Sitting of 21 June 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Fist Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * [216]; Poor Law Amendment* [217]; Washington Treaty (Claims Distribution) * [218].
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision (Ireland) * [199]; Pacific Islanders Protection * [182]; Parliament of Canada * [209].
Committee—Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (re-comm.) * [116]—R.P.; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland)* [189]—R.P.; Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [191]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Pharmacy* [175–215]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Fen Chapels) * [173].
Third Reading—Juries (Ireland) * [206] Medical Acts Amendment (College of Surgeons) * [100], and passed.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN EXPEDITION TO HISSAR.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any information as to the Russian expedition to Hissar; and if he knows whether the men of science named for it are to he accompanied by a military escort?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, the only information which had been received at the Foreign Office as to a Russian scientific expedition to Hissar was contained in an extract from The Turkestan Gazette, which he did not think would be intelligible to the House without a map. He would, however, take measures to have it published. He had heard nothing as to the expedition being accompanied by a military escort, but he thought that if an expedition of the kind had started into a country which might be said to be unknown, and the natives of which were, most probably, extremely rough and barbarous, it was very likely to be accompanied by a military escort.

AUDIT OF ARMY AND NAVY ACCOUNTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. HOLMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Departmental Committee recommended by the Select Committee of Public Accounts, to report upon the expediency of extending the system of an independent audit to the accounts of our Army and Navy expenditure, was appointed; and, if so, when; and, whether that Committee has made any Report; and, if so, if he has any objection to lay said Report upon the Table?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the Committee to which the hon. Member for Hackney refers was appointed under the superintendence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and made some progress in its inquiries. Various circumstances, however, occurred to delay
  250
  it, and no Report has yet been presented. I have had the subject under consideration, and I trust that I shall be able to suggest a satisfactory solution of the Question. For that purpose I propose at my earliest leisure—most probably at the end of the Session—to resume and complete the inquiry, and the Report which we shall present will, of course, be communicated to the Departments concerned and submitted to Parliament.

WEST INDIES—ISLAND OF ST. VINCENT.—QUESTION.
MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Petition was received at the Colonial Office from the island of St. Vincent, dated April 1874, signed by all the non-official members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Assembly of the Colony, by every landed proprietor, planter, and estate agent, and by every mercantile firm in the island (with one exception), in which it is stated that the taxation of the Colony is excessive, and beyond what is needed for its due administration, and that, owing to the depressed state of West Indian produce, if the taxation be not diminished, the necessary result must be that the majority of the estates in the island will cease to be cultivated; whether any acknowledgment or reply has been sent to that Petition; whether the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been called to the apparent discrepancy between the above statements, made by so large a majority of the inhabitants of St. Vincent, and those contained in the published Despatch of Administrator Laborde, dated April 16th, 1873, in which he states, with reference to the Colony of St. Vincent, that "there is nothing to complain of," and "that the people are quiet and contented;" whether Mr. Laborde has been asked for any explanation of this apparent discrepancy; and, whether the newly appointed Lieutenant Governor of St. Vincent has been directed to inquire into the grievances alleged by the inhabitants, with a view to the adoption of remedial measures?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, a Petition of the nature referred to by the hon. Gentleman was received at the time stated in the Question. Both before and since its receipt the financial condition

251
of the island and the incidence of taxation have received the anxious consideration of my noble Friend the Secretary of State, and on the appointment of the new Lieutenant Governor (Mr. Dundas) his especial attention was directed to these subjects. With reference to the other points alluded to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman, as active steps were being taken and communications made to the Lieutenant Governor, and through him to the various persons in the Colony who were interested in these matters, it was not considered necessary to enter any further into the matter. I am happy to be able to state, in conclusion, that Mr. Dundas has already proposed, with the concurrence of the elective Members, a revised scheme of taxation, which he believes to be in accordance with the wishes of the community, and which promises to afford general satisfaction, and this scheme has received the approval of the Secretary of State.

WATERFORD HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS—AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. R. POWER,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the accounts of the Water-ford Harbour Commissioners were not audited by the Controller and Auditor General, for the reason that they neither came within the class of accounts contemplated under the Act, nor had any application for such an audit been made. It was not the present intention of the Treasury to give any further directions on the subject.

ARMY—NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, When he hopes to be able to state to the House the general outlines of his scheme for the improvement of the position of Non-Commissioned Officers?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he had prepared certain suggestions and estimates, which he intended to lay before Parliament, for the improvement of the condition of non-commissioned officers. Owing to certain unavoidable causes, a greater delay than he anticipated had arisen in bringing the question before the House, and he
252
was quite unable to say when he should be able to proceed in the matter.

IRELAND—THE DUBLIN POLICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to certain paragraphs in the Dublin daily papers relative to the arrest of some gentlemen by the police on a charge of injuring iron railings in Sackville Street (which the prisoners declared they were only "straightening ") at three o'clock in the morning, when coming from their club, the acting Police Inspector who received the charge at the police station directing them to be retained till morning; whether it is true that amongst the friends who during the night offered themselves as bail for the accused, was the Commissioner of Police, the superior officer of the Inspector in question; whether the newspapers are correct in stating that the Inspector had been "reduced" by the Commissioner in consequence of this incident; and, whether, having regard to the desirability of the officers and men of the police force discharging their duties in an impartial and independent manner, the Government will recommend the Chief Commissioner of Police in future to leave the bailing of night prisoners arrested by the police to some other friends of the accused?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, in reply, said, he took no notice of certain paragraphs referring to the matter in question, because he did not think they deserved attention. It was not true that the Chief Commissioner of Police offered himself as bail for the accused. There would have been no necessity for his doing so, because, both as Chief Commissioner and as a magistrate, he might have discharged the defendants from custody if he had thought fit to do so. The case went before a magistrate the following morning, and was dismissed, and the police-sergeant who was acting as night Inspector at the time these gentlemen were arrested was reduced to his former grade of sergeant, on account of the want of discretion which he displayed in detaining persons who were perfectly well known to him, and not allowing them to be released upon bail,

THE FIJI ISLANDS—EPIDEMIC OF MEASLES.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the fatal epidemic of measles, which is reported to have committed such havoc in the Fiji Islands, is to be attributed to any relaxation of the rigid precautions which usually prevail in Her Majesty's ships?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, he was unable to give his right hon. and gallant Friend any information on the subject. A Report had been called for, but it had not yet been received.

ARMY—BRIGADE DEPOT AT WARLEY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL GILPINasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House what is the present strength of the several Brigade Depots at Warley in Essex, in officers and men, particularly detailing the Staff, Commissioned and non-Commissioned; and, whether it is true there are three Paymasters stationed there, and if so, what are their functions?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the strength of the three Brigade Depôts at Warley is as follows:—Staff, 4 of the 44th, 3 of the 49th, 4 of the 50th—total, 11; officers, 11 of the 44th, 8 of the 49th, 9 of the 50th—total, 28; sergeants, 17 of the 44th, 16 of the 49th, 13 of the 50th—total, 46; drummers, 4 of the 44th, 4 of the 49th, 4 of the 50th—total, 12; rank and file, 149 of the 44th, 111 of the 49th, 94 of the 50th—total, 354; making a total of 185 of the 44th, 142 of the 49th, 124 of the 50th—grand total, 451. It is true that there are at present three Paymasters there. Their duties are to pay the men and Staff of the Brigade and of the two Depôts attached to each, and as the Brigade system is more and more developed, they will pay the Auxiliary Forces and Pensioners and all local services in each sub-district. Two of the three Brigade Depôts are only temporarily at Warley, having been moved there from Woolwich in consequence of the sickness at the latter station. The fact of there being three Paymasters at Warley arises from the state of transition of the Depot arrangements generally, and is unavoidable unless the War Department were
  254
  to dismiss Paymasters merely because three Depôts happen to be temporarily together on account of unforeseen circumstances such as have happened in this case.

IRELAND—HARBOUR OF ARDGLASS.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay on the Table of the House the Documents relating to the Grant of Money made to the Harbour of Ardglass, in order to explain the intentions of Government in respect to grants of public money to assist in improving Harbours in Scotland?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, there were no documents in the Board of Trade referring to the grant.

INDIA—DISPUTES WITH BURMAH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government will at once communicate to the House any information relative to the complaints, of whatever kind, made by the Government of India against the King of Burmah, together with a Copy of the instructions given to Sir Douglas Forsyth, Her Majesty's special Envoy to the Burmese Court?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, there will be no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence relating to the differences which have from time to time arisen between the King of Burmah and the Indian Government. Sir Douglas Forsyth has been sent upon a special mission to Mandalay to facilitate an amicable settlement of their differences. No course, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would be more likely to frustrate that object than to make public the special instructions upon which Sir Douglas Forsyth has orders to act, and therefore, I am afraid I must decline to furnish the hon. Gentleman with them.

INLAND REVENUE—APPOINTMENT OF SIR ALFRED SLADE.—QUESTION.
MR. DILLWYNasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Morning Post" of the

255
18th instant, that Sir Alfred Slade has been appointed to the Office of Receiver-General of the Inland Revenue?
MR. DISRAELI: It is quite true, Sir, that Sir Alfred Slade has been appointed to that office.
MR. DILLWYN: I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to the subject on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on Friday next.

POST OFFICE—THE WEST INDIA MAIL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONasked the Postmaster General, If he will make arrangements for the Royal Mail Steamers to the West Indies to call for letters at Plymouth on the outward voyage on the 3rd and 18th of the month, so as to increase the interval between the arrival and departure of the mails, and obviate the inconvenience occasioned not only to merchants in London, but also in Liverpool, Manchester, and the whole of Scotland, by the short time now allowed for replying to letters; and, whether he will make other arrangements, such as offering a premium for increased speed (as in the previous contract) likely to effect the same object?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, he could not adopt the suggestion, as he thought that whatever advantages might be likely to arise from such an arrangement, they would be more than counterbalanced by disadvantages. There was not any offer of premiums for increased speed in the contract.

PUBLIC HEALTH—SANITARY CONDITION OF OXFORD.—QUESTION.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, who had a Notice on the Paper, to ask the honourable Member for Barnstaple, Whether, having charged the authorities of Oxford with "gross and wilful neglect" to the sanitary condition of that place, he will at once place upon the Paper the Resolution which he proposes to move, that they may become acquinted with the specific charge made against them, said, that as he understood that that hon. Member had withdrawn his Notice, he (Mr. Hardy) did not think it necessary to put to him the Question he had placed on the Paper.
MR. T. CAVEsaid, he was almost sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had
256
withdrawn his Question, especially as there was another immediately following it to be put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) relating to the same subject. Immediately on the appearance of his (Mr. T. Cave's) Notice of Motion, he received so many communications from various parties interested in the City of Oxford, and especially from one of the authorities of one of the principal Colleges, that he thought it his duty to make a fuller investigation into the matters referred to in that Notice of Motion before bringing it under the consideration of the House, and in consequence of that he had removed it from the Paper under the best advice he could obtain in that House. He hoped at an early day to be able to state to the right hon. Gentleman on what day and in what mode he would bring the subject before the House.

ARMY—KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that scarlet fever has broken out amongst the Soldiers of the Second Life Guards now stationed at Knightsbridge Barracks, and not only in the barracks but in the lodging-houses in the vicinity where many of the married men are located; and, whether, in view of this serious state of things, combined with the alleged unsanitary state of the barracks, he will consider the desirability of removing the barracks to a less densely populated locality?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, on the 14th instant the medical authorities reported that since the 26th of May, the date of the first case, three cases of scarlatina had occurred among the men and three among the children living in barracks, and three among the children living outside the barracks. On the 17th instant one trooper was admitted into hospital with symptoms of a mild attack of scarlatina. All the cases have been of mild type, and nearly all are convalescent. In reporting the case on the 17th instant, the Surgeon Major 2nd Life Guards said—
  "This is the only case I have had among the men since the 3rd instant, and I have no fresh cases to report among the women or children living in or out of barracks."

