assistance in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary had endeavoured to frame a clause which should free the matter from future doubt. It was an advantage possessed by their Lordships that they were able to take a more cool and critical survey of such a clause than was possible in the other House, and they were sometimes able to suggest a better mode of expressing the same ideas. The Home Secretary had anxiously considered the clause as it stood, and the Government were now ready to make any alteration in its wording which would meet just criticisms upon it. Thus, it was objected that, in the early part of the clause, power would be given to one person to proceed for violence used to another person. If this were the effect of the clause, as he believed it was, it went further than the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871, which carefully connected the person intimidated with the person who complained of the intimidation. Another objection was taken to the part of the clause which said that the threats or intimidation must be "in such manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person so threatening or intimidating to keep the peace." Some criminal lawyers had held that it would be impossible to frame an indictment upon these words, because it was impossible to say that any particular Justice would feel himself, upon certain evidence, justified in binding the persons over to keep the peace. Further, there was this somewhat unfortunate provision—that the first part of the clause spoke of something being done to compel some other person "to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing," while later on the offence was defined as being "with a view seriously to annoy or intimidate." The object in view in the first part of the clause was, therefore, different from the object in view in the second part of the clause. The Government proposed in Committee to amend the clause in those respects. The noble and learned Lord then moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD WINMARLEIGH, having been a Member of the Royal Commission to which the subject of the Labour Laws was committed, wished to take this opportunity of saying a few words. As his noble and learned Friend had remarked, that Commission was composed of men of all parties. The labouring classes were well represented upon it—and if he might offer a criticism on its composition it would be that no great employers of labour were members of it. This placed him, owing to his connection with a large manufacturing county, in a somewhat invidious position with reference to the line he took in examining witnesses. Whatever differences of opinion there might have been, he might say that every Member of that Commission was actuated by a desire to render the laws affecting employers and employed as equal and as impartial as the nature of the circumstances would admit. When, however, they came to investigate the subject, they found themselves involved in a difficulty which might lay them open to a charge of class legislation. He believed it was in great part the impossibility of placing the employers and the employed on an equal footing that rendered it necessary in former times that some other than the civil law should be applied to one portion of the subject—namely, breaches of contract. He would exemplify what he meant by a case or two which came before the Commissioners. Employers being men of capital, civil actions could be brought against them, and damages easily recovered, but this was not the case in regard to workmen. In the iron trade there were several processes which required constant attention, and to which attention could not be secured except under a contract for a week or a fortnight. One of the gentlemen examined before the Commission gave an instance where 12 or 13 of his men, having broken their contract of this nature, threw the whole of his establishment almost out of work. He was able to get redress from three only of the workmen, but the damages awarded to him were as nothing compared with the loss he sustained. In another case an iron manufacturer had a blast furnace in charge of three men. When the iron was in a liquid state, these men suddenly quitted their posts because their

  41
  employer would not consent to certain terms they proposed. The consequence was that the iron got cold; and as it was impossible to melt the iron again unless the furnace was taken down, this had to be done at a cost of £2,000. Their Lordships would see that it was impossible to recover damages of such amounts from the workmen, who had no means of raising such sums. It was said that the 5th clause in the present Bill would give a remedy in such cases, but he doubted this, as it would be very difficult in all cases to prove that the offence had been committed "wilfully, maliciously, and knowingly." Under the 14th clause of the Master and Servant Act a remedy was provided in the Criminal Law. He agreed, however, that that clause ought at once to be repealed—it was an inconvenient and ill-drawn clause, and did great injustice to those who came under its operation; and he was also of opinion that Her Majesty's Government had done right in dividing the subject into two classes. From the first he felt the difficulty of dealing with the question of conspiracy, and he was much obliged for the information the noble and learned Lord had just given the House respecting it. With regard to intimidation, the Government had taken the right course. If the Bill should do away with the heart-burnings which had been occasioned in former years among the working classes, and if it should be followed by greatly conciliating the feelings of the employer and the employed, he thought that all classes of the community would have grateful recollections of the measure now brought forward. He suggested, however, that acts committed knowingly should be separated from those committed maliciously and wilfully, and the offenders tried, not by a summary proceeding, but by a jury.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that having taken part in former legislation on this subject, he begged permission to say a few words on the measure before their Lordships. The Master and Servant Act was no doubt a great step in advance, and under this Bill the same law would continue to apply in cases similar to the gas case. He was, however, content to take the Bill in its present form, but he did not think that under it the danger of agitation was altogether removed. He recognized in it that pro-
  42
  gress in legislation upon the subject as appeared to give satisfaction to the great body of the working classes.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  Then—
  EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN BILL read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  ALIENS AND NATURALIZATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 226.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Aliens and Naturalization: Also,
  ALKALI WORKS BILL [H.L.] (NO. 227.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the regulation of Alkali Works; Also,
  CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS BILL [H.L.] (NO. 228.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts for regulating the proving of Chain Cables and Anchors: Also,
  ISSUE OF WRITS DURING RECESS BILL [H.L.] (NO. 229.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the issue of Writs during a recess of the House of Commons: Also,
  MEETING OF PARLIAMENT BILL [H.L.] (NO. 230.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the summoning and meeting of Parliament: Also,
  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (OATHS AND COSTS) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 231.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the administration of Oaths in both Houses of Parliament and the awarding of costs in proceedings upon Private Bills: And also,
  PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.] (NO. 232.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to certain Public Schools in England:
  Were severally presented by The LORD CHAN-CELLOR.; read 1a.
  House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.