not be subjected to the indirect and deluding 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. right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully 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, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or, 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. "Attending at or near the house or place where a person works or is employed, or the approach 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 workmen a pecuniary penalty is imposed in respect of any offence under such Act, and no power is given to reduce such penalty, the justices or court having jurisdiction in respect of such offence may, if they think it just so to do, offence any sum not less than one fourth of the impose by way of penalty in respect of such 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. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, 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. LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL. (The Lord Chancellor.) 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 share they might take in the affairs of 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 (NO. 235.) SECOND READING. hesitation in agreeing to the clause. The Order of the Day for the Second Read- framing of the clause evinced the greating, read. est 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.) 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 over 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 reOrder). port of the trial at the Waterford Assizes of Mr. Loughlin Freeman, T.C., Clause 12 (Procedure in applications who was convicted of sending to Cardiff, 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." 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 precauTrade to prevent the sailing from Cardiff tions have been taken by the Board of 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- this action on the part of the Board is be conducted by a different body, the based? constitution of which had not yet been determined upon. LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Will these inquiries be conducted within a short time? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER replied in the affirmative. SENTENCES FOR VIOLENT ASSAULTS.-QUESTION. SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the first recommendations for loans were received by the Board of Works on April 30, 1875. On that date six recommendations were received; four more on May 25; 139 during June; and 155 during July. Some necessary delay took place in arranging the mode of procedure to meet the requirements of this CRIMINAL LAW service, involving, among other things, the arrangements under which the promissory notes given in security for the loans should be executed. The first advance of money was made on the 13th of July, and since that time the Board of Works have been in communication with every one of the 304 borrowers. As fast as the promissory notes are returned signed by the borrowers and their securities the Board are issuing the loans, and have already issued 123 loans amounting to £1,839. With regard to the second Question of the hon. Member, the Board of Works have informed the promoters of the pier that they cannot at present bring this case before the Treasury until their Lordships have decided on some cases before them. It is obvious that all cases of this kind cannot be dealt with at once. LEGAL DEPARTMENTS COMMISSION. QUESTION. LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is proposed that the Legal Departments Commission should inquire into the administrative departments of the Courts of Justice of Scotland and Ireland; and, if not, when and in what manner it is intended that the inquiry recommended by the Select Committee on Civil Service Expenditure in 1873 should be completed? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that in the first instance it was proposed that the inquiry by the Legal Departments Commissioners should be confined to England. There were, however, certain questions arising in the Lord Advocate's Department which satisfied them that inquiry ought to be made on the subject. It would also be seen from the Report that it was desirable to extend the inquiry to Ireland. It was proposed, however, that the inquiry with regard to Ireland should MR. J. G. TALBOT asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Cleary, charged on the 26th instant, before Mr. D'Eyncourt, with violently assaulting his wife, whom he twice knocked down and struck several times; and to the case of James Stroulett, charged on the same day, before Mr. Lushington, with violently assaulting Mary Thompson, whom he struck in the face, on the arm and shoulder, and again in the eye; and, whether, considering that the punishment awarded in each case was of three months and two months imprisonment respectively, and that the Offences against the Person Bill has been withdrawn, he will give such instructions to the stipendiary magistrates as will insure better protection to Her Majesty's subjects in London and other large towns? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had put himself in communication with the magistrates in question. With regard to the first case, he was informed that, although it was apparently a bad case, yet no serious harm had been done. The magistrates were under the impression that in this class of cases it would not do to inflict too heavy punishments, because there was great difficulty in getting women and others to prosecute; and if such cases were sent for trial prosecutions would be still more rare than they were. He (Mr. Cross) must confess that he did not quite agree in that view; but it would be impertinent in him to send round instructions such as his hon. Friend had referred to. Indeed, he had no power to do so. He had no hesitation, however, in saying that, in his opinion, these serious assaults were far too leniently dealt with. The Home Office would take great care in watching the sentences passed upon the perpetrators of brutal assaults, in order that, if necessary, the Government might bring forward a Bill on the subject next year. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1871-PRO SECUTION AT POOLE.-QUESTION. which occurred at the level crossing of the Midland and the London and North Western Railways at Bedford, March 12, 1875; and, if he is aware that the Grand Jury of the county of Bedford, in their presentment during the present assizes, publicly called the attention of of the present level crossing, and whethe authorities to the dangerous nature ther the Board of Trade propose to take any action in the matter? MR. EVELYN ASHLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the dismissal by the petty sessions at Poole last week of a case against SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, a shipowner, in which the Home Office prosecuted and laid the information Captain Tyler's Report has been laid prosecuted and laid the information before Parliament. In it Captain Tyler under the eleventh Section of "The Mer- before Parliament. In it Captain Tyler chant Shipping Act, 1871;" and, whe-recommends that the signalling arrangether he has been informed that the grounds of this decision were, that "un ments at the Bedford level crossing, the opening of the railway, should be which have been in operation ever since improved, and that the modern arrangements of interlocking the points and signals should be adopted. The Board seaworthiness" in the above-named section does not include " overloading, that " sending" a ship to sea in the same section does not include "taking," and that receivable evidence of the de-dations of Captain Tyler to the London fective state of a ship's hull and equipment, for the purpose of such a prosecution, must be the result of a survey and not the statements of those on board? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to this case for the same reason that the President of the Board of Trade had just given to the hon. Member for Stafford-namely, that the prosecution had been ordered by himself. He was very much surprised at the result of the inquiry before the magistrates, and he had made application for the reasons of the conclusions to which the magistrates had come. Owing, probably, to the shortness of the time, the only answer he had received to his application was a newspaper containing a report of the proceedings, which he already had in his possession before he wrote. The grounds of that decision were, he believed, pretty much the same as those mentioned by the hon. Member in his Question, and it was his intention to lay the whole matter before the Law Officers of the Crown, with the view of taking such proceedings as might be thought desirable. RAILWAYS-LEVEL CROSSING AT BEDFORD.-QUESTION. CAPTAIN POLHILL-TURNER asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has received a Report from Captain Tyler, one of the Government Inspectors of Railways, relative to an accident of Trade communicated the recommenand North-Western and Midland Railway Companies. The Board of Trade are still in communication with the Companies on the subject; but they have no power to compel the Companies to adopt the recommendations contained in the Report. The presentment of the Grand Jury of the county of Bedford was not communicated to the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce) has just informed me that he has heard from the Chairman of the North-Western Railway that they have received the presentment and are about to act upon it. PUBLIC BUSINESS-LOCAL AUTHORI- MR. HAMOND asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the very advanced period of the Session, and that the municipal and other local bodies have not had an opportunity of considering the Local Authorities Loans Bill, as amended, he will defer the Consideration of the said Bill until the next Session? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he would frankly acknowledge that at this very advanced period of the Session it would be very difficult to pass any measure to which much objection was raised. With regard, however, to the statement that the municipal and other local bodies had not had an opportunity of consider |