DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (Mr..Charles Forster, Mr. Headlam, Mr. SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. not intervene. He believed the only effect of the present system of delay was to enable parties to extort money by a threat of appealing, which it was never intended to carry out. The great object of his Bill was to put an end to delays which could serve no good purpose. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. C. Forster.) THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that on the part of the Government he would not object to the second reading of the Bill, because he believed that his hon. Friend had hit upon one defect in the present state of the law, and that his Bill provided a remedy for it. He meant that part of the present law which provided that no appeal should be lodged in the House of Lords while that House was not sitting. He regretted that he could not go further in his support of the Bill. When the other matters came under the consideration of the Committee he must hold himself free to object to the clauses. An appeal on a decree or rule nisi did not exist in any other Court, and he could not see why it should be allowed in the Divorce Court. MR. C. FORSTER, in moving that this Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to get rid of the delay which now occurred in the despatch of business in causes of divorce. In any case delay in legal proceedings was a source of annoyance and expense, but in no branch of the law could the evil thus caused be more seen than in suits for the dissolution of marriage. It was desirable to make the proceedings, when once commenced, as expeditious as possible. At present, even in undefended cases, suitors are unable to obtain a decree dissolving the marriage under two years. The delay need not exist if the House would agree to the three propositions contained in the Bill. The first proposition was to shorten the time allowed for appealing against the decisions or rules nisi in all cases of divorce. He wished to make the practice of the Divorce side of the Court at Westminster the same as that on the Probate side of the same Court-namely, that notice of appeal in any case should be entered within one month after the hearing and decision of the cause. At present appeals against decrees in the Divorce Court could not be lodged during the Parliamentary Recess. The Bill would abolish that prohibition. The second proposition was to take away the right of appeal in undefended cases; for he could not think that any person, either man or woman, who had a good defence, would hold it back till the appeal and submit to have a decree pronounced by default. The third proposition was to make the right of appeal to follow directly upon the decree nisi, instead of parties having to wait till the decree was made absolute. He understood that this last provision was the one which was likely to meet with most opposition. It would, perhaps, be urged that such a permission would be an anomaly in the practice of Courts. But it (Mr. Bazley, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Horsfall, must be remembered that for some time after the institution of the Divorce Court there was only one decree which was final; and that the decree nisi had been intro duced, only to give the Queen's Proctor an opportunity of intervening if collusion was suspected. As between the parties the decree nisi was final if a third party did MR. HEADLAM was sorry that the Government had limited their support to such a narrow portion of the Bill. He had read the Bill and he could not see what objection there could be to its provisions, the whole of which had no other object than to stop unnecessary delay. MR. M. CHAMBERS said, he approved that portion of the Bill which required the appeal to be lodged after the pronouncing of the decree nisi. According to the present state of the law, the decree nisi was really an absolute decree to take effect on a certain day, unless the Queen's Advocate or some other party should intervene before that time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow. COTTON STATISTICS BILL-[BILL 96.] Mr. Watkin, Mr. Cheetham.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. BAZLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to provide accurate statistics of the cotton trade, by taking steps to procure correct information of all the cotton which was landed at the various ports of this country, and by obtaining from all carriers returns of their removals of cotton from one place to another, and periodical returns from all warehousemen of the expected supply and quantities of stock in hand. He believed this measure, if it were adopted, would prevent undue speculation in this important staple of manufacture and commerce, and that it would lead to a more equitable and regular employment of capital and labour, and be equally beneficial to merchants, manufacturers, operatives, and consumers. Motion agreed to. intended to give greater security to owners of property. The effect of them was that all intermediary, as well as the primary owners of property should receive notice of any operations intended under this Bill. He reminded the House that on the last day the Bill was discussed the Attorney General suggested that it required some additional provisions in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Reading. He (Mr. Torrens) had received a communication from the Attorney General, and he was authorized by him to state to the House that the Amendments which stood in his (Mr. Torrens's) name on the Notice Paper were prepared under Bill read a second time, and committed the direction of the Attorney General by for Wednesday next. ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELL- CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th April], "That the Clause (Act not to apply to cases in which freeholder has successfully instituted proceedings and carries out necessary repairs,)-(Sir Francis Goldsmid,) — which was offered to be added on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now read a second time." Question again proposed. MR. AYRTON said his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) who was now absent from the House, had no desire to press the clause. Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause (Act not to apply to cases in which defects are caused by local authority,)-(Sir Francis Goldsmid,)-brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the said Clause be now read a second time." Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 21, to leave out the word 66 surveyors," in order to insert the word "surveyor," (Mr. Candlish,)-instead thereof. Question, "That the word 'surveyors' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to. MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS said, he had some new clauses on the Paper, the Government draftsman, and submitted to him for final approval; and the Attorney General had requested him to move them on the Report. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Reading would agree with him in thinking that the changes which he now proposed to introduce, by the authority of the Attorney General, were sufficient substantially to accomplish his object. Taking into consideration the period of the Session, and the mass of business before the House, he hoped he would be allowed to take the Report without any material changes except those to which he had alluded. MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS moved, in Clause 3, line 12, to leave out from the word "lessee" to "premises," and insert definition given by the Land Clauses Act, here"The expression owner,' in addition to the after incorporated with this Act, in reference to any premises, shall include all the owners, if more than one, of any premises or estate, or in terest in any premises required to be dealt with under this Act." Motion agreed to. Mr. GOLDNEY moved to insert at the end of Clause 4 "And for the purposes of this Act the term those Acts shall mean the local authority as dethe promoters of the said undertaking' used in fined by the Act." Motion agreed to. Schedule A. MR. AYRTON moved to leave out from "The city of London and the Liberties thereof" to the end of line 10. The matter had been discussed on a previous occasion, and as the attendance in the House was now so small he should not press his Motion, though he wished to have it put from the Chair, in order that his dissent from the proposed mode of legislation might be distinctly recorded. Amendment proposed, in First Schedule, Table A, to leave out from the words "The City of London and the Liberties thereof" to the end of line 10.- (Mr. Ayrton.) MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE said, that originally the City of London was a walled city, and consequently contained a greater number of lanes and alleys than any other part of the metropolis, and there could be no injustice in allowing the City to put the Bill in force themselves. MR. CRAWFORD said, it was a mistake for the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to say that the City of London would save anything by not being subject to the rate which would be levied by the Board of Works. MR. HARVEY LEWIS thought it was hardly just that the whole of the metropolis should be taxed throughout, with the exception of the City of London, for improvements effected under the Bill. would, after the alteration proposed, affect the taxation on the City of London. In that case it would effect an alteration of taxation which should have originated in a Committee of the Whole House, and could not be proposed on consideration of the Report. MR. AYRTON disclaimed any intention of interfering with the taxation of the metropolis. His object was to declare that the Metropolitan Board of Works should have the authority for carrying out the Bill throughout the whole Metropolis. It was his intention to move that the Bill be re-committed. And it appearing, on further discussion, that the proposed Amendment would vary the incidence of taxation, Mr. SPEAKER declined to put the Question. Amendment proposed, in First Schedule, Table A, to leave out from the words "The Metropolis," in line 13, to the end of line 21, inclusive, in order to insert the words The Metro- The Vestries The general The Clerk polis and Local vote leviable Boards re- under "The spectively Metropolis Management Act, "1855" MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS said, the Amendment had not originated with him, but with the Select Committee. In no part of the metropolis did he get so much support for his Bill as in the City of Mr. Labouchere,) London. -instead thereof. MR. LOCKE said, it was the City of London that really created the working classes of the metropolis, as it was the great employer of labour. The City supplied poor to the whole metropolis, and it should not therefore seek to be exempted from the general rate. MR. AYRTON said, he would confine his Amendment to the question of autho rity, leaving untouched the question of taxation. It MR. LOCKE said, it was simply a question whether the Board of Works or the Corporation should carry out the Act. was not a question of taxation; but a fanciful one, of pride, on the part of the City, which did not like to be interfered with. MR. GOSCHEN said, that the effect of the Amendment evidently was to increase the taxation of the City of London. MR. CANDLISH took the same view as the right hon. Gentleman. MR. SPEAKER said, it seemed to him that the Amendment would have this effect-that improvements undertaken beyond the limits of the City of London But it appearing that the proposed Amendment would vary the incidence of taxation, Mr. SPEAKER declined to put the Question." Bill to be read the third time upon Friday. House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, May 7, 1868. MINUTES.—Sat First in Parliament — The Marquess of Salisbury, after the Death of his Father. PUBLIC BILLS-Second Reading-Capital Punishment within Prisons (83); Industrial Schools (Ireland)* (69). Third Reading Medical Practitioners (Colonies)* (78), and passed. CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS WITHIN PRISONS BILL-(No. 83.