his right rev. Brother had brought be- | But that is a cathedral of the old founfore their Lordships, and to endeavour to dation; and, therefore, the Bill of the apply some remedies, not merely in the right rev. Prelate would not at all offer case of the few cathedrals which he had any remedy in that case, which is, I enumerated, but in that of the whole think, one that requires attention. It body of cathedrals. These institutions is necessary, when we are considering were engaged in work which was being this question, that we should not embark more and more appreciated, and the ca- on one of those long investigations thedrals were frequented by classes of which sometimes absorb years, and end persons who would not have thought in proposing results quite disproporof entering them 40 years ago. What tionate to the original necessity which was now wanted was that every mem- justified any movement in the quesber of these cathedral bodies, being tion. I should be myself favourable to adequately remunerated for his services, the idea thrown out by the most rev. should have facilities given him for the Prelate that we ought to meet the diffidischarge of his duties, and that the culties which we have to encounter cathedrals themselves should be gra- rather by previous inquiry than by immedually raised in the estimation of the diate legislation. But, in that case, if a community to that high place which Royal Commission were appointed to they were entitled to hold. carry out the investigation, I should be glad that arrangements should be made to procure Reports from time to time from the Royal Commissioners-that they should report with respect to each cathedral, for example, and state what they might recommend should be done in each case. In that way, my Lords, I think we might come to some discreet and judicious limitation of the investigation. As I have said, I am favourable to the suggestion of the most rev. Prelate. I think that something ought to be done. There are anomalies which ought to be removed after due investigation, and I believe that the most prudent course to adopt would be the appointment of a Royal Commission. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, that, my Lords, is their opinion, and they are prepared to act upon it. THE EARL OF POWIS said, the Bill had been objected to on the ground that it dealt only with the cathedrals of the new foundation; but that objection did not appear to him to be a very strong one, as the cathedrals of the new foundation differed as much from those of the old as Ireland did from Scotland. The argument that the Bill was imperfect because it did not deal with the cathedrals of the old foundation, was very similar to that of certain gentlemen who objected to a Bill about tenant right in Ireland because it did not deal with the Law of Hypothec in Scotland. The Bill only sought to give to the new foundations the powers now possessed by the old; powers which the Chapter of Hereford had exercised as regarded their College of Vicars' Choral. He trusted their Lordships would read the Bill of the right rev. Prelate a second time, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I think, my Lords, we are all agreed that some change is necessary in the capitular bodies of cathedrals. So far as the Bill of the right rev. Prelate is corcerned, I think its object is one that ought to be encouraged. But then, my Lords, it does not meet many cases which appear to me to require to be considered and dealt with. So far as my own experience is concerned, I have had, in my official position, much correspondence respecting what I regarded as a great anomaly in one of our principal cathedral bodies. The Archbishop of Canterbury THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE said, that after the favourable statement just made by the noble Earl he was ready to withdraw the Bill. Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn. HABITUAL DRUNKARDS BILL.-(No. 26.) (The Earl of Shaftesbury.) COMMITTEE. House in Committee (according to Order). Preliminary. Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to, Clause 2 (Commencement of Act). EARL BEAUCHAMP said, the Government objected to this clause as it stood, inasmuch as it withdrew retreats conducted by philanthropic or charitable associations from the direct control of Parliament, while in seven years it would put an end to private retreats. Now, no one would go to the expense of establishing a private retreat upon such terms; and he proposed to remove the restriction, and make the Act temporary, so that at the end of a certain time Parliament could re-consider the question, allowing such retreats as it found properly conducted to continue. Amendment moved To leave out after "eighty" to end of clause, and add, at end," and shall be in force until the expiration of seven years from the passing thereef, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament."-(The Lord Steward.) THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY ob. jected to the alteration, on the ground that such a provision would defeat the object of the Bill by preventing people from investing capital in private retreats as a speculation. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK observed, that public retreats would suffer equally from the proposed Amendment, inasmuch as the public would be unwilling to subscribe for the erection of an institution which was liable to be abolished in seven years. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY and THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK accepted the suggestion. Amendment made accordingly. Further Amendments made. Then, on the Motion of the Archbishop of YORK, a further Amendment made by inserting after ("intoxicating liquor,") the words (" at times") dangerous to himself or others. VISCOUNT GREY DE WILTON moved an Amendment, to include habitual opium eating with habitual excess in partaking of alcoholic liquors. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY suggested that the word "narcotics" should be used instead of opium, as there was great abuse of morphia, chloral, and other narcotics, often through the bad advice of the doctors. THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY replied, that the subject was too important to be introduced without Notice, and that to adopt the suggestion might imperil the Bill. EARL BEAUCHAMP also remarked that if they used the word "narcotics" they might include tobacco. