to the Government by persons interested in the sale and purchase of land, as well as by both branches of the legal profession in Ireland, in favour of appointing a second Judge to the Landed Estates Court, he will now state whether it is the intention of the Government to fill up the vacant judgeship? SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Sir, the Government have decided to advise Her Majesty to fill up at an early date the Judgeship now vacant of the Irish Landed Estates Court. It is intended, as soon as arrangements can be made for the purpose, and legislation on this subject will be proposed to Parliament early next Session, that the Judge to be appointed, in addition to his share of the present work of the Landed Estates Court, shall perform other important duties connected with the same subject which are at present performed by another high legal official, whose office it will, consequently, be proposed to abolish. CRIMINAL LAW-THE CASE OF ROBERT GORDON.-QUESTION. MR. SHERRIFF asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the case of Robert Gordon, a child eight years of age, who for placing a few pebbles on the Midland Railway has been sentenced by the Reverend G. R. Gray, Chairman of the Alcester Bench of Magistrates, to one month's imprisonment and five years in a reformatory; and, whether he will make further inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and take such steps as he may deem necessary? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he had made an inquiry into the case. It was quite true that such a sentence was passed upon this boy, who did place eight pebbles upon the railway, and that, he need hardly say, was a very dangerous practice, and must be put a stop to. This boy had been several times cautioned, not for putting pebbles on the railway, but for throwing stones at trains when passing. The magis LAW AND JUSTICE-DEGREE OF SER-trates acted, he felt sure, upon a deep JEANT-AT-LAW.-QUESTION. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, under the New Judicature Act, the existence of the degree of Serjeant-at-Law will serve any public purpose; and, whether the Government have considered to whom, in the event of the Serjeants Inn claiming to be maintained, the title and property belong? sense of responsibility of what they thought was right. He believed that one, if not two, of the boy's brothers had been sent to a reformatory, in order to remove them from the influence of their parents. In this case, however, the magistrates had exceeded their powers, as the boy, being under the age of 10 years, they were not justified in sending him to a reformatory except he had been THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, previously charged for a like offence; in answer to the hon. Baronet, I have to and though it appeared he had been state that, by the Judicature Act of 1873, charged with a like offence by a policeit is provided that it shall not be ne- constable, yet he had not been charged cessary for a Judge of the Supreme in the sense required by the Act of ParCourt to possess the qualification of liament, and therefore he (Mr. Cross) being a Serjeant-at-Law, and that the had remitted that part of the sentence. new Judicature Act which has just He had himself a horror of sending chilpassed in no way affects the position of dren to prison. No doubt, the best a Serjeant-at-Law. Under these cir- thing that could have been done would cumstances, the Question "whether the have been to give the boy a sound whipexistence of the degree of Serjeant-at-ping. He was in communication with Law will serve any public purpose " is one upon which the hon. Baronet is quite as qualified to form an opinion as I am. With reference to the second part of his Question, I can only state that, so far as I am aware, the Government have not considered "to whom, in the event of Serjeants Inn claiming to be maintained, the title and property belong." the visiting justices as to what should be done with the boy, and he should be disposed to act upon their recommendations as to his release after a certain period. "Colonel Baker was in the first instance placed in a different reception cell at Horsemonger Lane Gaol to the other prisoners, and throughout his term of punishment he will be kept separate from them. He is allowed to wear his own clothing, to buy his own food, to furnish his rooms-he has had two allotted to him-with what is reasonable, necessary, and not extravagant; to have wine at his own cost not exceeding one pint, or malt liquor not exceeding one quart, per day. He is not required to do any work, to clean his apartment, make his bed, or perform any menial office, all these being done for him by an officer of the prison. He may have any unobjectionable books or newspapers which he chooses. He may write or receive letters or papers, but these must in the first instance be examined or read by the governor. Lastly, he may see his friends in his apartment between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m." and, if so, who is responsible for maintaining the discipline of the prison; and, whether the same regulations would apply to other criminals convicted of the same offence? MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the last part of the Question first. By the Gaol Act, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 126, s. 67, in every prison to which the Act applies, prisoners convicted of a misdemeanour, and not sentenced to hard labour, are to be divided into two divisions, one to be called the first division; and whenever any person is convicted of misdemeanour and sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour, it is lawful for the Court or Judge before whom the prisoner is tried to order such prisoner to be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division, and not to be deemed a criminal prisoner within the meaning of the Act. When the learned Judge who tried this case sentenced the prisoner, and made out the warrant of commitment, it was stated in the warrant that he was to be considered as a first-class misdemeanant. He would therefore fall under the first division of misdemeanants who are not sentenced to hard labour; and, that being so, he would come under the ordinary prison rules, which were sanctioned long ago, the effect of which is to place the prisoner in the category of prisoners alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member. The hon. Member will see that it is no question of action either on the part of the Home Office or on that of the visiting justices, but simply a question of law, the prisoner having been so sentenced. METROPOLIS-LIGHTING OF ST. JAMES'S PARK.