  257
  With regard to the alleged unsanitary-state of the barracks, judging from the Sanitary Reports of the last three years, it would not appear that Knights bridge Barracks are in an unsanitary state as compared with other barracks in general. The annual ratio of admissions per 1,000 of the Household Cavalry is below that of other arms of the service generally. The result of a comparison between Knightsbridge and Regent's Park Barracks is much in favour of the former, if the proportion of illness from fevers and infectious diseases depending on unsanitary conditions of dwellings be alone taken. Scarlet fever has been, it is believed, prevalent in the neighbourhood of the barracks previous to the 2nd Life Guards coming there, and so far from bringing it, they had found it there.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOPESasked the Lord Advocate, in the absence of Mr. Attorney General, When (having regard to the near approach of the Circuits, and the consequent absence of many legal Members) the Committee on the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment Bill will be taken?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, said, he was unable to state on what day the Committee would be taken. The convenience of legal Gentlemen would be consulted with reference to the day when the Bill would be set down for going into Committee.
  MR. LOPESsaid, the answer not being specific, he would repeat his Question on Friday next.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. LOCKEasked the Postmaster General, Whether any steps are being taken to re-establish the telegraphic communication, which has been interrupted for some time, between England and the Channel Islands; and, if so, how soon it is expected the telegraph will be in working order?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that steps had been taken to re-establish the communication referred to. A cable heavier and more durable than
258
the former one was now being manufactured, and as soon as it was completed it would be laid. It would probably be finished about the end of next month, when the communication with the Channel Islands would be restored.

IRELAND—REMOVAL OF LUNATICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement made by Dr. Garner in his annual report to the governors of the Clonmel District Lunatic Asylum:—
  "Patients are often conveyed to the asylum under the provisions of the Act 30 and 31 Vic., c. 118, guarded by an armed escort, generally handcuffed, and as often as not bound hand and foot. In one case the unhappy patient, in addition to his bonds, arrived enveloped in a bag reaching up to his throat. In this plight he had travelled on a car nearly 40 miles. In another—that of a puerperal maniac—the restraining cords cut deeply into her wrists and ankles; the chances of recovery are thus, I need not say, heavily weighted. More than two-thirds of the admissions are under the authority of this statute, so that the necessity of a more decorous mode of conveyance is all the more pressing;"
  and, whether he will issue stringent orders to the police to avoid all unnecessary suffering to such patients?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the police had already received orders to avoid all unnecessary suffering to patients conveyed to lunatic asylums in Ireland. He had made inquiries of the Inspector General of Constabulary, but did not find that any complaint had been made to him of the improper conduct of the police of Tipperary in this respect; nor did he find that any statement had been received by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums similar to that which, according to the hon. Member, was made by Dr. Garner in his annual report to the governors of the Clonmel District Lunatic Asylum. This statement was, however, of so serious a nature that he would cause inquiry to be made in regard to it, and he should be happy to communicate to the hon. Member the result of the investigation.

CRIMINAL LAW—TREATMENT OF CONVICTS—PORTLAND AND CHATHAM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has any communication to

  259
  make to the House with reference to the recent death of a convict in Portland prison, and the declaration of the jury at the inquest accusing the assistant medical officer of unkind treatment of the deceased; and, if it is true that a military prisoner named O'Brien, now undergoing sentence of penal servitude for life at Chatham, has been in chains since Christmas, or at any time since his conviction, and, if so, for how long a period; and if it is also true that his mother went a few days since to see him, but, after having been brought to Chatham, was told her son had forfeited his right to a visit and had to come away without seeing him?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that in consequence of the verdict of a coroner's jury he ordered a special inquiry to be instituted into the conduct of the assistant medical officer at Portland prison with reference to the recent death of a convict there. That inquiry was conducted by persons well qualified to form a correct judgment—namely, Dr. Guy, Dr. Bristowe, and Captain Stockwell. If the hon. Member would move for a Return of their report, he (Mr. Cross) should have no objection to place it on the Table of the House; but at present he would only refer to the concluding portion of it in which they stated that having taken all the facts of the case into consideration, they had no alternative but to acquit Dr. Bernard of the charge of want of skill, want of attention, and want of substantial kindness. At the same time, they said it appeared from the evidence that he had exhibited a certain abruptness and brusqueness of manner which would go far to explain the convict's dislike to him. It was true that a military prisoner named O'Brien, now undergoing sentence of penal servitude for life at Chatham, was put in chains in the middle of last year. On the 29th of June, 1874, he was discovered to have made a hole in the wall of his cell with a view to effecting his escape. For this offence he was, according to the rules of the prison, placed in light chains for six months. In consequence, also, of this misconduct he was placed in another class of prisoners and his right to see his friends was curtailed. It was for this reason, and for this reason alone, that when his mother went to see him she was told her son had forfeited his right to a visit, and she had
  260
  to go away from Chatham without seeing him.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that on an early day he would put another Question on the same subject.

THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, in reference to questions on the same subject on July 10th of last year and February 18th of this year, Whether any decision has yet been arrived at by him in regard to the new rules affecting the leave of those uncovenanted civil servants in India whose cases have remained undecided since last year; and, if not, what has become of the list of uncovenanted civil servants in Bengal which accompanied a despatch from the Government of India, dated May 26th, 1874, and upon whose cases a decision was deferred until the receipt of further information from that Government, while the list for the province of Oudh was accepted by him, and the officers mentioned in it were admitted, two years ago, to the benefit of the new rules?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, no decision has at present been arrived at by the Secretary of State regarding the application referred to in the Question of the hon. Member. The subject is one upon which it is very difficult for the Secretary of State to make any great change without having before him a statement of the definite opinion of the Government of India. No such statement has at present been received, but a despatch upon the subject will shortly be sent out.

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 12 (Charges against officers.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, to leave out the words "an assessor," and insert the words "two or more."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'an assessor' stand part of the clause,"
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would cause unnecessary expense to appoint two assessors in every case. Assessors were not always easily to be found; besides, it was useless to have two assessors, if the inquiry was such that it could be, and sometimes would be better, carried on with one. Two might always be appointed wherever necessary.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONthought a tribunal of such importance ought to have the advantage of more than one assessor, if its decisions were to have any weight. He could not accept the ground of expense as an excuse for depriving officers of the Mercantile Marine of the consideration they were entitled to when their conduct was called in question. He hoped the hon. Member for Hull would press his Amendment, and with every desire to support the Government in passing the Bill, he would support the hon. Member if he stood by his Amendment.
  LORD ESLINGTONobserved, that there was nothing in the clause which would prevent there being two or three assessors, whilst it would ensure that there should be only one in cases in which there was no necessity for more.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, it was much ado about nothing. Cases where a man's personal liberty was involved were decided by one magistrate; and in this particular instance the point generally was not whether the certificate ought to have been suspended, but whether it ought ever to have been granted. In his opinion, the clause as it stood was amply sufficient for all purposes.
  MR. LOPESthought that the clause as it stood would meet every purpose that was required; whilst the Amendment would render it necessary to have two assessors, even in small and trifling cases where they were not required.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the officers of the Merchant Service attached very great importance to this Amendment; because upon the result of these inquiries might depend their character and their means of livelihood. They would, however, be satisfied if the person whose conduct was in question was allowed the option of demanding a second assessor. Two assessors were required in the comparatively trifling cases which were brought before County Courts. He
  262
  did not wish to press his Amendment unduly on the House, but he did think that for the sake of a £10 note a second auditor ought not to be refused.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HAMONDmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, sub-section 3, line 30, to leave out "of such skill and knowledge," and insert, "but who shall have no power to vote." The judgment should be that of the Court, the duty of the assessors being ended when the report was made.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYpointed out that that was already the case, the assessors being merely the advisers and assistants of the Judge. He was not aware of any cases in which they did vote or could vote.
  MR. LOPESregarded it as quite clear that assessors had no power to vote.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 31, after "knowledge" to insert—
  "Whose qualification shall be at least twenty years' service at sea, five years of that time in a sailing vessel, and ton years as master in either steam or sailing ships in the British Merchant Service; and in all cases of a steam vessel being the subject of inquiry, one of the assessors shall have been ten years master of a steamship."
  The hon. and learned Member said, he did not in that Amendment go beyond the expressed intention of the Government, that the persons called upon to judge of the management of a merchant ship should be persons of nautical skill and of the necessary experience. The Committee however, were not told what their qualifications were to be; the only thing they were told was that the persons to be appointed should be chosen by the Judge of the Court of Admiralty. He held that some indication of the kind of persons to be appointed should be given, for the matter was too important to be left to the discretion of a Judge. An officer of the Royal Navy would be tried by a court-martial—that was, by his peers; but there was no process of that kind in the Merchant Service. Hitherto assessors had been selected from among officers in the Royal Navy, though they had no special acquaintance with the Merchant Service. Officers in that service felt very sore at this, and they feared that this system might still continue. The kind of skill

  263
  to be met with in naval officers was not the kind of skill necessary for conducting a judicial inquiry in the case of merchant vessels. The officers of the Merchant Service, therefore, demanded as a matter of fairness that they should be tried by persons who had had the same nautical experience as themselves and in vessels of the same class. The Amendment he proposed laid down, he ventured to suggest, a fair qualification for the assessors, but he was ready to allow it to be modified.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the Amendment had arisen in an over-sensitive jealousy on the part of the Merchant Service towards the officers of the Royal Navy. And yet he did not suppose anyone would have the officers of the Royal Navy altogether excluded from acting as assessors in any case. What, then, was the use of the Amendment? Some authority must be appointed to name the assessors, and it was thought that the High Court of Admiralty would be the best, instead of as at present the Board of Trade, which was the prosecutor. Suppose a boiler had burst, and that an engineer was wanted as assessor, would it be well to restrict the choice in the manner proposed by the Amendment—that the engineer must have been 20 years at sea, five in a sailing vessel? As the clause now stood, the Court could elect the fittest assessors for each particular case.
  LORD ESLINGTONdid not agree with his right hon. Friend that this sensitiveness on the part of the Merchant Service had arisen from jealousy of the officers of the Navy. It arose rather from the circumstance that this was a matter on which their livelihood depended. He was of opinion, however, that if unnecessary restrictions on the choice of assessors were imposed, the object in view would be defeated, because competent men were not to be obtained every day.
  MR. GOURLEYsupported the Amendment, as he doubted whether naval officers would always have that practical knowledge and intimate acquaintance with the coast where the accident to be inquired into might have occurred, that would qualify them to act as assessors.
  MR. MAC IVERalso supported the Amendment. These Courts of Inquiry were often a scandal to justice. He did not believe there was any jealousy on
  264
  the part of the Mercantile Marine with respect to officers of the Royal Navy; but he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was a fair and reasonable one, inasmuch as the object was to secure that there should be on the tribunal at least one assessor, who was practically acquainted with the working of the Mercantile Marine. There was a strong feeling against placing the decision of many important questions in the hands of a single stipendiary magistrate, who might have little or no experience, assisted by an assessor who, however able in other respects, knew nothing of the Mercantile Marine. He earnestly hoped the President of the Board of Trade would in some way modify the clause, so as to meet the very general feeling which prevailed on the subject.
  MR. T. E. SMITHhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to the acceptance of at least a portion of the Amendment, and not leave the decision of important questions affecting the Mercantile Marine to naval officers only. The Mercantile Marine had a right to some distinct representation in the Court. Something should be done to give them confidence in it. He suggested that at least one of the assessors should belong to the Merchant Navy. That would, he thought, go far to meet the justice of the case. Officers of the Royal Navy had not always a knowledge of the particular circumstances under which the casualties to be investigated sometimes arose.
  MR. LOPEScould not understand why any limitations should be placed on the exercise of the functions of the Chief Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in appointing assessors. No such interference existed in the case of the Home Secretary, who had to appoint stipendiary magistrates almost every day. He hoped the clause would be agreed to as it stood in this respect.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He did not know where the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) was born and bred that he should say that the way justice was administered in this country was scandalous. After all, suspension of a certificated officer was not so great a loss as was imagined, for very often a good ship was waiting for the person suspended when the time of suspension

