purely technical one, and he should move to agree to it. As the Bill originally stood, the age at which protection was given to young girls was 14, but at the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Recorder of London 13 was inserted instead. The Lords, however, in consequence of some misunderstanding -he believed in reference to putting the Question-had struck out the 4th clause of the Bill, and thereby reduced the age to 12. Lord Lyttelton moved, in the Upper House, to restore the age of 14, but his Motion was negatived. Lord Redesdale then put the Question-"That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," and said that "The Not Contents had it," and thus, to the surprise of many noble Lords, Clause 4 was struck out, rendering the Bill quite useless. He would move that the House should disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

MR. VANCE said, he thought that there was no misunderstanding whatever in connection with the decision in the Lords, and as the House had agreed to the Lords Amendments in every other Bill, he saw no reason why they should doubt their judgment on a legal and moral question of the character involved in Clause 4. He, therefore, hoped that their Amendment would be agreed to.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he was sorry, and he thought justly so, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charley) had been somewhat hardly treated in connection with the Bill, because it had been many times down upon the Paper without there being a discussion upon it. As he (Mr. Charley) had said, the age originally was 14; many hon. Members wanted it to be 12; and a compromise was effected by inserting 13. That was an age which was very familiar from being mentioned in several statutes-as, for example, in the Factory Acts, the Elementary Education Act, as the age at which childhood ended; and the compromise having been come to with the general assent of the House, he did not think that because they agreed to some of their Lordships' wise Amendments they should agree to those which were unwise.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment agreed to; one disagreed to. Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to

the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"- Mr. CHARLEY, Mr. CAWLEY, Sir GEORGE BOWYER, Mr. MELLOR, Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. MARLING, Mr. DYKE, and Mr. RowLAND WINN:-To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:-To be communicated to The Lords.

PARLIAMENT PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT-ADJOURNMENT OF THE

HOUSE.-OBSERVATIONS.

MR. W. H. SMITH moved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Friday at 12 o'clock, observing that there was no Business of any kind on the Paper for Thursday.

MR. O'LEARY called attention to the lamentable failure of the Irish Public Health Act, which passed last Session, though he admitted that that Act was conceived in a very excellent spirit. He had to complain that the Act had not been adequately carried out in Ireland by the local sanitary authorities; that there were at least 500,000 persons in Ireland living in miserable hovels; that the ventilation and water supply were bad; and the medical sanitary officers performed their duties negligently. The medical officers excused themselves on the ground that they were not sufficiently remunerated by the local authorities, and unless something was done before the House re-assembled to satisfy their demands, there was a probability that these gentlemen would sign a round robin, and refuse to perform the duties which the Act imposed upon them. In that event, he need hardly say, the most deplorable consequences must ensue.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET) said, that if the Irish Poor Law medical officers were not properly remunerated, it was the fault, not of the Local Government Board, but of the local authorities. The matter, however, would not be lost sight of. Speaking generally, so far as the Government had been able to form an opinion of the working of the Act, which had been in operation only two months, it was working exceedingly well, and was doing a vast amount of good. It was too soon to form any definite opinion upon the subject.

MR. M'LAREN complained that Scotland, whilst contributing in taxation towards the payment of Sanitary Inspectors for England and Ireland, received

HOUSE OF LORDS,

nothing from the National Funds for the payment of Sanitary Inspectors in Scotland.

MR. WARD said, the remuneration allowed by the Guardians to be paid to medical men was totally inadequate for the duties they performed, and would prevent the Act from being effectually carried out,

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY rose to Order, and inquired whether the hon. Member was entitled to speak on a question which was not technically before the House?

MR. SPEAKER: This discussion is, no doubt, most unusual. The House has disposed of all the Orders of the Day, and of the various Motions of which Notice has been given; and a Motion having been made that the House on rising do adjourn until Friday, the hon. Member for Drogheda has raised this discussion. I cannot say that it is not open to the hon. Member to bring forward a grievance on such an occasion; but the course which has been adopted would, if usually followed, be productive of the greatest inconvenience.

SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)— H.M.S. "JACKAL."

QUESTION.

MR. M'LAGAN asked the Secretary of the Admiralty, If he could give any further information relative to H.M.S.

"Jackal?"

MR. A. F. EGERTON said, that the officer in command of the Jackal had reported, in reference to the allegation

that he had failed to render assistance

to fishermen off the Scotch Coast when they were in peril on Friday, 30th July, that after watching the weather he was of opinion there was no immediate reason for apprehension for the safety of the fishing boats in question, and that he believed the application for assistance was made to him by the fish-curers more with the view of getting the fish speedily conveyed to the shore than of their requiring aid. He therefore saw no occasion for it, and did not consider them

good authorities on the subject. The Jackal was lying in the part of the harbour which was assigned to her by the authorities of the harbour.

