would propose the necessary remedies if the Government did not do it themselves, so that the Government and that House would be made responsible for the Act which might be passed. those complicated questions in a hurried and imperfect manner. MR. MUNDELLA contended that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had struck the right key in his remarks. In eight weeks of 1873 no less than 30-odd grain-laden steamers were reported sunk or missing, and all had been built within five or six years. Why did that immense fleet go to the bottom? The underwriters said that the expenditure of £50 upon each of those vessels for the purchase of sacks would, in all probability, have saved two-thirds of those vessels. He wished to know when the Government would take the second reading of their Bill; whether it would be put down as the first Order of the Day; and, whether they would give any facilities for discussing the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby side by side with it? MR. RATHBONE said, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had asked the question why honest shipowners should object to legislation which would not touch themselves? He (Mr. Rathbone) answered, because they believed the legislation referred to, although it would not touch their interests, would cause more loss of life than it would save. ["No, no!"] He spoke the opinion of the very large body of shipowners who had been successful in saving life, and their practical judgment was surely entitled to some weight. The hon. Member for Pembroke had also asked why the Government during the coming winter should not undertake to survey everything connected with the MR. DISRAELI: I merely rise, Sir, shipping that would leave our ports. It to express a hope that the House will should not; simply for this reason-that allow the Bill to be brought in, which the attempt to do it would be vain; that cannot be done if this discussion be prothey could not do it so effectually; and ceeded with at this hour. I would suggest that the result of their trying to do so that, considering the time of the year, would give a charter of indemnity to the second reading should be fixed for those who wished to be careless or dis- Friday morning, and I hope that the Bill honest. One of the most important will be in the hands of hon. Members points relied on by the hon. Member for to-morrow morning. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Derby was a compulsory classification of The first Order?] The first Order. The ships. Now, he had taken a list of ships hon. Member for Sheffield will find, on which that hon. Member had reported as studying the Parliamentary forms of our missing, and he found that all those who Constitution, that every legitimate means had lost any number of lives were classed will be offered for obtaining what he A 1 at Lloyd's. He did not, of course, wishes without my interfering to assist mean to suggest that there was any con- him. nection between their being so classed and that loss; but he wished to point out that that was no protection at all, and that by substituting any such provisions for the responsibility of the shipowners, they would take the responsibility off the only parties who really could save life and property at sea. In the present excited state of the public mind they could not calmly discuss those questions, and he regretted that the Government should have withdrawn their former Bill on that subject. He thought they had now, by their present Bill-although he could not speak positively until he had Order read, for resuming Adjourned seen it in print-probably taken another Debate on Question [16th July], "That step in the direction which had been the third of the Resolutions which upon found very effectual. At that period of that day was reported from the Committhe Session, and with the present excite-tee of Supply, relative to Criminal Proment out-of-doors, it would be very un- secutions and Law Charges (Ireland), desirable to attempt to deal with all be now read a second time," VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] Motion agreed to. Bill to make provision for giving further Unseaworthy Ships, ordered to be brought in powers to the Board of Trade for stopping by Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. DISRAELI, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 274.] SUPPLY-REPORT. ADJOURNED DEBATE. SUPPLY [Report 16th July.] G Question again proposed. Question put, and agreed to. before Six o'clock. "an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen should not be indictable as a conspiracy if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime." House adjourned at five minutes At present certain acts which were legal if done by only one person acting singly became illegal when they were done by large numbers. Thus, one man might advise another to break his contract and leave his employment; but if a number of persons conspired together to induce a workman to leave his employment that conspiracy was an offence. The Bill, therefore, made a considerable alteration in the law as to conspiracy as it stood under the common law. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, 29th July, 1875. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- * * Committee Report Summary Prosecutions Ap- CONSPIRACY, AND PROTECTION OF (The Lord Chancellor.) COMMITTEE. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Bill did make a change in the existing law, and the clause now under consideration was in harmony with the other nection with the following clauses, the Taken in conparts of the measure. Bill attempted to define what acts connected with trade disputes were criminal and what were not-therefore, it recited all acts relating to trade disputes which were intended to be treated criminally, and it set those acts out. On the other hand, it declared by this clause that an agreement by two or more persons to do what would not be a crime if done by one person was not to be punished as a crime; but by the next clause intimidation and annoyance by violence was struck at, and it was declared that every person who with a view to compel any House in Committee (according to other person to abstain from doing or Order). Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Amendment of law as conspiracy in trade disputes). to LORD WINMARLEIGH said, that throughout the Royal Commission, of which he was a member, the object of all parties appeared to be that both employers and workmen should be placed on an equal footing with regard to the law of conspiracy as far as circumstances would allow. The Commission accordingly proposed such alterations in the then existing law that they believed would effect that object. This clause, however, and the other clauses of the Bill, failed to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The clause provided that— to do any act which such other person not be subjected to the indirect and de- | right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully luding action of the old law of conspi racy. Clause amended, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Breach of contract by persons employed in supply of gas or water) agreed to. Clause 5 (Breach of contract involving injury to persons or property). LORD WINMARLEIGH expressed his opinion that sufficient power was not taken in the clause for the prevention of enormous losses to employers by breaches of contract on the part of work men. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, it appeared to him that his noble Friend thought the punishment awarded by the clause inadequate. It was a penalty not exceeding £20 or imprisonment not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour. On a former occasion his noble Friend mentioned a case in which a workman in charge of iron in smelting works left it while it was in a liquid state, the consequence of which was that the furnace had to be taken down, and an expense of some £2,000 was incurred by the employer. He, (the Lord Chancellor) believed that a person acting as the workman described by his noble Friend had done would come within the clause, and he was confirmed in that belief by the opinion of persons more conversant with the criminal law than he was. The law would infer motive in such a case. It was quite true that a penalty of £20, or three months' imprisonment, inflicted on the offender would not compensate the employer; but it would not be possible to afford him adequate pecuniary compensation by any enactment in a Bill such as this; and, moreover, the penalty proposed by the Bill was exactly the same as that now in force under Lord Elcho's Act. Clause agreed to. and without legal authority "1. Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property; or, 2. Persistently follows such other person about from place to place; or, "3. Hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or, "4. Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, approach to such house or place; or, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the "5. Follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road, shall, on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment as hereinafter mentioned, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour. where a person works or is employed, or the ap"Attending at or near the house or place proach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, and not with a view to intimidate or to deter by serious from doing that which he has a legal right to do annoyance such person from doing or abstaining or abstain from doing, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section." Motion agreed to; Clause struck out; New Clause agreed to, and inserted in the Bill. THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause : (Reduction of penalties). "Where in any Act relating to employers or spect of any offence under such Act, and no workmen a pecuniary penalty is imposed in repower is given to reduce such penalty, the justices or court having jurisdiction in respect of impose by way of penalty in respect of such such offence may, if they think it just so to do, offence any sum not less than one fourth of the penalty imposed by such Act." Motion agreed to; clause inserted. The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to, with Amend-printed, as amended. (No. 240.) ments. Clause 8 (Reduction of penalties). THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to strike out the clause, and insert the following in lieu thereof: (Penalty for intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise.) "Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN BILL. (The Lord Chancellor.) (NO. 218.) COMMITTEE. Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read. LORD WINMARLEIGH said, he had given Notice of some Amendments, but he would not move them. He had now | crowded with cases of chronic lunacy, only to express a hope that this Bill and which could be quite as well treated in the one which had just passed through the poorhouses as in the asylums. Committee would work to the satisfaction of both employers and workmen. House in Committee; Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 241.) COUNTY SURVEYORS SUPERANNUA- SECOND READING. THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said, that it had been found in England that, in consequence of the district asylums being filled with chronic cases, many afforded by those asylums during the lunatics were deprived of the relief period of the malady when there was most chance of a cure-namely, within the first year. After that time the chances were small, and in many cases it was better for the chronic patient to be sent to the workhouse, where the companions they met with and the small Order of the Day for the Second Read-share they might take in the affairs of ing, read. LORD O'HAGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the measure, which had come up from the Commons, was one required by justice to certain old and deserving officers. Precautions were taken in it against superannuation being given except for long service, and in the case of persons hereafter appointed it would be given only in cases in which the persons to receive it had given the whole of their time to the office. There was also a provision against assignment of superannuation. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow. the establishment would tend to their benefit though not to their cure. As these cases of chronic lunacy were not curable it was better that the patients should be removed to the poorhouses, but, of course, with many precautions, and their places in the asylums occupied by others whom there was a chance of curing. A clause in the English Bill, similar to the clause in the present Bill to which the noble Earl had drawn attention, had been found to work well. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, this clause was not in the Bill as introduced originally in the other House of Parliament-it was inserted on the Motion of an hon. Member, who devoted much attention to county matters. After what had been said by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who was so high an authority on such matters, he thought their Lordships would have no hesitation in agreeing to the clause. The framing of the clause evinced the greatest caution. The consent of no fewer Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2." there could be the transfer of a lunatic than five authorities was required before -(The Lord Chancellor.) LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL. (The Lord Chancellor.) (NO. 235.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. from a district asylum to a workhouse EARL SPENCER desired to draw at-namely, the Guardians of the Poor tention to one of the clauses-that which Law Union, the Local Government provided for the removal of incurable Board, the Inspector of Lunatic Asyand harmless lunatics from the asylums lums, the Resident Medical Superinto the workhouses. He feared that hard-tendent of the Lunatic Asylum, and the ship might be done under it unless the Governors of the Asylum. If in Ireaction of the authorities in the matter land so many different authorities were were carefully watched. found unanimous in favour of the transfer, he thought there need be no apprehension on the subject. LORD LISGAR concurred with the noble Earl as to the judgment which was required in carrying out the law; but the power of removing lunatics from asylums to poorhouses was necessary in consequence of the asylums being overLord Winmarleigh Motion agreed to; Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next. ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.-(No. 237.) (The Lord Chancellor.) REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS-THE "ALCEDO."-QUESTION. MR. MACDONALD asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Amendments reported (according to his attention has been called to the re Order). Clause 12 (Procedure in applications under Entail Acts). THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert after sub-section (1.) the following sub-section, to be numbered (2.): "Applications shall be made by summary petition, signed by the applicant or his agent. All proceedings therein may take place at the Lord Ordinary's chambers, and agents may at all stages appear for the parties." port of the trial at the Waterford Assizes of Mr. Loughlin Freeman, T.C., who was convicted of sending to Cardiff, in September 1874, a brigantine named the "Alcedo," in an unseaworthy state, the timber being so rotten that the decayed parts could be taken out in handfuls; whether any further precautions have been taken by the Board of Trade to prevent the sailing from Cardiff of vessels in a rotten condition; and, whether the "Alcedo " was lost; and, if so, whether the crew were lost or THE LORD CHANCELLOR opposed saved, and what was their number? the Amendment. On Question, Whether to insert ? Their Lordships divided:-Contents 22; Not-Contents 28: Majority 6. Resolved in the negative. SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The hon. Member asks me whether my attention has been directed to a prosecution, which was instituted by my own orders, and which resulted in the conviction of the owner of the Alcedo. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether any further precautions have been taken Bill to be read 3 To-morrow; and to to prevent the sailing from Cardiff of be printed, as amended. (No. 242.) rotten vessels? This ship has not sailed from Cardiff, but is detained there to be broken up; and as to further precautions, I can only say that the same arrangements continue to exist under which this prosecution took place. The hon. Member asks me if she was lost, and the number of her crew, and how many were saved? She was not lost, did not go to sea, but has been, and still remains detained, at Cardiff. IRISH FISHERIES-IRISH REPRODUC- the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries made |