  265
  expired. He would rather have a clever young man with six than an old woman with 60 years' experience for surveyor or assessor.
  MR. TORRsaid, what was wanted was a good counsellor to assist the Judge. He would suggest the omission of the terms of service from the Amendment, so as to allow the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, as far as practicable, to select from persons who had acquired a knowledge of and concerning the Mercantile Marine.
  MR. D. JENKINSwas in favour of one of the assessors being connected with the Mercantile Marine. He wished to point out that the clause made no provision for the appointment of an assessor with a knowledge of steam sailing in cases relating to steamers.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was in favour of the appointment of a tribunal in which the Mercantile Marine would have confidence. He did not think that would be the case here. An officer of the Royal Navy might be as good a sailor as ever went to sea, but he had no practical knowledge of the particular circumstances he might be called upon to decide. He would, therefore, recommend his right hon. Friend to re-consider the subject, and amend the clause in such a way as to give some guarantee that assessors appointed should really have practical experience in the matters which would be submitted for their judgment and decision.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he objected to the Amendment that whereas the clause did not exclude engineer officers the Amendment did.
  MR. BENTINCKcondemned the Amendment on the ground that as drawn it would defeat its own object. By it a really competent man might be excluded if his period of service did not come up to the prescribed limit.
  MR. NORWOODobserved, that the word "suspension" of certificate in the existing Acts had been altered in the clause to "cancelled," and therefore it was desirable as officers of the Merchant Service attributed great importance to the formation of the tribunal, to be careful how it was constituted. Officers of the Royal Navy would not be able in many cases to comprehend the difficulties masters of vessels might be placed in, and he distinctly objected to their sitting as assessors.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the High Court of Admiralty would be instructed by the Board of Trade as to the class of men to be selected as assessors, according to the nature of the investigation. While he could not accept the Amendment as it stood, he would undertake that when the Report was brought up it should be so far amended as to give the High Court of Admiralty the power to appoint in all cases at least one assessor connected with the Mercantile Marine.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, in that case he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NORWOODmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 32, to leave out "High," and insert "Local." He did so with the object of giving the appointment of assessors to local Judges of the Admiralty. It would also secure immediate inquiries, carried on at a small cost, by persons whose local knowledge would be valuable.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought it was desirable to carry out as far as possible the object of the Bill, which was to make the appointment of assessors as independent as possible, and especially to avoid appointments in localities with which the parties to cases for inquiry were connected.
  MR. T. E. SMITHexpressed a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed, thinking that it would be almost impossible to get local men as assessors who had not some connection with the parties to the cases under investigation.
  MR. LOPESthought it would be much better that these appointments should rest with the Judges of the High Court of Admiralty, and then persons so appointed would be above suspicion.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HERSCHELL (for Mr. RATH-BONE)moved an Amendment to the effect assessors in a local inquiry should not be chosen from among the assessors of the High Court of Admiralty, the object being to prevent assessors of the High Court having to sit there in cases which they had already heard.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, as an Amendment, that the list of assessors of the High Court should be advertised in The London Gazette. It was important that the panel selected by the Court of Admiralty to try these cases should be made public.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that would possibly preclude the appointment of the best man for a particular case if he were not in the advertized list.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HERSCHELLpointed out that no provision was made for the appointment of assessors in a case in which proceedings were taken by persons independently of the Board of Trade.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that hitherto proceedings had been taken, and probably would continue to be taken, through the Board of Trade.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the clause clearly contemplated independent action.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he would look into the matter, and bring up words to make it clear.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, it ought to be made clear that no proceedings could be taken except through the Board of Trade.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved an Amendment to the effect that six assessors should be chosen by ballot from a list, and that each party should strike out the names of two, the remaining names to be the assessors to assist on the hearing of the complaint. He said that this was the system at present in force in the Court of passage, at Liverpool, which was possessed of Admiralty jurisdiction. His object was to get an impartial tribunal, and the striking out of the names was in the nature of a challenge, only more convenient.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RATHBONEmoved, in page 6, line 29, after "made" to insert—
  "Where the inquiry relates to a collision no assessor who shall aid the Court shall afterwards assist the High Court of Admiralty in hearing a case relating to the same."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it referred to circumstances which did not
  268
  arise, as all cases of collision would ordinarily go before the High Court of Admiralty, and not be heard by local Courts. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool that it would be well to bring his proposal forward when the Committee came to consider the 47th clause, which related to inquiries as to wrecks.
  MR. GORSTthought the Amendment was entirely beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 222: Majority 73.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved an Amendment giving the person charged power of requiring that he should be tried by a jury instead of by assessors. A similar power was given to the accused in the Labour Bills of the Home Secretary.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that there was a general willingness in the Mercantile Navy to accept, as the best tribunal, the stipendiary magistrate or County Court Judge, assisted by two assessors. One of the great objects in view was to prevent cases of this kind being investigated by those who had local interests, and upon whom local prejudices and influences might be brought to bear, as would be the case with a jury
  MR. LOPESthought the tribunal provided by the Bill was an excellent one, whereas a jury of shopkeepers, however estimable they might be, would be wholly unfitted to try questions of this kind.
  MR. D. JENKINScould hardly think the hon. and learned Member for Salford was serious in making the present proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 6, to insert the words "or suspended" after "cancelled." Under the existing law the Board of Trade had power to suspend an officer's certificate as well as to cancel it, and suspension was the course pursued in the great majority of cases. This Bill proposed to get rid of the power of suspending certificates, and only empowered the Court of Inquiry to cancel them. Such a provision would often

  269
  prevent the Court of Inquiry from doing justice; and, moreover, it did not appear what would be the status of a man whose certificate had been cancelled, and who might apply for another certificate after a certain lapse of time.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, and observed that if an officer's certificate was suspended for incompetency, it was surely absurd that he should at the end of the period of inaction, when he would probably be more incompetent still, receive it back again. He proposed, however, to accept an Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond), giving power to the Board of Trade to qualify the order by directing the defendant to apply at the time specified to be examined for a certificate of the same class as that cancelled, or to direct a certificate of a lower grade to be substituted for the one so cancelled. In this way the interval would be spent in practice, and the lost certificate regained on proof of competency.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that the change proposed by the Bill was recommended by the legal advisers of the Board of Trade, in their evidence before the Royal Commission.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, a distinction ought to be drawn in cases where the certificate was cancelled for incompetency and where it was cancelled for misconduct.
  MR. BATESsaid, a captain who happened to get too much to drink when not on duty ought not to have his certificate cancelled; but if he got drunk on board his ship, or while on duty, not only ought his certificate to be cancelled, but he should not be able to get another.
  MR. A. W. PEELsaid, he did not know why this power of suspension had been left out of the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, drunkenness in command of a ship was incompetency, and habitual drunkenness would be distinct proof of a captain's unfitness to command a ship.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HAMONDmoved, as an Amendment, in page 7, sub-section 5, line 7, to leave out all after "fit," to end of sub-section, and insert—
  "Or may, if it thinks fit, qualify such order by directing that the defendant may at the expiration
  270
  of a certain time to be then and there specified, apply to be examined for a certificate of the same class as that so cancelled, or may direct a certificate of a lower grade to be there named to be substituted for that so cancelled."
  If the Amendment were adopted, the Court would have power to award different grades of punishment for different classes of offences, and the Court would in certain cases have power to punish instead of the Board of Trade.
  MR. T. E. SMITH, with reference to the proposed Amendment, said, he would move the omission of the words "to be examined," in justice to a large class who were entitled to certificates without examination.
  Motion agreed to:
  Words struck out.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. HAMONDmoved to leave out sub-section 8 in order to insert—
  "The Board of Trade may regrant a fresh certificate to any person whose certificate has been cancelled, provided such person undergoes a further examination to qualify him for the same, and that a period of not less than twelve months has elapsed since the cancelment of his certificate and the period of his undergoing such examination."
  As the sub-section stood it gave the Board of Trade unlimited power over the decision of the Court without further inquiry.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the eighth sub-section must certainly stand. The clause was a mere repetition of the existing law.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, it appeared to him that the sub-section was perfectly right, and without the power it contained much injustice might be done.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NORWOODmoved an Amendment to the effect that the conduct of the inquiry and the evidence given before the Court should be as nearly as possible subject to and according to the laws of evidence and procedure in civil cases. At present the assessors "broke in" and asked questions which they had no right to put, whereby the course of justice was impeded.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the object which the hon. Member desired to secure had already been effected. The inquiry must be held in England before a stipendiary or metropolitan magistrate, and it would be in the nature of a civil proceeding.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the Bill separated the inquiry into two parts—that which referred to the loss of the vessel, and next as to the conduct of the officer. What he feared was that the latter inquiry would be too strictly legal, and that the officer would not himself be allowed to give evidence. It was very desirable that the officers should submit themselves to examination.
  MR. HERSCHELLalso doubted whether a person charged with drunkenness or incompetence, for instance, could give evidence. It would be more in the nature of a criminal than a civil proceeding.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALbelieved that these were all of the nature of civil proceedings, and that the officers concerned would in all cases have the right to be examined. If it were not so, the Bill would require to be amended. He would look into the matter, and see whether any Amendment was necessary.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he was satisfied with that assurance, and would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WILSONmoved an Amendment to provide for the payment, by the Board of Trade, of the defendant's costs in case the charge made against him proved to be untrue.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALreminded the hon. Member that the Courts had full power to make such an award. If the Board of Trade was the complainant that body would have to pay the costs.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 7, at the end of sub-section 8, to add—
  "9. No party other than the Board of Trade or the owner of any ship shall be at liberty to make any such complaint, unless he shall have previously given security to the satisfaction of the court to which such complaint is made to answer the costs thereof."
  His object was to prevent frivolous prosecutions, which were often made out of mere spite.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdid not think that the Amendment was necessary, for, as he understood, though complaints might come from other parties, the Board of Trade would be the sole promoter of proceedings.
  LORD ESLINGTONremarked that if it were laid down that the Board of Trade or the owner were the only parties at liberty to make complaints, a great many cases which might be known to sailors only would be excluded.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved, that the Amendment did not say that no one, with certain exceptions, should make a complaint, but that no one should do so without giving security for costs. He did not see, if this Amendment should be accepted by his right hon. Friend, why the owner of a vessel should be exempted.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had no desire to prevent any person from making a complaint if he had grounds for doing so, but he thought it would be better not to press the Amendment.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that in the case of a sailor the Summary Jurisdiction Act would apply, and he would be able to go before a magistrate. To make the Board of Trade the prosecutor, considerable amendment must be introduced into the clause.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that by the clause it was competent for any person to prefer a complaint without first applying to the Board of Trade.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, the object of the Amendment was to meet cases where there would not be time to apply to the Board of Trade, and thereby prevent delay. He had no objection to leave out the words "owners of ships;" but he would persevere with it in its amended form. There was no doubt whatever that great hardship would be inflicted by leaving the clause as it stood. He himself knew a case where the captain of a ship was put to an expense of £30, caused by a vexatious prosecution brought by a sailor.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to have something definite inserted in the clause to show whether proceedings were to be confined to the Board of Trade or not.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, it was seldom or ever that proceedings had been taken in the past, excepting by the Board of Trade, and it had, therefore, not been thought necessary to insert any provision against frivolous complaints by individuals.
  MR. CHILDERSwas not satisfied with the experience of the past as a