House adjourned at a quarter till Friday.

before Five o'clock

Thursday, 12th August, 1875.

MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading— Legal Practitioners (238); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Local Authorities Loans (276); Sheriff Substitute (Scotland) (281); Remission of Penalties (275), and passed.

THE POPE AND THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN.

QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to call the attention of the House to the banquet given by the Lord Mayor of Dublin on Thursday, 5th of August, at which the Lord Mayor gave the health of the Pope before the health of the Queen; and to ask the Lord President, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government by intimating to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland their wish that he shall not attend any entertainment to which he may be invited at the Mansion House during such time as the present Lord Mayor remains in office, or otherwise to signify their condemnation of the disrespect shown by him to Her Majesty ? The noble Lord said, that the chief magistrate of Dublin had occurred for many years premeditatedly chosen the most public occasion that had to offer a mark of disrespect to Her Majesty by proposing the health of the Pope before that of the Queen. That the wishes of the Roman Catholic clergy, was evidently done in compliance with for the purpose of asserting the supremacy of the Pope above that of the Queen; and so much was this disapproved of that the educated laity-both Roman Catholic and Protestant-had expressed their disapproval by absenting themselves from the Lord Mayor's banquets. If such a course were pursued by the Lord Mayor of London, he had

not the least doubt that no Minister

would advise Her Majesty to honour any entertainment he gave by her presence through her representatives. Englishmen, he hoped, were entirely loyal; but he was afraid that that was not the case

with all Irishmen; and therefore, if he was right in assuming that the course he had suggested would be adopted in the case of the Lord Mayor of London, the same course ought to be adopted of advising Her Majesty's Representative in

Ireland to show his displeasure by not honouring any entertainments given by the Lord Mayor of Dublin; and his Question, therefore, would be whether the Government would put some official stigma on this flagrant act of disrespect and disloyalty to Her Majesty?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend the Lord President, it devolves upon me to answer the Question of the noble Lord. The noble Lord asks me

"Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government by intimating to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland their wish that he shall not attend any entertainment to which he may be invited at the Mansion House during such time as the present Lord Mayor remains in office, or otherwise to signify their condemnation of the disrespect shown by him to Her Majesty ?"

I think, my Lords, that it is only necessary for me simply to answer that Question by saying that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to intimate to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland any opinion as to the entertainments which he ought or ought not to attend.

RAILWAY BETWEEN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND THE PERSIAN GULF.

QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.

LORD CAMPBELL asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would object during the autumn to consider some proper mode of giving their support to the construction of a railway between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, in accordance with the views of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, 1872? The noble Lord said, he should not dwell on the advantages of the project to British interests, as they had been frequently explained and were well-known to the Government, whose Chancellor of the Exchequer had presided over the Committee of 1872. The object of the Question was to neutralize or modify by what the Government might say in the House of Lords, the unintentional effect of what the Prime Minister had lately said in the House of Commons on the subject. The effect, which he considered unintentional, was to prevent capital from being attracted to the project. In point of fact, however, the scheme which the Prime Minister apparently disparaged, was not the scheme which the Ottoman Govern

ment were now inclined to favour. He (Lord Campbell) would only add that a rare union of favourable circumstances encouraged the attempt now to act on the Report of the Select Committee of 1872. The Government had a majority in both Houses. Opposition was more a name than a reality. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in matters of this kind, so often the Cerberus at the Gateunless his mind had wholly changedwould, on the contrary, become the pioneer and leader of the enterprize. The public mind was now awakened upon Eastern topics. Last of all, they had a First Lord of the Treasury who, in memorable language, had declared that Great Britain ought to be considered an Asiatic even more distinctly than an European Power. Was such a moment likely to recur, and ought it to be sacrificed?

Lords, Her Majesty's Government would THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My construction of a railroad opening up view with very great satisfaction the communication between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf if the construction of such a railroad could be achieved. But the noble Lord asks whether the Government are inclined to consider the question of giving their support to the construction of such a railway? I presume that that means support to be given either in the shape of a contribution to the funds for making the railway, or in that of a guarantee of those funds. Now, Her Majesty's Government entertain the opinion that it would not be right for them to recommend to Parliament, and that it would not be a policy they could recommend to Parliament, either to provide money or to guarantee the money for the construction of a railway on foreign soil.

House adjourned at half past Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.