is a most natural and honourable feeling on his part; and, recognizing that feeling, I think the whole House will understand that if he accepts the Amendment he does so as a full acquittal and apology, or rather a full vindication of his conduct on the part of that body of which he is a Member. MR. BATES: I think, Sir, I shall best consult the feeling of the House, especially after the statement that has been made as to the health of the hon. Member for Derby, and knowing as I do from what I saw the state he was in when he made his remarks, if I accept this Amendment. MR. BENTINCK: I cannot but think that if we leave the question where it now stands we shall be in an unsatisfactory position. Let me remind the House that, so far as the hon. Member for Plymouth is concerned, his vindication is complete; but what I want to ask the House is this-Is the House prepared to sanction as a precedent that any hon. Member should make charges against another and then refuse to retract those charges? Would it not be a precedent of a most dangerous character? would submit, as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Pembroke, the addition of the following words I MR. BATES: I would ask my hon. Friend not to move the addition of those words. I have always gone upon the principle of not kicking a man when he is down. MR. BIGGAR thought it unreasonable that the House should be called upon to declare these charges unsupported, without any evidence upon the subject having been submitted to them. He should prefer the original Motion to either of the Amendments, because to get a full acquittal in the eyes of the world there should be a full inquiry at a time when the hon. Member for Derby could be present to substantiate any charges, if he could. the same time, I think it right to add that nothing but a personal request made to me by the hon. Member for Plymouth would have induced me to withdraw it. I must express my regret that the House has not thought it incumbent on them to censure the conduct of the hon. Member for Derby. Amendment (Mr. Bentinck), by leave, withdrawn. MR. WHALLEY was understood to say that he could not allow this matter to pass without referring to the statement of the hon. Member for Plymouth when he said, in reference to the hon. Member for Derby, that "he would not kick a man when he was down." He could not admit that the hon. Member for Derby was in any respect "down." With respect to the charges made, the Board of Trade were continually stopping ships, and the fact that six ships went down in one year, or a little more, although it might have been an insufficient ground for these statements, must be accepted in extenuation. He was not about to justify those statements, and he considered the explanation of the hon. Member for Plymouth most satisfactory to his own character and credit. to be left out stand part of the QuesQuestion, "That the words proposed tion," put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the words 'in the opinion of this House, no stain rests upon the character of the honourable Member for Plymouth in consequence of the statements made in this House by the honourable Member for Derby on the 22nd of this instant July,' be added to the word "That' in the Original Question." 66 Amendment, to insert, after the word THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think that these words are very much out of place; they seem to put my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth into a very difficult and rather MR. BENTINCK: I understand that false position. We have been endeavourmy hon. Friend the Member for Ply-ing to meet his just sense of wrong. My mouth accepts the Motion of the hon. Member for Pembroke, and in that case I beg, at his request, to withdraw the Amendment which I have moved. At hon. Friend has been singled out by a special and definite charge, and I think he has shown great judgment and forbearance in accepting, as he has done, the Amendment which was proposed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) in the spirit in which it was tendered. If we are to mix up definite and distinct charges with matters which, though they were not expressed in the form of charges, were insinuated in a manner even more painful than direct charges, because they are more difficult actually to bring to book—if we are to mix up these charges with the insinuations which it is stated the hon. Member for Derby was going to make against other Members of this House, we entirely change the character of the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth has accepted the proposal which has been made; but I am not at all sure that he would have accepted an addition which would entirely alter the Motlon. The suggestion was that there should be a Committee to examine into very distinct and definite charges, and the proposal now made would neutralize that by dealing with charges which are not of a distinct character. MR. DILLWYN: I have only one word to say I think it is absolutely necessary that we should insert the words which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea has moved. The hon. Member for Plymouth has, in the opinion of the House, satisfactorily answered the charges which have been made against him; but the words of the charge preferred by the hon. Member for Derby were these "I am going to unmask the villains who send these sailors to their death, and I intend to expose them." Coupled with that charge was one against the hon. Member for Plymouth, of having, I think, sent six ships to sea in an unseaworthy state. I think, if the House is prepared to exculpate the hon. Member from that charge, it should also be prepared to exculpate other hon. Members on this side who were involved in the allegations. they would be whitewashing the whole party without the slightest evidence. SIR HENRY JAMES: I am anxious to explain the reason why I shall vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. The hon. Member for Plymouth has asked for a Committee in relation to certain charges made against him, and the hon. Member for Pembroke has moved that no stain rests upon the hon. Member in reference to those charges. But both the Motion and the Amendment relate to the hon. Member for Plymouth; and if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet is thought necessary, it ought to be brought forward as an affirmative Motion, and not as an Amendment to a Motion having reference to the hon. Member for Plymouth. There is another reason why I shall vote against the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. It appears by implication to carry a censure on the hon. Member for Derby further than the hon. Member for Plymouth and his Friends would wish to go. We feel it is just to the hon. Member for Plymouth to accept this Amendment; but we have had no explanation from any other shipowner, and probably the reason is that their consciences do not accuse them, and therefore they need not make any answer. Having heard the hon. Member for Plymouth, I am not disposed to put everybody else in the same category, and to declare that everybody is entirely free when no one else has come forward to offer an explanation. Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived. Words added to the word "That" in the Original Question. Main Question, as amended, proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, no stain rests upon the character of the honourable Member for Plymouth in consequence of the statements made in this House by the honourMember for Derby on the 22nd of this instant July." SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF observed that the hon. Member for Ply-able mouth had been referred to by name, and had explained the circumstances satisfactorily; but hon. Members who had not been referred to by name had had no opportunity of explaining. MR. BIGGAR said, the Leader of the Opposition ought to fight for his supporters as strongly as the Government did for Tory shipowners. He thought that if this Amendment were agreed to, The Chancellor of the Exchequer MR. MONK: I beg to move to add to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pembroke the words, "and unsupported by evidence." I think the House ought to give the ground on which it makes the affirmation contained in the Amendment, and that ground is that no evidence has been adduced by the hon. Member for Derby. MR. BIGGAR seconded the Amend- | put the hon. Member for Plymouth ment, and expressed his wish to see the right with the country, and, to the best House act with something like common of my ability, I am trying to do so. MR. WHALLEY said, these words would be a serious rebuke to the hon. Member for Derby. "Without evidence' would imply that he had an opportunity of bringing evidence. He neither had the opportunity, nor was he called upon to do so. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot understand how the House can think of destroying the grace of what has been done on both sides in all parts of the House within the last two or three minutes by such proposals. Consider what the position really is. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth was singled out and made the subject of charges which remain unsubstantiated. He lost no time in offering, on the spur of the moment, a refutation of them, and subsequently, in the presence of the hon. Member for Derby, by whom the charges had been made, he took occasion, in the face of the House, to deny the charges made against him. It is not because those charges are not supported by evidence, but because they have been refuted by evidence, which would have been more complete if the opportunity had been given which the hon. Member desired of going before a Select Committee, that we are passing this Resolution. That is the reason why I object to this Amendment, and why I object to having others put in the same category. MR. Ě. J. REED: I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the appeal he has made to the hon. Member for Gloucester to withdraw the words he has moved. I think it is only fair that we should place the hon. Member for Plymouth in the same honourable position which he occupied before these charges were made. The Resolution does that. If it reflects on anybody it reflects upon the hon. Member for Derby, and the man who gets excited and loses control over his language is the person who ought to suffer in such a case. We are bound to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, no stain rests upon the character of the honourable Member for Plymouth in consequence of the statements made in this House by the honourable Member for Derby on the 22nd of this instant July. NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS RESIDENCES (IRELAND) BILL. to afford facilities for the Erection, Enlargement, Improvement, and Purchase of Dwellinghouses for Residences for Teachers of certain National Schools in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 279.] On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Bill House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till Monday. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 2nd August, 1875. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading— Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers)* (250); Government Officers (Security)* (251). Second Reading-Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment (243). Committee Report-Department of Science and Art* (221); Foreign Jurisdiction* (224). Report-Conspiracy and Protection of Property (240-249); Employers and Workmen* (241). Third Reading-Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland)* (191); County Surveyors Superannuation (Ireland)* (219); Public Works Loans (Money) * (213), and passed. Royal Assent-Bridges (Ireland) [38 & 39 Vict. C. 46]: National Debt (Sinking Fund) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 45]; Artizans Dwellings (Scotland) [38 & 39 Viet. c. 49]; Police Constables (Scotland) [38 & 39 Viet. c. 47]; Police (Expenses) [38 & 39 Vict. c. 48]; Canada Copyright [38 & 39 Vict. c. 53]; County Courts [38 & 39 Vict. c. 50]; Pacific Islanders Protection [38 & 39 Viet. c. 51]; Washington Treaty (Claims Distribution) [38 & 39 Viet. c. 521; Justices of the Peace Qualification [38 & 39 Vict. c. 54]; Tramways Orders Con firmation [38 & 39 Vict. c. clxvii]; Ecclesias- THE EARL OF ROSEBERY moved, tical Commissioners (Fen Chapels) [38 & 39 in Clauses 4 and 5, to leave out the Viet. c. clxxii]; Elementary Education Pro-words (of service") after the word visional Order Confirmation (London) [38 & 39 Viet. c. clxxiii]; Elementary Education(" contract"). The noble Earl said, his Provisional Order Confirmation (London) object was to bring all the clauses of (No. 2) [38 & 39 Vict. c. clxxiv]; Local Go- the Bill in harmony with its principle. vernment Board's Poor Law Provisional Or- That principle was to put employers ders Confirmation (Oxford, &c.) [38 & 39 Viet and employed on the same footing in c. clxviii]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation respect of contracts. It was difficult to [38 & 39 Vict. c. clxxi]; Salmon Fishery Act see what objection there could be to the Provisional Order (Taw and Torridge) [38 & Amendment, or why contracts of service 39 Viet. c. clxx]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [38 & 39 Vict. c. clxix]; Local should be treated differently from other Government Board's Provisional Orders Con- contracts. firmation (Aberdare, &c.) [38 & 39 Vict. c. clxxv]: Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c.) [38 & 39 Viet. c. clxxvi]; Chelsea Bridge [38 & 39 Vict. c. clxxvii]. SUMMARY PROSECUTIONS (APPEALS) THIRD READING. Bill read 3 (according to Order). THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved an Amendment to the effect that the appeal should be limited to the cases in which it existed now-namely, where corruption or malice was alleged. He thought the measure was unnecessary in Scotland, where there were already special appeals by various Acts of Parliament. Amendment moved, line 21, after ("Judge,") insert (" and by law subject to review."(The Duke of Buccleuch.) EARL BEAUCHAMP could not accept the Amendment, and explained that it was only intended to give an appeal on points of law where a case was given by sheriff substitute or magistrates. THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH said, that he should have moved the Amendment in Committee had he been present, but he would not now divide the House on it. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that to pass the Amendment was to simply reduce the Bill to a nonentity. On Question? Resolved in the Negative Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons. CONSPIRACY, AND PROTECTION OF Amendment moved, in Clauses 4 and 5, page 2, lines 10 and 36, to leave out ("of service").—(The Earl of Rosebery.) THE LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the Amendment, which, he observed, proceeded upon a misapprehension on the part of the noble Earl. The Bill was not framed, as the noble Earl appeared to suppose, on the principle of placing employers and workmen exactly in the same position as other persons, for it gave to workmen benefits which other persons did not possess. A contract of service was different from other contracts, because a man could carry on a large business only through trusted hands and the betrayal of the trust by the person employed might be attended with the most serious results to the employer. In other kinds of contract there was no position of trust. Again, in respect of those other kinds of trust the world was open to the contracting parties; while in the case of contracts of trust the employer must fix on some particular person and hand over to him the control or the partial control of his works. On Question? Their Lordships divided: -Contents 17; Not-Contents 24: Majority 7. Resolved in the Negative. LORD PENZANCE suggested the omission of the word ("maliciously") in Clause 5, and other clauses providing against offences under the Act. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in the Malicious Injury to Property Act the word "maliciously" was used in analogous cases. In that Act, however, a clause was inserted which stated that the provisions of the statute were Amendments reported (according to to apply, whether the injury had been Order). inflicted out of malice against the owner of the property or otherwise. Before | the third reading, he would consider whether some such declaratory clause might not be inserted in this Bill. Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3 on Thursday next; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 249.) MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND (The Earl Cadogan.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. EARL CADOGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Amendments it contained were not very serious, and he thought it would be more convenient to discuss them in Committee, should discussion be considered desirable. Mored, "That the Bill be now read 2a." -The Earl Cadogan.) LORD WAVENEY said, he had no objection to the course proposed, if it were understood that it would be open to him on the Motion for going into Committee to discuss the principle of HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, 2nd August, 1875. MINUTES.]-NEW MEMBER SWORN - Isaac Lowthian Bell, esquire, for the Borough of the Hartlepools. SUPPLY considered in Committee-Resolutions [July 30 and 31] reported. * * PUBLIC BILLS-Second Reading-Statute Law * * PRISON REGULATIONS-CLERICAL VESTMENTS.-QUESTION. MR. PARNELL asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that the Board of Superintendence of Trim Gaol recently refused the request Motion agreed to:-Bill read 2, and of the Chaplain that they would provide the measure. committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next. CATHEDRALS AND CHURCHES RETURNS.-QUESTION. new vestments and other requisites for Divine Service, though the old vestments had been in use for upwards of twenty years, and had been condemned by the Bishop of the diocese; and, whether, in view of the fact that these Boards are nominated by the Grand Juries, he intends in his proposed legislation on the subject of the Irish Grand Jury Laws to provide on these Boards for the representation of the cess-payers? LORD HAMPTON inquired when the Returns would be completed and presented of money expended upon the restoration of churches in the various dioceses of England? Last Session he moved for these Returns, when he was SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH, told they were incomplete, and he pre-in reply, said, he could not state whether ferred to wait until they were all received. EARL BEAUCHAMP said, he could not answer the Question without Notice; but he could assure the noble Lord that every effort would be made during the Recess to get in all these Returns, which, he might add, were made gratuitously, and involved considerable labour and expense. House adjourned at Six o'clock, the vestments used by the Roman Catholic chaplain to the gaol in question were 20 years old or not, nor whether they had been condemned by the Bishop. He believed the Board of Superintendence had refused to supply new ones, because it had not been the custom of the governors of most gaols to provide vestments for the chaplains of religious denominations in gaols. With reference to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member, which appeared to have no connection with the first, it would, of |