  273
  guarantee against anything that might take place in the future. fie thought it should be put beyond doubt whether the whole proceeding might not be taken by any private person or whether it could only be taken by the Board of Trade. There should be no ambiguity on that point.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, as the clause now stood, no doubt, a private person might take proceedings; but, owing to the Amendment made by the hon. and learned Member for Sal-ford in the earlier part of the clause, this clause would require to be remodelled, which might be done on the Report.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, before parting with the clause, wished to have some distinct understanding as to the nature of the alteration to be made—whether it would throw open the complaint to all the world or confine it to the Board of Trade. For his own part, he preferred the latter.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALreminded hon. Members that the question had already been discussed in a fuller Committee than there was at present—namely, on the proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond) to confine complaints to the Board of Trade. The Committee was of opinion that complaints ought not to be confined to the Board of Trade, and the Amendment was rejected. He did not know that much alteration of the clause would be required. It had been drawn with the view that complaint might be made to anybody. He did not suppose these cases would frequently happen. It would be hard to an owner not to have his costs, and it would be equally hard on the sailor to deprive him of his remedy because he could not give costs.
  MR. GOURLEYhoped the President of the Board of Trade would maintain the clause, and accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, it would be by no means unlikely, under the clause, for complaints to be made out of spite, arising from quarrels between masters and men.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that seeing the feeling of hon. Members generally, he would accept the Amendment, with the omission of the words "or the owner of any ship."
  MR. GORSTsaid, there were many reasons why it should not be permitted for seamen to call in question the competency of the master, and he was not disposed to admit the principle without further discussion and consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTfeared that the Committee was getting into a state of confusion, because while it had been decided that private persons might make complaints, there was no machinery provided for enabling them to do so. After a sailor had given security for costs, he could not give notice with respect to the appointment of assessors, that being in the hands of the Board of Trade.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought that the wording of the 3rd instruction might easily be adapted to the Amendment, by substituting for "the Board of Trade" the words "the person by whose application the complaint is made."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Discipline.
  Clause 13 (Misconduct endangering ship or life or limb).
  CAPTAIN PIMmoved, as an Amendment, in page 7, fine 23, after "discipline "to insert—
  "Any master or other person in command of a British ship, who, by neglect of the. load in taking-soundings shall cause the loss of the vessel then under his command and he convicted of the same, shall forfeit his certificate, and be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, if human life be sacrificed by the said neglect shall be deemed guilty of felony."
  There had been two recent instances of great loss of life from the neglect of the lead.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, there was no necessity whatever for the proposed Amendment, because the Bill already provided for neglect, including all such cases. By specifying particular kinds of neglect exclusion of others might be inferred.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. WILSONthen moved the omission of the clause altogether, because it was so vaguely worded. It provided no machinery by which the charges could be made or the Act put in action.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKexplained that nothing about a prosecutor was said in the clause, because, pursuant to the recommendation of the Royal

  275
  Commission, the Bill constituted a public prosecutor in the shape of the Board of Trade, who in all cases would be charged with the duty of putting the enactment in force.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Mutiny).
  MR. BENTINCKmoved, in page 8, line 10, to leave out "or without." He apprehended that one of the principal objects of the Bill was to save life at sea, and they must all admit that one of the most active causes of loss of life at sea was the want of discipline on board merchant vessels. Mutiny frequently involved the loss of the ship and also loss of life, and under this clause a person guilty of mutiny was to be sentenced to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, "with or without hard labour." To most men who misconducted themselves on board ship imprisonment without hard labour was not imprisonment at all, because they preferred idleness in prison to hard labour at sea, and he therefore thought that some punishment of a penal nature was necessary.
  MR. COLEobjected strenuously to the proposed Amendment, thinking that a discretion ought to be left with the presiding Judge. At the same time, he considered the system of hard labour altogether wrong. ["Oh, oh!"] Perhaps those who cried "Oh" knew nothing about the matter. Hard labour, as prescribed by the Prisons Act of 1865, was entirely a mistake, the true principle being industrial labour. At Devonport Gaol they had given up hard labour, and the result was, that the prisoners were put to industrial labour, and taught trades, and went out into the world very different men from what they were when first imprisoned. A whole wing had been built to that gaol entirely by industrial labour, and with a great saving to the ratepayers. Under the present system anyone sentenced to hard labour was for the first three months placed to what was called "first-class hard labour," which was the greatest absurdity under the sun—he had to wind up a winch or go on the treadmill, or carry shot from one end of the prison yard to the other and then bring it back again. The whole system was fallacious.
  MR. HUNTagreed with the hon. Gentleman that the Judge ought to have some discretion; but with regard to Devonport Gaol, the fact was that the discipline at that gaol had been found so little deterrent that the Admiralty had been obliged to cease sending prisoners there under the Navy Discipline Act, and had sent them to Bodmin Gaol instead, where the discipline was more strict.
  MR. COLEsaid, the principle on which the prisoners were treated was identically the same in both gaols.
  MR. NORWOODthought the Court ought to have the discretion of awarding or not awarding hard labour, as proposed by the clause.
  MR. D. JENKINSsaid, there might be cases where the extenuating circumstances were such that it was desirable not to inflict hard labour.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYpointed out that no change was made in the existing law by the clause, and deprecated the Committee sliding into a debate on prison discipline.
  MR. BENTINCKhad no objection to substitute the words "industrial labour" for "hard labour," in the clause; but, in its present shape, the punishment proposed could not act as deterrents. He would not trouble the Committee to divide.
  Amendment, by leave, with drawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Combining to disobey); and Clause 16 (Assault on officer), agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Insubordination, breach of discipline, and negligence).
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, that it was understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to lessen the penalties to which seamen would be subject, but instead of that, the Bill, and this clause particularly, inflicted more penalties and more punishments on seamen and apprentices. As a protest against this sort of legislation he would move the omission of the clause altogether. The system of increased punishment had rendered our Mercantile Marine more and more demoralized, and he thought the time had come to try some other policy than that of creating new forms of punishment with a view of improving the class for whom they were legislating.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked why the penalties imposed by the clause should apply only to seamen and not to officers. This clause was unnecessary, because if carelessness or drunkenness endangered life or property they were already punishable with other offences under Clause 13; whilst if they did not they could hardly be called criminal offences, liable to be punished by imprisonment. He therefore thought the sub-sections of the clause relating to those matters should be struck out.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYdeclined to accede to the proposal, because the crimes punishable by the clause were different from those in the clause already passed. That was why the penalties imposed by the two clauses differed in nature and application. In the one case the punishment was for insubordination on the part of seamen, and in the other for incompetency of officers to command. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) that the punishments should be made milder than they were. The Royal Commissioners in their Report especially pointed out that the discipline was becoming rather too lax for the safety of the service, and did not give sufficient control to masters over their crews as regarded danger to life and limb.
  MR. COLEsupported the Amendment for the omission of the clause.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, if the clause was retained, it would have to be amended in its phraseology. For the word "continued "there would have to be substituted renewed or fresh acts of insubordination.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that the 13th clause exhausted all offences contemplated by the Bill, and yet the clause under notice provided that a sailor guilty of simple disobedience of orders, which might not lead to any harm, should be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be punishable with hard labour. He submitted that such an offence ought not to be punished with hard labour.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Secretary of State had stated that the remedy for breach of contract should be by civil process, and also for the offence of disobedience; but, as regarded sailors, the right hon. Gentleman guarded himself, and said that the class of offences contemplated by the clause, considering
  278
  the character of the employment of the sailor and the grave consequences that might result from disobedience short of loss of life or destruction of the ship, was a very serious one, and such as ought not to be allowed to go unpunished.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member that sailors, of all other classes, should be punished with hard labour for carelessness. Clause 13 provided a remedy for all such offences.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the offence of gross neglect and carelessness in a sailor was most serious, inasmuch as the destruction of life and ship might result from it.
  MR. COLLINSwould not go the length that the hon. and learned Solicitor General went in saying that a sailor should be punished with hard labour for carelessness. What he would suggest was that four weeks' imprisonment, without hard labour, would be sufficient punishment for the minor offence, as there was a great difference between them.
  LORD ESLINGTONconsidered that it would be a great mistake to strike out the 17th clause, and that it was necessary to retain it in reference to the safety of life and property at sea.
  MR. T. E. SMITHcontended that there were many cases of insubordination which might be contrary to the discipline of the ship, and which might be attended with considerable danger.
  MR. MACDONALDwas of opinion that every punishment inflicted upon seamen would have the effect of preventing the country from getting good men to join the service. He would withdraw the Motion for the omission of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Neglect to keep lookout.)
  CAPTAIN PIMproposed an Amendment providing that when a ship was in the vicinity of rocks or shoals it be the duty of the master to keep the lead constantly going.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in opposing the Amendment, said, the duty of keeping the lead going was only one among many duties, and it was unnecessary and undesirable to specify this particular

  279
  duty. If duties were to be specified, it would be essential to have a complete list, or those not specified would be neglected with impunity.
  CAPTAIN PIMsaid, that the loss both of the Schiller and the Cadiz was clearly attributable to neglect to keep the lead going. This neglect was, in fact, the cause of innumerable shipwrecks, and he should feel it his duty to press the Amendment to a division.
  MR. BENTINCKprotested against the Amendment being disposed of in so summary a manner by the President of the Board of Trade. In almost all cases of shipwreck in thick weather the loss was caused by neglect to keep the lead going. They were all aware of this, and he should vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 154: Majority 100.
  On the Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Amendment made in page 9, line 15, by leaving out "with or without hard labour."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 19 (Desertion and kindred Offence.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved to reduce the period of imprisonment for desertion from six to four weeks, thinking that the penalty under this clause ought not to be more severe than it was under Clause 17.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, looking at the aggravated nature of the offence, could not accede to the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Grieve) had given Notice of an Amendment to make the punishment three months instead of six weeks.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved an Amendment with the object of giving the magistrates a discretionary power to mitigate the punishment for failure on the part of a seaman to join his ship by imposing a fine of £5 instead of imprisonment with or without hard labour. It was desirable that discretionary power should be given in cases where men failed to join their ships for simple carelessness or because they got drunk on the proceeds of bank notes.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALpointed out that the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view was practically met by subsequent words giving the magistrates the discretion in such cases to mulct the offender to the extent of 24 days' pay.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HAMONDmoved in page 10, line 10, to insert—
  "Any offence committed by any seaman or apprentice under sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, shall be entered in the log-book by the master within 48 hours after such offence may have been committed."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought there was no necessity for fixing so rigid a limit.
  MR. BENTINCKwas of opinion that they got on better before the official log was invented.
  MR. CHILDERSdid not think there was any occasion for the insertion of the proposed words. The present provision was quite sufficient.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Question, "That the clause be agreed to?"
  MR. MACDONALDmoved its rejection. The clause was too vague and general in its character, and it would act unduly and oppressively on the seamen. These men fell into the hands of crimps, were kept in a state of drunkenness by the system of advance notes, and were then subjected to penal punishment for breach of contract. Contract had been pronounced, both by the Government and a Royal Commission, to be purely civil in its character, and he protested against any proposition which would render the breach of it criminal.
  MR. MAC IVER, in supporting the Motion, said, that there was every desire on the part of the magistrates to do justice to all concerned in the cases brought before them, but he thought that this clause would perpetuate the grievance which already existed—namely, that our seamen should be treated differently from any other class of those who laboured for the wealth of this country, and therefore, if the hon. Member for Stafford went to a division, he should cordially support him.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Power of arrest in cases of desertion.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved an Amendment with the object of doing away with summary arrest within Her Majesty's dominions, by requiring the warrant of a magistrate for the arrest of any deserter from his ship to be brought before him, when he might order his removal to the ship from which he had deserted or absented himself, but permitting his summary arrest in foreign States so far as the law of the place permitted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 18, to leave out all the words after the word "offence," to the word "require," in line 26, inclussive."—(Sir W. Vernon Harcourt.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYadmitted that the power proposed to be re-enacted by the clause would be a violation of the ordinary constitutional law, though it had been statute law for 20 years, but pointed out that the circumstances in which seamen were placed were of such a peculiar character as to justify a departure from the ordinary rule of law in cases of their desertion. The ship might be upon the point of sailing, and there might not be any magistrate at hand to whom to apply on the matter. Desertion might take place on various opportunities during a voyage. A seaman's desertion endangered the lives of the rest of the crew. It could not be dealt with as a common breach of contract, nor as amenable to common police arrangements.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsupported the Amendment, as there was not any place into which a ship could put where it would not be easy to find a magistrate to grant a warrant. Difficulty might be experienced in some parts of Ireland in arresting, without a warrant, sailors who had deserted, in consequence of the view the people might take of such a proceeding.
  Question put, "That the words 'master or any mate' stand part of the clause."
  MR. T. E. SMITHurged the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Member for the City of Oxford to limit the operation of his Amendment to the United Kingdom, as the circumstances of the colonies were peculiar.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment, having been put, could not be varied.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 128: Majority 75.
  On the Motion of Mr. GRIEVE, Amendment made in page 10, line 19, by inserting after "husband," the word agent."
  MR. RITCHIEmoved the omission from the clause of the words "without warrant" with reference to the arrest of sailors guilty of desertion. His object was to prevent such a proceeding taking place within the United Kingdom.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 22, to leave out the words "without warrant."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question put, "That the words 'without warrant' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 137: Majority 54.
  MR. CHILDERSmoved, in page 16, line 24, after the word "dominions," to insert the words "except in a British possession, in which the law may otherwise provide." Some such proviso was necessary now that we had given constitutional government to our colonies. Under the Act, a sailor who had deserted from a British ship might be followed 50 miles inland, arrested without a warrant, and brought before a magistrate. That law conflicted with the law in some of the colonies, and in a recent case a sailor thus arrested without a warrant and brought before a magistrate was discharged, because, according to the law of the colony, he had been arrested illegally. Such a capture might be resisted and blood might be shed, in which event the most injurious consequences might ensue.
  MR. GORSThoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he saw no reason why this law, which was applicable to sailors deserting in the United Kingdom, should not also apply to similar offenders in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. There could be no doubt that the Act of the Imperial Legislature would override any law