-QUESTION. MR. J. G. TALBOT asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, considering that the enclosure of St. James's Park is now open long after dark in the winter months, he will take any measures for lighting the Park? MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, he had been desired, in the unavoidable absence of the First Commissioner of Works, to state that his noble Friend would give, during the Recess, his most anxious consideration to the question of the lighting of St. James's Park. IRELAND-THE HARBOUR OF ARDGLASS.-QUESTION. MR. J. ORMSBY GORE (for Lord EDWIN HILL-TREVOR) asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Government will take any steps next Session to provide for the re-construction of the Harbour of Ardglass, in the county Down? MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that a scheme had been prepared, and a Bill would be introduced next Session. MERCANTILE MARINE-THE LOSS OF THE "COSPATRICK." QUESTION. MR. HAYTER asked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps he proposes to take in order to carry out the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry held at Greenwich into the burning of the Emigrant Ship "Cospatrick," specially with regard to the proper stowage of the boats and the weekly exercise of the crews of both emigrant and passenger ships at fire and boat stations? SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Court which inquired into the loss of the Cospatrick by fire made three recommendations. The first was, that in wooden vessels there should be bulkheads to cut off communication with the hold as in iron ships, and that has been seen to as far as possible. The second | hon. Member for Dundee, not satisfied was, that there should be better stowage with the result of the division on that of boats, and that they should not be Amendment, challenged a division on stowed keel upwards. That point is the substantive Motion, and this was under consideration of a Departmental really taking a division on the principle Committee; but its decision has been of the Bill. That was a result for which delayed by the illness of Captain Forster, he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had vainly the chief Emigration Officer of the Board looked, and for which he was much of Trade. The third was, that there indebted to the hon. Members opposhould be a boat drill on board emigrant site. ships. To these recommendations we have called the attention of shipowners throughout the country; but, at the same time, I beg to state that we do not think it desirable that imperative orders should be issued for compliance with them, and much less that compliance with them should be enforced by special legislation directed to that end. INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE ORDER FOR COMMITTEE DISCHARGED. MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, that, in consequence of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should move that the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Bill, which had been more than once on the Paper, should be read and discharged. He wished, at the same time, to express his thanks to the hon. Members for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) and Dundee (Mr. Edward Jenkins) for the great services they had rendered to his cause by the course they had taken on Monday night. There never had been a division on the main principle of the Bill until the hon. Member for Chelsea moved to substitute another day for that which he proposed for the postponement of the Bill. The MR. SPEAKER said, that no discussion on the merits of the Bill would be in Order on the present occasion. MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, he would bow to the authority of the Chair, but would take the opportunity of giving Notice that it was his intention to raise the question again next year. A Petition signed by between 4,000 and 5,000 of the clergy had been presented in favour of the Bill, although in consequence of some ignorance of the Forms of the House the signatures of only about 1,000 could be received. fact, however, remained that one-fourth of the clergy of England had formally declared their assent to the Bill. Next Session he should re-introduce it at the The earliest possible moment, and if he could MR. MONK said, that having voted in the minority the other night, he begged to state that he was as much in favour of an increase in the Episcopate as his hon. Friend the Member for the Cambridge University; but he thought the question had never been fully considered by the House. MR. SPEAKER said, that any debate on the Bill would be entirely out of Order. Motion agreed to. Order discharged; Bill withdrawn. SEA WALL, SHEERNESS. QUESTION. MR. E. J. REED asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has received a Memorial from some of the inhabitants of Sheerness relative to the unsafe condition of the sea wall in front of Marine Town; and, whether any steps have been taken by his department in the matter? MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, these circumstances is, that under the said, he had received such a Memorial. Bill action on the part either of the It came before him in connection with a landlord or the tenant to maintain for proposal of the Local Board of Sheer-themselves the right of free contract, or ness to construct an esplanade on a portion of the sea wall repairable by the War Office. The War Office naturally objected to repair that portion of the wall which they were not liable to repair, but which should be done by other parties, and the matter was still under consideration, and he was waiting for another communication from the Local Board. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) in order to exempt themselves from its operation, is necessary, and that this action must be taken within the very limited period of two months after the statute comes into operation. It is most important that that should be clearly understood throughout the country. Well, Sir, there are certain omissions from the Bill, which I endeavoured to supply; with this object, I moved a clause, by which the manure made upon Ithe farm would have been declared to be the property of the tenant, and this manure is the chief instrument for the fertilization of the farm. I am, therefore, of opinion that if, at the conclusion of his tenancy, the tenant is found to have provided a store of manure, he ought to be compensated for any provision in that form which he may leave upon the holding for the future cultivation of the farm. Unfortunately, however, as I think, the House by a small majority rejected that Amendment; I regret this the more, because it appears to me that the Bill in some of its provisions points in the oppo CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS. MR. NEWDEGATE: I understand, Sir, that the Lords' Amendments are merely formal, and having supported this Bill throughout, as containing a principle which I have long desired to see enacted by Parliament; that principle being the reversal of the hitherto presumption of law, which was against compensation to tenants for unexhausted improvements, I am anxious to make one or two