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 (Incorporation of Schedules, with forms and rules therein); and Clause 5 (Local authority and clerk of local authority) agreed to. Retreats. Clause 6 (Establishment of retreats). THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH objected to the clause on the ground that it would be a convenience to have the power of using private lunatic asylums as retreats. THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE supported the clause. He thought it most desirable that the widest possible distinction should be kept up between lunatic asylums and retreats. Amendment made at end of clause, add—– On Motion of the Archbishop of York, "One, at least, of the persons to whom a licence is granted shall reside in the retreat, and be responsible for its management." Clause, as amended, agreed to. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK moved to | Parliamentary Returns (Nos. 67, 1873; insert, after Clause 6, new clause (To whom licence not to be given.) "No licence shall be given to any person who is licensed to keep a house for the reception of Junatics without the consent of the Commissioners in Lunacy." 219, 1878; and Report on Scientific Institutions, 1864); and, whether he objects to lay upon the Table any Papers explaining the grounds for dismissal? LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is quite true that Professor Galloway's services have been dispensed with from the termination of the present session of the College of Science in Dublin. As Professor Galloway had been connected with the College for 23 years, it is, I trust, scarcely necessary to inform the House that the Lord President and I only adopted this course after the most and careful and anxious consideration, and THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY thought it would wreck the Bill if these retreats were in the slightest degree to be mixed up with any question of the control of the Lunacy Commissioners. He would consent to the insertion of the clause if the reference to the Commissioners in Lunacy were omitted. Clause amended accordingly, agreed to; and added to the Bill. Remaining clauses agreed to, with the College of Science, for which we are Amendment. The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday the 23rd instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 86.) House adjourned at a quarter past HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, 15th May, 1879. MINUTES.]-WAYS AND MEANS-considered in Committee-£6,694,816, Consolidated Fund. PUBLIC BILLS Ordered First ReadingUniversity Education (Ireland) [183]; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Amendment* [184]. Second Reading-Hares (Ireland) [165]. Committee Army Discipline and Regulation [88] R.P. QUESTIONS. O COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN- QUESTION. MR. LYON PLAYFAIR asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that Professor Galloway has been dismissed from his Professorship of Chemistry in the College of Science, Dublin, after twenty-three years' service, during which he has carried on efficient laboratory instruction, as evidenced by various when we were convinced that it was absolutely necessary for the welfare of responsible. There will be no objection to lay upon the Table letters and papers from the Science and Art Department, which will explain our grounds for acting as we have done. CRIMINAL LAW-MANSLAUGHTER OF QUESTION. MR. P. A. TAYLOR asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of four men sentenced at Stafford, on the 3rd of May, to penal servitude for life, for 20 years, and for 15 years (two) respectively, on account of the death of a game watcher in a poaching affray; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the mitigation of the sentence? MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The learned Judge who tried this case informs me that he is quite sure, if the hon. Member had known the circumstances, he would never have thought of putting the Question. These four men were out, armed, at night, and they were tried for wilful murder; and, in the opinion of the Judge, it was a very merciful jury that let them off on that charge, and found them guilty of manslaughter. The of fence, as the hon. Member knows, does not consist in poaching; but in going out by night, armed, and in gangs. The poor man who was murdered was simply a farm labourer. Two farm labourers were called out to watch, and four men came up to one of them-they were not keepers, but watchers-who ran away, and was pursued by the four men, They made a most violent attack upon the poor fellow, and injured him in such a horrible manner that I will not describe it to the House. I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the sentence is not at all too severe. CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT-THE RE ORGANIZATION SCHEME. QUESTIONS. MR. RITCHIE asked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to his statement that no further delay need occur in the issue of the re-organization scheme for the Customs Department after the reports that had been called for from that Department had been received, Whether such reports have now been received by the Treasury; and, if So, when the scheme will be issued? MR. PEASE asked, When the decision on the scheme for the improvement of the position of the Customs Establishment, mentioned at page 32 of Parliamentary Paper No. 106 (ordered to be printed on 19th March 1879), is to be produced for the information of the officers in the Customs Establishment? SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said. that different branches of the Customs Department had been dealt with separately in Reports from the Customs to the Treasury. These separate Reports required, each of them, very careful consideration, and the last of them was only received on the 7th of April. Three of the most important of the schemes proposed had been considered and approved generally, and no delay would take place in the consideration of the others. The moment all were considered no time would be lost in bringing the re-organization scheme into operation. ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE REGU to inquire into the Secretariat of the Admiralty, and he was daily in expectation of receiving communications. PUBLIC HEALTH ACT-SUPERVISION OF SLAUGHTER-HOUSES, SIR EARDLEY WILMOT asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, if public slaughterhouses for killing butchers' meat cannot be established throughout the country, after the manner of many Continental States, Her Majesty's Government will not consider the propriety of bringing private slaughterhouses and other places used for killing animals for human food more directly under Government supervision, as well for economic and sanitary purposes as to prevent the cruelty to animals often practised under the present system? MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend's Question, I may be permitted, perhaps, to state what the law is on this subject. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that the whole of the Kingdom is under the jurisdiction of urban or rural sanitary authorities. With regard to the former, the Public Health Act enables all urban sanitary authorities to provide slaughter-houses and to make by-laws for their management; and, as regards private slaughter-houses, urban sanitary authorities are empowered by the same Act to make regulations for the licensing, registering, and inspection of such slaughter-houses, for preventing cruelty therein, and for keeping the same in a proper sanitary condition. Moreover, the Local Government Board may, on the application of any rural sanitary authority, confer upon them all the above-mentioned powers regarding slaughter-houses. The Local Government Board have issued a series of model LATION ACT—THE SECRETARIAT OF by-laws for the regulation of slaughterTHE ADMIRALTY.-QUESTION. MR. CHILDERS asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the Admiralty and War Office Regulation Act of last Session, Whether any steps have been taken to deal with the Secretariat of the Admiralty? MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, some six weeks ago application was made to the Treasury for a Committee houses, which have been adopted in numerous instances. Such being the existing provisions of the law, I am asked whether I will consider the propriety of bringing slaughter - houses under Government supervision? But I must say that, having regard to the duties and responsibilities thus vested in the local authorities, I cannot think it would be expedient to adopt the course proposed. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.-QUESTION. MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY asked the honourable and learned Member for Louth, Whether, having regard to the advanced stage of the Session, the desirability of pushing on many Irish measures of importance now pending, and the virtual impossibility of continuing the discussion of the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, he will move that the Order for its Second Reading be discharged? MR. SULLIVAN: I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is desirable to push on Irish measures as much as possible, and I should, therefore, be glad to push on this particular one. I feel, however, that while, on the one hand, it would be exceedingly undesirable to leave it on the Paper from week to week without its being possible to discuss it, it is due to hon. Members who are opposed to it to endeavour to give them an opportunity of arriving at its discussion; and, therefore, if I cannot bring on the discussion in a week or so, I shall move that the Order be discharged. IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COM MISSIONERS-MR. BALL. QUESTIONS. MR. SULLIVAN asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, Dublin, on Tuesday last, in reference to the claims of Mr. Ball, late Solicitor to the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners, opposed by the Treasury; more especially to the language of the Master of the Rolls, who, in delivering judgment, is reported to have said "A more discreditable or more disgraceful course was never pursued than that adopted by the Treasury before Judge Flanagan;" and the language of Mr. Justice Deasy, who said "It was one of the most unjust attempts ever made in a court of justice to defraud a man of money due to him for plain services under a contract sanctioned by the very people who now come forward to oppose him;" and, if he can inform the House what Government Department or what Government official directed and is responsible for the proceedings thus characterised by the Irish Judges? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman is-what Department of the Government is responsible for the proceedings to which he has called attention? I have to say that it is the Department of the Lords of the Treasury. With respect to the circumstances to which his Question refers, I can only say it is a long story, and I could not possibly trouble the House by going fully into it; but I will endeavour, in an observation or two, to make the matter plain. The remarks referred to as having been made by the learned Judges were delivered under a misunderstanding as to the course which the Treasury had pursued. The state of the matter appeared to be this-By the Irish Church Act, the Church Temporalities Commissioners were authorized to pay various officers such salaries as might be recommended and sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant and approved of by the Treasury. In regard to Mr. Ball there were two alternatives-that he should be paid by fixed salary, or that he should be paid by fees. The Treasury were asked to choose which alternative they preferred, and they preferred the former. They understood certain letters as meaning that the fixed salary was to cover all the services that would otherwise have been paid by fees. A question arose, however, as to whether it did cover certain classes of fees. In the litigation that followed Justice Flanagan upheld the view taken by the Treasury, and the case was so decided; but, subsequently, it was taken before the Court of Appeal, when the former decision was reversed, and the other view taken. I do not express any opinion as to which view was right; but I think the view expressed by the learned Judge was stated under a misunderstanding that could be easily explained. MR. SULLIVAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman was the Treasury represented by no one before the Court of Appeal that could explain the matter; and if not, why not? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Treasury was not represented directly at the suit. The suit was one between the Church Temporalities Commission and Mr. Ball, and the Treasury was not represented by anyone. I regret it was not, and I am unable to account for it. |