  283
  passed by the local Legislature of any colony with reference to this subject. Although this power of following and arresting a seaman was exceptional, it was necessary to enable trade and commerce to be carried on. While the captain was going in search of a magistrate, the sailor who had deserted might slip away and elude his grasp. If a man were arrested under this Bill, and could show that the arrest was unjustifiable, he could recover £20 from the person causing his arrest; while if a man were arrested under the warrant of a magistrate he would have no remedy.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he had heard with amazement the doctrine that an Imperial Act would override the Acts of a Colonial Legislature. He differed from his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who, he thought, had laid down the proposition he had in terms too large. The Common Law of England would no doubt prevail in any colony where there was no existing law, and so would a statute prevail in certain cases. But where representative Government had been granted to a colony, an Imperial Act could not override the law of that colony, so long as that constitution existed. He ventured to say that if any attempt to carry out this clause were made in a colony having a Legislature of its own, where arrest without warrant was illegal, any person who arrested a man without a warrant would be liable to an action for false imprisonment.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he was unable to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, because it had always been held that on certain Imperial questions the Imperial Parliament could legislate for a colony. At the same time, as a matter of policy, he put it to the President of the Board of Trade, whether it was desirable to enforce that change of the law on colonies which had responsible Governments, such as Canada; Australia, and the Cape? It was desirable, as far as possible, to limit Imperial laws to the United Kingdom.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the Government would accept the advice of the last speaker and not endorse the high Prerogative doctrine of the Solicitor General. It was exactly by such a dangerous assertion of power on the part of the Imperial Legislature that they lost their great colonies in America, and he
  284
  thought the Crown Lawyers of the present day would have profited by that experience of the past. It was both unnecessary and impolitic to raise those questions in regard to colonies having representative institutions.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that they had already decided that that power of arrest without warrant was necessary in some cases, and, if it were abolished, he did not hesitate to say there would be no safety in the Mercantile Marine service. It had existed for 25 years without question and without abuse. The only point now in dispute was that raised by the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Pontefract, who wished to extend the words of limitation "so far as the law of the place so permits," so as to make them apply to a colony. He believed the law followed the ship, and that that would enable the shipowner to make an arrest in any part of the world under this Act. At the same time, he was willing to accept the words of the right hon. Gentleman, "except in a British possession in which the law may otherwise provide."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Words inserted.
  On the Motion of Mr. HERSCHELL, Amendment made, in page 10, line 40, by inserting after the word "arrest," the words "in case the person arrested accepts the sum so imposed as a penalty."
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that as the next Amendment was of considerable importance he would propose that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. DISRAELIexpressed a hope that the Committee would proceed with the Bill until 1 o'clock. If they did not, he should have to ask the House to sit at 1 o'clock to-morrow.
  Motion negatived.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYmoved, in page 10, line 41, to insert—
  "Provided always, That no master or owner of any ship, nor any other person with respect to any ship, shall be entitled or allowed to proceed against any seaman or apprentice under the provisions of this section or of the preceding section, unless such ship shall at some time previously have been surveyed by a Board of Trade surveyor, or by a surveyor employed by the committee of management at Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping, by the Liverpool

  285
  Underwriters' Registry of Foreign Vessels, or by some other British or foreign corporation or association for the time being approved by the Board of Trade, and shall have received a certificate of classification good for a certain period, which period shall, at the time of such proceedings, be unexpired."
  The Amendment was required to protect seamen against the tyranny of masters and owners in the case of unclassed ships.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought the question could be more conveniently discussed when an Amendment of which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had given Notice came on for consideration.
  MR. PLIMSOLLrecommended the withdrawal of the Amendment, in order that the subject might be fully discussed at a later stage of the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAC IVERproposed the omission of the clause, and said, there was no first-class vessel that was not either classed or surveyed. He believed that under this clause a great deal of hardship would be inflicted on the true British sailor.
  MR. RATHBONEwas surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that all first-class vessels were classed and surveyed. To his knowledge numerous first-class ships were neither classed nor surveyed.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the hon. Member to name a single first-class vessel that was not either classed or surveyed.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, this was a most important clause, one affecting the lives and welfare of sailors, and he should certainly go into the Lobby and vote in favour of the hon. Member's Motion to omit the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked upon the importance of the Amendment, and should also support the hon. Member who moved its omission. It was a remarkable fact that although that clause was proposed for the sake of shipowners, no shipowner in that House had raised his voice in favour of it. The large and good shipowners did not care about the clause, because they were always sure to get good men to man their ships; but it was the bad shipowners that the sailors did not like to enter into contract with, and they were constantly punished for refusing to go to sea in their ships.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 121: Majority 50.
  MR. T. E. SMITHmoved that the Chairman report Progress, observing that it wanted only 20 minutes to 1, and that the next clause related to the un sea worthiness of ships.
  MR. DISRAELI: I will not oppose the Motion, because I wish to show the House that I am sensible of the courtesy which they have always extended to me.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 189.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in moving that the House go into Committee upon the Bill, promised that none of the clauses which were opposed should be taken.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought that the measure ought not to be proceeded with at that hour of the morning.
  MR. RONAYNEmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, all that he asked was that the House would forward the Bill a stage, and the questions to be debated might be considered hereafter.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Ronayne.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 167: Majority 156.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. MELDONsaid, he should move to report Progress. A Bill of this importance should not be considered at so

  287
  late an hour (twenty minutes past 1 o'clock).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Meldon.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 119: Majority 98.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved that the Chairman should leave the Chair.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

SUMMARY PROSECUTIONS APPEALS SCOTLAND (re-committed) BILL.
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
SUMMARY PROSECUTIONS APPEALS SCOTLAND (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 191.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS, referring to the opposition to the previous Bill, thought no more business should be taken. He should therefore move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEdid not see why Irish Members should interfere with the progress of Scotch business.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis) was not an Irishman, though he had done an Irish constituency the honour of representing it. Generally the Irish Members were only anxious to assist Scotch Members in managing Scotch business according to Scotch ideas.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who had important Amendments on the Paper, had gone away. He wished to know if the Lord Advocate had made any arrangement with him.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had not. He thought the hon. Member should have been in his place.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY [SALARIES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the continuance of such part of "The Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874," as grants for a limited period certain revised Salaries to the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &C. BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CLARE READ, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain, and to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CLARE READ and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 216.]

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill to make better provision for the arrangement of divided parishes and other local areas, and to make sundry amendments of the Poor Law in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH and Mr. CLARE READ.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 217.]

  WASHINGTON TREATY (CLAIMS DISTRIBUTION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to provide for the completion of the distribution of the sums of money paid to Her Majesty by the United States of America on account of Awards made by the Commissioners acting under a certain Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. BOURKE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 218.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Chelsea Hospital (Lands) * (152).
Select Committee—Report—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (70).
Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (107); Municipal Elections* (83); Bishopric of Saint Albans* (160); Metalliferous Mines* (106); Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * (87); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation* (130).
Third Reading—Turnpike Roads (South Wales) * (129); Metropolitan Police (Surgeon, Clerk,&c. Superannuation) * (134); Intestates Widows and Children Act Extension * (113), and passed.

ETON COLLEGE—MESSRS. MOODY AND SANKEY,—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that seeing a noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton), one of the Governing Body of Eton College, in his place, he wished to ask him a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. This Question had reference to the proposal to hold what was called a "revival meeting" at Eton, close to the College grounds, for the benefit of the Eton Boys. He was not going to give any opinion as to meetings of that character, nor to enter into any discussion how far such "revivals" might have a good or bad effect in that place; but, speaking on the spur of the moment, he did venture to say that nothing could be more fatal to the discipline of the school, nothing more calculated to interfere with good regulation in the management of the boys, than the permitting their attendance at such a meeting as that which they were invited to attend. The Question he desired to ask his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) was, Whether, so far as he was aware, the Provost and Head Master of Eton have given any sanction to the holding of these revivals or religious meetings; whether the Governing Body have been communicated with on the subject; and, whether, if the Head Master has not refused to sanction it, the Governing Body are prepared to take any steps to prevent the. attendance of the boys at the meetings? Their Lord-ships had, no doubt, seen the correspondence on the subject which was published in The Times of that day. For himself,
226
he must say that he could not make out from that correspondence whether the Head Master had sanctioned the meeting, or whether he intended to prohibit the attendance of the boys at it. The matter was one of great importance, and one in which the parents of boys at Eton must feel much interested, and he thought that if his noble Friend could give some assurance on the subject he would confer a great favour on a number of people.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he need not remind their Lordships that the Governing Bodies of the Public Schools were not in the position of the Governing Bodies of many other institutions. The Governing Body of a Public School was a body of widely-scattered persons—they did not sit en permanence, and it was impossible for them to meet and act at a short notice or a sudden emergency. On such an emergency, therefore, if the action of the Governing Body was requisite, it must be undertaken, as far as possible, by such members as might happen to be on the spot. The Head Master was the authority who controlled the daily work of the school. As for the proposed proceedings at Eton, he believed that nothing was known of them until Saturday evening—it was only on Sunday that he (Lord Lyttelton) heard of them, and at the present moment he did not know how many of these services were intended to be given. All he knew was that the first of them was to be held at 3 o'clock Tuesday afternoon on the South Meadow, near the College. Now, if notices had been sent out immediately after the announcement of that meeting it would have been impossible to get the Governing Body together before that time; but, as it happened, the Governing Body were to meet to-morrow at 12 o'clock, and though the question would not be regularly before them by notice, no doubt it would be considered as soon as they came together; and the meeting which was the subject of the noble Marquess's Question would not be held till 3 o'clock. All he could say on be-half of the Governing Body was that they would give the subject their best consideration. The only member of the Governing Body with whom he had had an opportunity of speaking on the subject was his noble Friend who had represented the Home Office in their Lordships'