observations. I have long thought that, in the present state of agri-site direction. It seems to point towards culture, justice demands that the principle of the law should favour a claim for compensation for his improvements on the part of the tenant, owing to the extent to which improvements in agriculture have been carried during the last 40 years, and by reason of the large amount of capital which it has become necessary for the tenant to employ in order to effect these improvements. But I own that I do not view the frame of this Bill without some apprehension; and I think it highly important, for the sake of the good understanding which has hitherto existed between the landlords and tenantry of England, that the operation of this Bill should at once be explained and understood. I do not intend to attempt that task myself on the present occasion; but having been friendly for so many years to the principle of this Bill, I wish to point to one or two circumstances connected with its framing and to one or two matters connected with its probable operation. The Bill is an 66 enabling" "Bill. The Bill is a "permissive" Bill; but, at the same time, its permissive character is qualified by two circumstances; and the first of the manure being the absolute property of the landlord; and my experience tells me, that under these conditions this will be found a void inheritance-void, that is, of the elements necessary for the future cultivation of the farm. But there is another provision omitted from the Bill, which I ventured to suggest to the House, but which the House did not accept. There is no power under this Bill, although it extends the period of notice to quit to double the former period; from six months to a year, which in practice, from the use of fixed dates for quitting, may become two years; there is no power, I say, under the Bill for the landlord to enter for the purpose of preventing waste; waste, that is, on the part of the tenant, in case of his death on the part of his executors. Now, I hold that "prevention is better than cure;" and although we have provided penalties against waste, the experience of those who are intimately and practically acquainted with the management of landed estates, as I have been repeatedly assured, is that this omission of all power of entry after notice to quit is a serious defect in the Bill. There is also an objection, which was raised the Bill thus passed the House of Lords, by the hon. Member for East Sussex notwithstanding the recommendations (Mr. Gregory), that the provisions of made by their Select Committee in 1873. this Bill, where it extends to saddle I will not further detain the House than the estate with a charge for compensation for unexhausted improvements, some of them possibly of a very costly nature, are such that they may entail serious difficulties and future litigation among remainder interests and incumI cannot think that adequate provision has been made in this respect; and in proof of that opinion I will read to the House the Resolutions of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the improvement of land, the recommendations adopted by that Committee at the close of the Session of 1873. This was a very competent Committee, presided over by the Marquess of Salisbury, and its Report has been communicated to this House"1. Limited owners, with the consent of trustees, shall be empowered to spend trust money upon the improvement of their estates, on redeemable mortgage. "2. Limited owners may charge their estates with improvements; the charge to be redeemable within a period exceeding by ten years the owner's expectation of life; so that no such term may in any case be less than twenty-five years, or more than forty.' "3. [And this is very important.] An improvement to be charged as above, with consent of trustees, on certificate from a surveyor approved by the Inclosure Commissioners or the Court of Chancery, that it is beneficial to the estate, and that the works have been properly carried out." Now, there is no such provision as this contained in this Bill. "4. That where the limited owner acts with the consent of the tenant-in-tail, being of full age, the certificate of a surveyor may be dispensed with, unless refused by incumbrancers after notice given; and the repayment of charge may be spread over a period of forty years." But there are no such precautions in this Bill; no precautions for giving notice to the parties interested, either in remainder or as incumbrancers. “5. Trustees to have liberty to defend the inheritance either at law or in Parliament, with leave of the Court of Chancery first obtained, and to be allowed to charge on the estate costs approved by the Court." Now, the provisions of this Bill not only do not include any precautions of this kind, but they absolutely preclude appeal from the decisions of the County Court, a provision not likely satisfactorily to settle complicated questions connected with real property; and yet to say that this is eminently a measure in exposition of which, to the public and to the unlearned, it is most desirable that a digest should be prepared by some competent lawyer-after the manner of the summary digest of testamentary law-which, as produced by the late Lord St. Leonards, has conferred such benefits upon the country. I have ventured to offer these few observations to the House as the result of some knowledge of the relations and feelings of the agricultural community and the requirements of the landed interest; and, because I believe, as the period of two months only is given for the permissive action of this Bill, after it comes into operation, it is essential that the agricultural and landowning community-indeed, all persons who are interested in the land-should at once be made aware of the provisions of this measure, and of the need of prompt action, as well as caution, in deciding either to accept in full or in part, or to reject the operation of this Bill. Lords Amendments agreed to. EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS. Resolution [9th August] reported. MR. FAWCETT said, that after carefully considering the statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India and the discussion which took place on it, he never was more convinced than he now was that there were many things connected with the finances of India which particularly required careful investigation. He thought they ought to receive more precise information in the next Financial Statement. The question of expenditure was of very great importance. If they were told what the Extraordinary Expenditure was they should also be told what the Extraordinary Receipts were. The accounts also were deficient in this-that whilst they showed what the increase of the Revenue was, they did not show whether that increase was real or only nominal. If the occasion permitted it, he could show that in one instance where the Revenue had increased, the cost of collecting it |