227
House during the Administration of the late Government (the Earl of Morley). His noble Friend would speak for himself, as a member of the Governing Body of Eton, if he thought right to do so. There had been handed to him two or three letters, which were in continuation of the correspondence already published, and as these also would appear in the newspapers of tomorrow morning he did not think there could be any harm in reading them to their Lordships. As the matter had been made public, the more publicity that could be given to it now the better. The writer of some of these letters was Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen; and he must beg to remark that, as far as the Governing Body were concerned, the responsibility of which that right hon. Gentleman and others had spoken did not exist as he believed. They had a responsibility within their proper functions; but such a permission as that referred to by the noble Marquess was within the sphere of his authority, and not theirs. Subject to the ultimate authority of the Governing Body, which was of a character to which he need not further allude—it had been brought into prominence by what occurred at another Public School (Rugby) a year or two ago—the Head Master was not bound by the the opinion of the Governing Body in respect of any question respecting the daily regulation of the school. Of course the Governing Body could give an opinion on such a question, or on any other, but they had no means of enforcing compliance with it on the part of the Head Master. "With those explanatory observations he would read the letters which he had mentioned to their Lordships, [which his Lordship accordingly did].
THE EARL OF MORLEY, having been appealed to by his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) as one of the Governing Body, wished to corroborate the statement of his noble Friend in relation to the religious services in question—the matter had come upon the Governing Body quite suddenly. It was impossible, even if it were desirable, within the short interval at their disposal, to call together the Governing Body of the College with the view of considering the subject, and it would be unbecoming in him to offer an opinion as to the desirability or un-desirability of the proposed meeting
228
until he had the opportunity of consultation with his Colleagues. Moreover, he had no notion that a Question relating to the subject would be asked by the noble Marquess that evening. There was some doubt, however, whether the Governing Body had any power in the matter at all, inasmuch as all matters relating to the discipline of the school, the daily arrangement of the work, and the liberty given to the boys, rested with the Head Master. But whether the Governing Body had or had not authority in a case like the present was a question open to doubt, and one, therefore, which he should not like to pronounce an opinion on until he had had the opportunity of conversing with his Colleagues.
LORD OVERSTONEwas understood to say that he regarded the question before their Lordships as one of very great importance. It had reference to the regulations of a great Public School, in which were educated youths who would hereafter fill high positions in this country, and some of whom would be Members of their Lordships' House. As he understood the proposal to which the question of the noble Marquess had reference, it was to hold what were called—whether truly or not he did not know—religious services in a tent to be erected within the very grounds of the College. Those services were to be of a sensational character, to be specially addressed to the boys of the school, but not under the control of the authorities of the school, the Provost, or the Head Master. In his opinion, the case was one eminently calling for promptitude and decision. The religious teaching of their greatest public school ought not to pass into other hands than those of the constituted authorities, and he hoped that if the Head Master did not refuse his sanction to the proposal, the Governing Body would not hesitate to express their judgment.
THE EARL OF MORLEYwished to point out to the noble Lord who had just spoken that it was not proposed to erect the tent within the College grounds, but in the South Meadows, just outside those grounds.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought that there ought to have been Notice of a Question on a subject which was certain to give rise to discussion. This discussion had been commenced

229
just after 5 o'clock, which was before the time of Public Business, and yet letters had been read and language had been used in which there was strong condemnation of Messrs. Moody and Sankey. He did not wish to pass an opinion one way or the other upon the matter to which it related; but he did think that in a matter of such high importance, and one in which the feelings of the country were excited, the House ought to have had full Notice before being called upon to consider it.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that the fault which the noble Earl had found with him and the noble Marquess who had asked the Question was chargeable, not on them, but on the gentlemen who had commenced proceedings at Eton without notice. The suddenness of their proceedings had made it impossible that any Notice of this discussion could have been given to the noble Earl and his friends Messrs. Moody and Sankey.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he thought it was a Standing Order of their Lordships' House that no Question which was likely to lead to a discussion should be asked without Notice.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as he understood the Rule of the House to which the noble Earl had just referred, it was that no Question likely to lead to a discussion should be asked without regular Notice in cases in which it was possible to give such Notice; but there were cases in which it was not. As, however, he thought this question had been sufficiently discussed, he ventured to suggest that they ought to proceed to the Orders of the Day.

POOR LAW—PAUPERS (ORDERS OF REMOVAL).—MOTION FOR RETURN'S.
LORD HENNIKERsaid: I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with an elaborate speech, but I seek rather to make as short and clear a statement of facts as is possible. The subject of the Law of Settlement and Removal of the Poor is a difficult and complicated one to deal with briefly, and I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for a short time. I must remind the House that I brought in a Bill last year to do away with removal: it was the general opinion of the House that it should not then be read a second time, and I, accordingly, withdrew it. I, as it were,
230
undertook to ascertain the feeling of the country on the subject during the Recess: this I have endeavoured to do by sending a private circular to various Boards of Guardians, selected roughly, so as to test the opinion of the country generally, and I will give your Lord-ships the result of this inquiry presently. I have, however, come to the conclusion that more information is required, so I am content with the course I propose to pursue at present. To make my argument fairly complete, I must touch, in a few words only, on one or two points in the history of the Law of Settlement and Removal. It is not necessary for me to enter into details, for your Lordships are fully aware of the provisions of the law as they at present exist. The Law of Settlement, or domicile, was established first in the Danish and Anglo-Saxon times, as a mutually protective measure chiefly; and to promote social order and good government, each man was bound to belong to a community, or to enter himself in some burn, but he could always change his place of residence with the greatest ease. This is a point I wish to call your Lordships' attention to particularly—that every man was free to move from one place to another. Passing swiftly over the law of Edward III. against free labour, and those of Richard IL, Henry VIL, and Elizabeth, chiefly directed against rogues and vagabonds, that is to say, vagrancy; we come to the law of Charles II. which was the origin of the Law of Removal—the greatest infringement, perhaps, of the rights of Englishmen since the Conquest. This law unsettled the poor, and made almost everyone liable to removal. The law continued in this state till 1795, in George III. 's reign, when no one was removable unless actually chargeable to the rates. I now come to the present law, under which a period of irremovability has been established; first of five years, then of three years, and now of one year, the sole remnant of the harsh and cruel law of Charles II. To illustrate the working of the present law, I will take a few cases. First, one or two hypothetical cases. Suppose a pauper to become chargeable to the rates somewhere in the North of England, his settlement is derived from his grandfather, the grandfather's settlement is in Cornwall. Soon after gaining

231
a settlement there the grandfather goes to a Lancashire Union, there the father is born; the father goes to a Union in Yorkshire when he is old enough to take care of himself, and the pauper is born there. The pauper, when he, in turn, is old enough, goes to Cumberland, and when he becomes chargeable, if he has no acquired settlement of his own, he is removable to Cornwall. He has never been there himself, nor has his father ever been in Cornwall, but he may become permanently chargeable, from the fact that no one knows him, and that the work he has been accustomed to is entirely different; so he has no refuge but the rates. Perhaps some noble Lords may say this is an extreme case, but it is one which may, and, I believe, does happen under the existing law. It is one of no little hardship, and it is one I confidently affirm, is more than possible, and may occur at any time under the law as it stands. The hardest cases of all, however, are those which affect illegitimate children, removable when they arrive at the age of 16 to the place of their birth. A child might never have been, except in its earliest infancy, in the place of its birth—say, Leeds; but from some unforeseen cause or another—permanent disability, perhaps—it is removed from its mother, its proper guardian, and left to the care of strangers. What can be more impolitic? What can tend more to pauperize the child? It is removed from its friends, and what refuge can it have but the workhouse, or a constant chargeability to the rates? This is a very hard case, and one of frequent occurrence. These two cases are enough to show the complication of the law and its hardship, but they may be supplemented by numberless real cases. Not to weary your Lordships with endless details, I will proceed to give one or two real cases which have occurred within a short period. A woman of excellent character was deserted by her husband, she was removed from the West Derby Union to Preston: 3. a-week would have enabled her to remain with her aged mother; neither she or her husband had ever been to Preston. The result was, that the ratepayers of Preston, taking it in the ratepayers' point of view, had to maintain her and her children at a cost of £2 a-week, whereas a cost of 3s, a-week
232
to the removing Union would have avoided all hardship and some unnecessary expense. Again, to take a case of very great importance, and one of great hardship. It is of particular importance from the fact that it led to a distinct opinion being given by three Judges on the present state of the law. It is one of a break of residence. The question raised was the validity of an order for the removal of a pauper from the parish of Birmingham to the Worcester Union. It appeared that the pauper, named Hardman, a tailor, had lived and supported himself for 45 years in the parish of Birmingham, prior to the 30th of May, 1872, when he was received into the Birmingham Workhouse. In November, a tailor, named Pose, who lived in A West Smethwick, out of Birmingham, hired the pauper. The pauper went and resided in West Smethwick, and worked for Pose for 3s. a-week, with board and lodging. He resided there for weeks, and then returned to Birmingham, when he again became chargeable to the rates. Pose told the pauper, when he hired him, that he could stay as long as he liked if they agreed. The question was, whether the residence of the pauper for 10 weeks at Smethwick operated as a break of residence, preventing a continuous residence for the period of one year, so as to confer the status of irremovability. In giving judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said—
"I wish very much we could hold that the pauper was irremovable, for I think it is a most cruel thing, if not an abuse of the power of the parochial officer, to send a man away, who has resided 45 years in the same place, to a place where he had a legal settlement, but not a friend or acquaintance in the world to whom he could turn for a word of comfort. It is a very hard thing, and if I could only find that this man was irremovable from Birmingham, I should certainly keep him there."
Mr. Justice Blackburn said—
"I am also extremely sorry to be obliged to come to the conclusion that the pauper is not irremovable. Here, a man having been resident in Birmingham for 45 years, came into the workhouse there, and because he, like an honest man, went out of the workhouse to endeavour to get work, and happened to step across the boundary of the parish, he is sent away from the place from which he has not been absent for 45 years. The cruelty is obvious, and the hardship very great."
Mr. Justice Lush said—
"I share in the regret expressed by my Lord and my brother Blackburn, in having to decide

233
that this man must he removed; but cases of hardship do arise, and will arise however the Act of Parliament, may be framed. There are extreme cases not contemplated by the framers of the Act."
Such, then, my Lords, is the law, and such the opinion of the Judges upon it. But to turn to the opinion of the outside public on this question. An important conference which was held in London under the presidency of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Fortescue) at the end of last year, pronounced in favour of the abolition of these laws, and so did a conference held at Malvern in May last. These meetings were attended by a large number of those who are most experienced in the administration of the Poor Laws, and their opinion is most valuable. By the kindness of friends, and from reliable information from various quarters, I have been able to ascertain the general feeling of the country. In one Poor Law district, no clerk to a Union—and the clerks to Unions are as capable as any other class of forming a sound opinion, if not [more so—is in favour of the retention of these laws, and six only out of 39 Unions are in favour of retaining the law as it stands. This seems to be an example of the general opinion—even Sheffield and Salford are of the same opinion, and I believe the large towns, as a whole, will eventually agree with me that these laws should be abolished. I could quote many other instances from other districts which support the same view of the subject. But let me turn to the direct information I have received. I have consulted various Boards of Guardians, as I have already informed your Lordships, by a circular, and the result is as follows:—Out of 51 replies I have received, 38 are in favour of the abolition of the Law of Removal, and so of the Law of Settlement of the Poor; six are against it, and seven are doubtful. I will not trouble your Lordships with details, but, as a sample of the replies I have received, I will quote one or two. A letter from Birmingham says—" We find 110 persons were transferred from our relief lists to their own settlements, as against 26 only charged to us." This letter goes on to advocate non-resident relief. This pauperizing document is at any of your Lordships' disposal. Then, again, Liverpool is alarmed. Why, no one can tell, for I
234
left Ireland out of my Bill last year to a great extent, if not entirely, to avoid any possible hardship which might arise in seaport towns. Then, as a sample of opposing unions, I may quote a letter from Reigate. Amongst other things it says—"During the last year 67 persons have been removed to their various places of settlement (effecting thereby a saving of nearly £1,000 per annum) from the parish of Reigate alone." Such are the reasons given against an abrogation of these laws, and I venture to say they are hardly worthy of the great communities who give them. Then there are the doubtful class; those who advocate a national rate; those who say there is not sufficient workhouse accommodation, as Rochdale, and so on. But let me pass to the class who are favourable to my proposition. I will not take any country Unions. The replies from that quarter are able and complete, but I will take my instances from the towns, where the greatest opposition generally lies, and not from the country, where I have every reason to be grateful for support. The reply I have received to my circular from Manchester states—
"That this Board having been requested to express its views upon the present bearing of the Law of Settlement and Removal, and as to how far it might be expedient, or otherwise, to abolish entirely or further restrict the liability of paupers to removal, hereby records its opinion, that, though this township must incur a considerable additional expenditure by the change, this Board, feeling bound to regard the general interests of the country at large, considers that the time has arrived for the entire repeal of the law; as being inconsistent with the spirit of the age, and in many cases inflicting much needless hardship on individuals, while conferring no counter-balancing benefit on the community."
The Overseers of the Poor at Manchester agree in this opinion. Then the St. Pancras Board of Guardians tell me in their reply that they instruct the clerk of the Board to write to the Local Government Board—"To direct their attention to the hardship inflicted on the poor by the operation of the existing Law of Settlement, with a view to the same being abolished." So I might go on with Preston and other large towns and unions. Many Unions offered to memorialize Government—the Wortley Union, for instance—or to do anything in their power to support the view I take of this question. I have endeavoured to put a few test eases shortly

235
before your Lordships; of hardships to the poor, of the effect of the law upon Unions, and to show the general feeling of the country. Now, my Lords, to take one or two of the objections to my proposal. They are chiefly, if not entirely, from the large towns, and they are based, I am sorry to say, upon more or less selfish motives, and not upon the broad policy of the general good of the country. The large towns often benefit by the labour of men reared in the country districts. Why are they not to support them in their old age, even if there are exceptional cases where it would be a hardship to do so? I have endeavoured to ascertain the proportion of the population which probably migrate to towns from the rural districts. Of course, like most returns, the test may be said to be slight; particularly as there is no actual test of the proportion of the rural population which go to the large towns. I have taken the population of 1861 and that of 1871 as a basis. I have taken the real increase of population, and I have compared the real increase with what the natural increase of population should have been taking the increase of births over deaths. I have taken two counties and two towns—two agricultural counties, as purely agricultural as can well be found, and two large towns, as good instances as can be found of manufacturing, or rather purely town communities. In Lincolnshire the population in 1861 was 404,138; in 1871, 428,075. The natural increase should have been 56,060, but the actual increase was only 23,937—a deficiency of 32,123. In Suffolk the population in 1861 was 335,409; in 1871, 347,210. The natural increase should have been 41,250, but the actual increase was only 11,801, leaving a deficiency of 29,449. In London, the population in 1861 was 2,803,989, and in 1871, 3,254,260. The natural increase should have been 321,870, but the actual increase was 450,271, leaving a surplus of 128,401. In Leeds, the population in 1861 was 134,006; in 1871, 162,421. The natural increase should have been 18,580, but the actual increase was 28,415, or a surplus of 9,835. What does this mean? That a considerable portion of the population reared in the country districts, and chargeable there up to a certain time of life, when they become really useful for the first time, go somewhere else,
236
and I think it may be fairly urged that some of these, at all events, go to the large towns. If so, what is the hardship to the towns who take them when they are of use, to bear the burden of supporting them when they become old and worn out in their service—in increasing their wealth and prosperity? I should be inclined to say the hardships would be on the other side. Again, an objection to my proposal is, the prospect of an inundation of paupers in large towns in times of distress. The argument I have just used applies here again; but, to use another, what can end more to revive individual interest amongst Poor Law Guardians, or to establish a just and uniform system in the administration of the Poor Laws, than the total abolition of the Law of Settlement and Removal? Guardians have no right to make the workhouse a place of pleasure, as it is now in many places, and one of the great difficulties preventing a proper administration of the Poor Law is the difference there is in the mode of carrying it out. Mr. George Coode, in his able Report, says—
"That such an administration of the Poor Law in the towns, as would make relief there as little eligible as it is considered in the parish of the poor man's settlement, would produce the same effect as the prospect of removal, with a benefit to the town."
This disposes, too, of the argument that these laws cannot be dispensed with, as they are a sure test of real destitution. There are plenty of tests and safeguards if the law is only properly administered. When you examine the matter closely there is but little sound argument which can be used in the point of view taken by the towns. When the Union Chargeability Act was passed, it conferred a great benefit upon towns at the expense of rural districts, by shifting the burdens in many cases. In the discussions on this measure the towns—very properly I think—would not for a moment listen to the plea of individual interest on the part of rural districts, as it was against the policy of the Poor Laws. How can they turn round now and use a contrary argument? It is said that the abolition of this Law of Settlement and Removal will lead to an increase of vagrancy. The law was all very well in times gone by as a protection against vagrancy, but it must be remembered that the vagrant class move about freely from place to

237
place now. It really is a matter of police. Wherever the police have been allowed to deal with this class, they have dealt with them successfully. Admiral M'Hardy, the excellent Chief Constable for Essex, reduced the number of vagrants in 10 Unions in Essex from 24,882 to 2,977—a decrease of 21,903 in a single half-year—in 1849. It may be said by this means you only send these vagrants from one county to another; but if there were a more uniform system in the management of the police this would never occur. If the police could deal with vagrancy in 1849, surely they can do so now. One of the difficulties which presented itself on bringing in the Bill last year was the fact that the dispensing of various charities throughout the country depended on the settlement of the recipients. Settlement, how-ever, was not included in the Bill of last year, but when I look carefully into this part of the question, it really is not one of much importance, for, as a matter of fact, under the present efficient management and schemes of the Charity Commission, the settlement of poor persons is seldom, if ever, inquired into. I am a trustee of various charities, and I never heard of such an inquiry being made. I have now, my Lords, disposed of some, if not most, of the objections to my proposal. Let me proceed to state shortly the advantages which I believe would arise from its adoption. It would re-establish, as in the olden times, the free migration of labour first restricted in the time of Charles II.; it would improve the administration of the Poor Law generally, as I have already pointed out, and restore individual interest, and it would do away with the iniquitous practice of non-resident relief, which can hardly be done away with in any other way. What say the Poor Law Commission, in their ninth Report as to non-resident relief? and I need say no more, I think, to condemn this practice completely—
"It is needless to condemn a system which, by common consent of all experienced persons, is vicious in principle, in practice, and at best can he considered as barely tolerated by law."
It would avoid many hardships to the poor: it would do good to the Unions generally, for the benefit received by them would more than counter-balance any injustice which may arise in exceptional cases: it would once more reduce
238
legal expenses, as is shown by the fact that from the time of the establishment of a status of irremovability in 1845 to 1871 the pauperism had increased from 5,039,703 in 1845, to 7,886,724 in 1871, while the law costs had diminished from £95,397 to £18,079; it would do away with this wretched remnant of an unnecessary law, which has been mitigated from time to time. In 1795, 8,000,000 of the people of England were set free by the alteration of this law, in a time of disorder and distress, without difficulty or danger. Why should it be dangerous now, in a time of prosperity and good order, to get rid of this remnant of a law which was never intended for the purpose it is at present put to? If any alteration of the law were likely to be of service, or to settle the question, I, for one, should say by all means amend it; but such a course would do little or no real good. As an instance, your Lordships will see non-resident relief could not be done away with. The operation of the law is so limited now, except in creating hardships and difficulties, that I say at once, do away with the Law of Settlement and Removal of the Poor. The Select Committee of the House of Commons, which sat in 1847, recommended such a course. It must do good, it cannot do harm: it will eradicate a great deal of useless law from the Statute Book, and it will be a boon to the poorer classes, which, I think, can hardly be estimated. Now, my Lords, I have not referred to the question of pauper lunatics. It is one of very little comparative difficulty, particularly now when the Government give largely towards their maintenance; and it is really a question of misfortune, rather than one of pauperism—so thought the Committee of 1847. Of Scotland and Ireland, too, I have said nothing. Their cases are different from that of England and Wales in many respects. No doubt, hardships do exist in Ireland, but I have not yet made up my mind that this law can be safely, or properly abolished in these countries. At all events, this part of the question requires further consideration. Scotland and Ireland are included in the Returns I move for, merely because it is a continuation of a Return made in 1868. The fact that no Return has been made since 1868 shows that further information is required. The most important

239
part, perhaps, of the Return is that relating to removals by consent. Years ago there was often a good deal of trouble, particularly at the Local Government Board, as to removals, but this bas diminished. Perhaps this is partly from the fact that a good many removals are made by consent. My Lords, I have spoken strongly on this subject, but I do not think more strongly than the subject deserves. I hope when fresh information is obtained that the Government will take up the question. It is rather too large a one for a private Member of your Lordships' House to deal with satisfactorily. Under these circumstances, I think those who agree with me, both inside and outside this House, will see I am wiser to put off immediate action, whatever my own opinion may be, and I hope, by doing so, I may really press forward the object I have in view more effectually. I have attempted to place this question before your Lordships, but it is difficult to do so in a single speech. I have endeavoured to divest my remarks from all semblance of sentiment. I have only one object in view—to be of use in the matter; to abolish a useless law; to free the poor man as much as possible, and to extend a sound public policy with respect to the Poor Laws. I only hope others more able to deal satisfactorily with the subject will take it up and deal promptly with it. I beg to move for the following Returns:—
"Return showing the number of orders of removal from unions and parishes signed by justices and executed in England and Wales, during the years 1869 to 1875, inclusive, ending the 25th day of March 1875; stating the number of persons removed, the nature of alleged settlement, and the amount of expenses incurred in the removal, including the cost of obtaining the orders, serving the same, and travelling expanses of the paupers removed, but not the cost of relief before removal; distinguishing the orders so executed from or to parishes not in union and between different unions; stating also the number of orders of removal of Scotch and Irish paupers and paupers belonging to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 477. of Session 1868):
"Like Return in respect of paupers removed from one union to another by consent and without order."—(Lord Hartismere.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not going to raise an objection altogether to the Returns moved for by his noble Friend; but he would propose
240
that those Returns should be for one year instead of for five years. Returns for the latter period would involve a serious amount of preparation. These Papers related to one year, and therefore for the purposes of comparison it would be better if the Returns now to be ordered were also to be made for one year. His noble Friend (Lord Henniker) had said that he did not intend to go into the whole question of Poor Law Removal; but—though he did not find fault with him for it—he thought he bad travelled over a very large history and over the whole ground of Settlement and Removal. There were few subjects of greater importance; and it was connected with the subject which was so fully discussed the other evening on the Motion of his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton)—namely, the subject of out-door relief. As he understood his noble Friend, he proposed to get rid of the law of Settlement altogether, and to establish a state of things in this country which did not exist in any other. Certainly, in France and in Belgium every one was supposed to have a domicile in some locality; and he was not disposed to think that it would be advisable to do away with the Law of Settlement in this country. His noble Friend admitted that the restrictions had been made much less stringent. First, there was the condition of "residence;" afterwards, there was "three years' residence;" but the period had subsequently been reduced to one year, at which it at present stood; and there was also the chargeability to the whole Union. He would not go into figures, but he would make a remark or two on some of the illustrations of hardship cited by his noble Friend—because he did not think that a sound argument as to what should be the general law could be based on cases which seldom occurred. The case of the labourer whose grandfather was born in Northumberland, whose father was born in Cornwall, and who himself was born in Lancashire, was not likely to occur very often; but if that labourer had resided for one year in one place he would have acquired a settlement there. The tailor's was no doubt a bard case, but hard cases would occur from time to time, under any possible system. He did not think any great hardship had been shown in the case of the daughter of the widow who lived at West Derby.

241
If the woman had not removed to Preston, she would have had a settlement in "West Derby. His noble Friend said that the general feeling of the country-was in favour of the abolition of the Law of Settlement. With all respect to his noble Friend, he did not think that was the case. His noble Friend said that the majority of the Chairmen of 49 Unions thought that the Law of Settlement ought to be abolished; but he seemed to forget that the number of Unions in this country was 650, and therefore to claim for his majority that they expressed the opinion of England on the subject was straining the argument too far. His noble Friend admitted that it would not be safe to include Ireland or Scotland in the provisions of the Bill; and with that view he (the Duke of Richmond) concurred; but when his noble Friend made that admission there was an end of his case. He then spoke of Liverpool; but when it was borne in mind how great was the number of Irishmen who came over to this country and would find themselves charged on the rates of Liverpool it was, he thought, reasonable that the ratepayers of that town should not be called upon to support Irish or Scotch or the people of any other country who happened to arrive there in large numbers. The same objection and the same answer would apply to other parts of the country—for instance, to the hop-picking districts, to which large numbers of persons rushed during the hop-picking season. As to the vagrant case, he agreed with his noble Friend in the opinion that it was one of great difficulty, even though as he said, it might fairly be made a question of police. His noble Friend appeared to suppose it to be possible that if his view were acted upon it would lead to a more uniform system of police; but he (the Duke of Richmond) did not know what a uniform system of police meant, unless it was one for the establishment of a police throughout the whole country under one central authority, and he did not imagine the public were prepared for such centralization as that would imply. He ventured to differ, he might add, from the noble Lord as to the power of doing away altogether with the Law of Settlement, for the time, he felt certain, had had not yet arrived for dealing with that question. He did not object to a Return
242
showing these Orders of Removal from the 25th day of March, 1874 to the 25th day of March, 1875.
LORD LYTTELTONthought that the Law of Settlement and Removal was entirely indefensible, and ought to be abolished In these days, when the facilities of locomotion were so great, it was desirable to give the labourer the power of working where he thought best, with as little restriction as possible, and if, unfortunately, he should become destitute, he must be relieved on the spot. No doubt this presupposed, if it was to work satisfactorily, two principles: the one, a stringent administration of the general law; the other, a wide extension of the area of incidence of local taxation. But both these he considered good in themselves, and therefore it strengthened the argument. He feared that his noble Friend (Lord Henniker) would get nothing more from his Motion at present than a discussion of the subject; but these repeated discussions would, no doubt, gradually lead the minds of the people in the right direction, and ultimately he hoped there would be an abolition of those laws.
Motion amended accordingly, and agreed to.

SCOTCH AND IRISH PEERAGES.

  REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  EARL STANHOPE, in rising to put a Question to his noble Relative who was the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland which sat last year, and who had conducted the inquiry with so much ability, said, that that Committee had concluded their Report with several recommendations. They represented that since the Union the number of Members of the Lower House representing Scotch constituencies had been increased from 45 to 60, while the number of Scotch Representative Peers remained at 16; and they recommended that an addition of five should be made. As regarded Ireland, in consequence of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, four seats of the holders of spiritual Sees in Ireland in that House had been rendered vacant, and they recommended that their places should be supplied by increasing, to the same extent, that was by four seats, the number of Representative

  243
  Peers. The noble Earl the Chairman of the Committee brought forward a proposition for securing a representation of the minority at the election of the Representative Peers, but his proposition was defeated. He (Earl Stanhope) was a friend in principle to the representation of minorities, and had voted and spoken in 1868 for the clause in the Reform Bill establishing what were called the three cornered constituencies in counties and in cities. But it must be owned that up to this time the practical results had not been satisfactory, and the system was still upon its trial in the House of Commons. Under these circumstances he (Earl Stanhope) could not give his vote in the Committee for the permanent establishment of that system in the House of Lords. The Committee was unanimous in their opinion that the position of Irish and Scotch Peers, as having high titular rank unaccompanied by legislative duties, was anomalous, and that it was desirable the anomaly should, if means could be found of removing it, be done away with. They did not for a moment entertain the idea of the wholesale introduction of the Irish and Scotch Peers into the House. What they recommended was, that no further creation of Irish Peers should take place:—in Scotland no new creation could take place since the Union. In Ireland, however, it was deemed expedient that no fresh creation of Irish Peers should be made in the Irish Peerage, and accordingly the following Resolution was passed:—
  "They (the Committee) are convinced that every addition to the Irish Peerage only increases and perpetuates the anomalous condition of that body. They would therefore trust that Her Majesty may he advised to renounce her Prerogative of creating Irish Peers, with a view to the modification of the 4th Article of the Union."
  It was also suggested that it was desirable the Irish should, like the Scottish Representative Peers, be elected for life; while, on the other hand, a different party contended, like the Scottish, that it was better the Irish Peers should be elected for a Parliament only. The subject was so wide and went into so many branches that it might be difficult to deal with it by a single measure, but the first step was to ascertain what might be the views of his noble Relative on the matter. He therefore begged to
  244
  ask the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland which sat last year, Whether he intends to bring forward any Motion to give effect to all or any of the recommendations of that Committee?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was exceedingly obliged to his noble Relative for putting to him this Question, as it gave him an opportunity of stating what was in his opinion the right method of dealing with the recommendations of the Committee. When the labours of the Committee in taking evidence were concluded, it was his duty to draft the Report and lay it before them. Some of the recommendations of the Committee related to matters of great importance, and might be the subject of enactment of the Legislature. Others were of minor importance, and not worth taking up, unless the subject were taken up as a whole. The major recommendations were three in number—first, that no more Irish Peers should be created; secondly, that there should be an increase in the number of Irish and Scotch Representative Peers; and thirdly, that there should be some mode of enabling the minority to select Representatives out of the whole body of Peers. The minor recommendations were—first, that there should be a new roll of Scotch Peers; secondly, that Scotch Peers should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons; thirdly, that Scotch Representative Peers should be elected for life; and fourthly, that Irish and Scotch Peers should be enabled to sit for any constituency in the United Kingdom. With regard to the recommendation that Scotch Peers should be enabled to sit in the House of Commons, two noble Lords who had taken the trouble to ascertain the opinion of the Scotch Peers on the subject found that the great majority of those Peers did not at all view the proposal with favour; and as it was not the object of the Committee to confer privileges on the Scotch Peers which they would look upon as an insult—or at any rate which they did not regard with favour—the Committee were ready to drop that recommendation. As to the three main recommendations, which might be made the subject of enactments, he would take, first, the increase of the number of Scotch and Irish Representative Peers. That recommendation was passed unanimously; but, as

  245
  the accompanying recommendation in favour of the representation of the minority was rejected by a majority of three, it was impossible for any one thinking as he did on that matter to bring forward a proposal that the number of Representative Peers should be increased while the election was conducted under the present vicious system. He did not wish unduly to stigmatize the existing arrangements for electing Representative Peers; but he held that it would not be a benefit, but an evil to increase their number without some such safeguard as the cumulative vote. As to the recommendation that the Crown should not create any more Irish Peers there were several difficulties connected with it. The first was, that it was not very clear in what manner it should be carried out. But there was another objection of greater weight to his attempting to give effect to that object of the Committee. Last year a noble Lord opposite (Lord Inchiquin) brought it forward in that House in a speech which they all agreed was remarkable for its ability; but his Motion was negatived by the noble Duke the Leader on the Ministerial side, because such an extensive constitutional change ought not to be proposed except upon the responsibility of the Government of the day. He himself, therefore, had not thought it right to offer any recommendations to their Lordships as to the limitation of the Prerogative of the Crown with respect to the creation of Irish Peers. With regard to the entire Report of the Committee, it must be remembered that it comprised several clauses, and that on them there were eight closely contested divisions. It was, therefore, hardly possible for him, as Chairman, to bring forward, on his own responsibility, the recommendations of that Report as in any degree embodying" the unanimous opinions of the Committee. He thanked his noble Relative for giving him the opportunity of making that statement.
  LORD CARLINGFORD, as a Member of the Committee, said, that one part of the subject appeared to him to be of very great interest and importance. He referred to the proposal that the Crown should be humbly applied to with a view to the relinquishment of the Prerogative of creating Irish Peers. As an Irishman, perhaps he looked on the present state of that part of the law and
  246
  of the Prerogative with more sensitive feelings than many of their Lordships; but he regarded it as a very serious anomaly, tending to keep up ideas of distinction and separation between the two countries which he was sure they were all anxious by every means to diminish and finally extinguish, and as maintaining a condition of inequality between those two great portions of the Realm that was highly inexpedient and mischievous. As things now stood, it was not even optional with the Crown to create or not to create Irish Peerages; the Crown was under a compulsion to keep up the Irish Peerages to a certain number—a most strange and undesirable state of matters. Sir Bernard Burke had proved before the Committee that the strongest objection was felt at the time of the Union by the Irish Peers who supported the Act of Union to the clause which was inserted for reserving to the Crown the power of creating Irish Peerages in future. The clause was carried solely by the influence of the Government of the day—not to meet any Irish views or wishes, but merely to maintain that branch of Ministerial patronage in this country. He did not think that any Irish susceptibilities would be wounded by the abandonment of that part of the Prerogative, and, he believed, that the final closing of the Irish Peerage would be a real benefit to the country.
  EARL GREYcontended that the system of election of the Scotch and Irish Peers to that House was unsound, and that the creation of more Irish Peers would be an unmixed evil. Looking at the recommendations of the Committee, he was not surprised that the noble Chairman had declined to take any steps in reference to them. On the contrary, the noble Earl had exercised a wise discretion in not doing so. It was, however, the duty of the Government to bring the subject before the House, and to prevent, if possible, any further complication in reference to it.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEunderstood his noble Friend to say that though the Report recommended that the Scotch Peers not in that House should be placed on the same footing as the Irish Peers not in that House, yet that the opinions expressed by the Scotch Peers themselves were to the effect that they did not desire it. Now, he (the Earl of Airlie) had

  247
  himself proposed to embody that recommendation in the Report; but there was such a strong opinion in the Committee against his proposition that he did not venture to press it. He hoped that some day the Scotch Peers would be in a better frame of mind on that point.

ARMY (INDIA)—COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STEATHNAIRNmoved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of any Correspondence now in the India Office between the Government of India and the India Office relating to the effects of competitive examination and the present system of education for first commissions and appointments in India.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was sorry that he could not consent to the Motion, for the good reason that the correspondence was still going on, and it would be quite irregular to lay upon the Table part of an incomplete correspondence.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he should be glad if the noble Duke would give their Lordships some information upon this important subject, as many persons were anxious to know whether the men appointed under the present system of competitive examination did their work better in India than those appointed under the old system.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, that he must express his surprise and regret that he should now for the third time be refused Papers relating to a question which was the subject of general complaint—the system of civil competitive examination as a qualification of candidates for first commissions in the Army. The first excuse was that the Civil Commissioners declined to give the Papers he moved for for reasons which were unintelligible. He was not aware that the Civil Commissioners of Education had a right to refuse a Member of their Lordships' House Papers which would throw light on the important question whether the present system of education, which placed in the hands of Civil Examiners the extraordinary power, not known in any other Army, of admitting military candidates into the service of their Sovereign and their country, or of disqualifying them for it, was not a great
  248
  anomaly and a great mistake. Nothing could be more important than the proper and efficient officering of our Army, especially in the times in which we lived, when two great military Powers were, perfectly armed and organized, contemplating a war of retaliation, which might upset the balance of power and the rights in which this country was so much interested.
  LORD LAWRENCEassured their Lordships that we did not get better men in India for the Civil Service at any period within his recollection than we obtained under the competitive system. He might not be considered to be a competent judge of the merits or qualifications of young officers who went out in the military service, but he did not know that those who went out under the competitive system were inferior to those under the old or patronage system. They appeared to him to be all of the same class socially—the only difference between the two systems being that under the competitive system we insured a certain qualification and intellectual culture in our officers, which we were not certain to secure under the other system. He felt it his duty to bear testimony to the competitive system as on the whole superior to the old or patronage system.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.

NEW PEER.
The Earl of Dalhousie of that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland, having been created Baron Ramsay of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.