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it had already passed through the House of Commons; and its object was to provide that in future all executions of criminals shall take place within the walls of prisons. The subject had been thoroughly considered by a Royal Commission who had recommended that a Bill to this effect should be introduced. A Committee, of which a right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Oxford was Chairman, had come to a similar conclusion. It was believed that, instead of public executions doing good or operating as a deterrent among criminals, the revolting scenes which, on many occasions, took place before the gallows, especially in the metropolis, did considerable harm, and ought to be prevented. The Bill provided that in future all executions of criminals should take place within the walls of the prisons, in the presence of the sheriff and others who were named, that the prison surgeon should certify the death of the criminal, and that a coroner's inquest should be held upon the body. LORD CRANWORTH expressed his approval of the principle of the Bill, which he hoped would put a stop to the Saturnalia which occurred on the occasion of every execution in the metropolis. LORD HOUGHTON also expressed his satisfaction at such a measure being likely to become law, he having had the honour on several occasions of bringing the subject of public executions, with their evil consequences, before the House of Commons. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow. RAILWAYS-ACCIDENT UPON THE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE asked the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any Report was made to the Board of Trade of the fatal Occurrence on the Brecon and Neath Railway, on Friday, the 24th of April last, in which Case the Jury at the Inquest re turned a Verdict of "Wilful Murder?" It appeared that, on the occasion of the accident, a passenger train-which, fortunately, carried no passengers, although a mail train-ran into a siding in consequence of the points having been displaced, and the result was that the engine-driver was killed. It appeared that the points were usually kept in position by means of a pin, which had, to the knowledge of the servants of the Company, been missing for twenty-four hours prior to the accident. The coroner's jury returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person unknown." No notice of the matter had been taken by the Board of Trade which had, in matters of this kind, no proper control over railway companies. The case was one in which companies were not bound to make any reference whatever to the Board of Trade. Had the person killed been a passenger, the Company would have been bound to report the facts to the Board of Trade, and they would have sent down an Inspector to make a special inquiry into the facts. But even in that case the Board of Trade would have been powerless; for they could not enforce the recommendations of their Inspector. When this siding was opened, but before it was used, an Inspector was sent down to examine it, and he particularly recommended, indeed ordered, that an instrument called an “indicator" should be placed there. The indicator was accordingly placed there by the Company at an expense of £10 or £12; but it was never used—in fact, he was told the instrument was very rarely used by railway companies except within crowded stations. After all, what a farce it was that the Board of Trade should have power to make Orders which they had not the power to enforceor rather that their Order having been made and an indicator placed, the Board should have no power to compel the use of the instrument. Such a case as the present was not of very common occurrence, but there were incidents of an analogous kind which happened every day all over the country. The Board of Trade, having no power, escaped responsibility; but it was the duty of Parliament, he thought, to take care that the safety of passengers was properly attended to, and impose that responsibility. The late Duke of Wellington expressed his opinion very strongly that the Government should have more power over railway companies; but the railway interest was too strong for them in the House of Commons. He hoped the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) would see that sufficient powers were obtained in his Bill for the regulation of railways. He had himself given notice of a clause, but it was not sufficiently stringent. He wished to ask the noble Duke, Whether the Board of Trade had received any accounts on the subject to which he had called his attention; and, whether he would lay them on the Table? THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, he was not aware that it had been the intention of the noble Marquess to enter so much at length into the law which at present prevails with regard to accidents on railways: nor did he anticipate that he would refer to the opinions of the Duke of Wellington on the subject of railway management. Had he known such to be the intention of the noble Marquess, he should have been prepared with a more satisfactory answer. The noble Marquess was incorrect in thinking that no notice of this accident was taken by the Board of Trade. On hearing of the accident, the Board of Trade communicated with the Railway Company, requiring them to transmit to the Board every particular connected with the accident. That Report reached the Board this afternoon, and tomorrow an Inspector would proceed to inquire into the facts and causes of the accident. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE said, that as the noble Duke had used the phrase "on hearing of the accident" it seemed clear that no Report was made by the Company to the Board of Trade, in the first instance. The Board heard of it only casually and through the usual channels of information, not on special information from the Company. House adjourned at a Quarter before HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, May 7, 1868. MINUTES.-SUPPLY-considered in Committee -Exchequer Bonds (£600,000). PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) * [105]; Partition [107]. Second Reading-Representation of the People (Ireland) [71]; Vagrant Act Amendment * [102]. Committee-Documentary Evidence * [97]. MR. LAMONT said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill to repeal or to modify the Act of last Session which legalized Trawling for Herrings in the West of Scotland? THE LORD ADVOCATE said, in reply, that the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act 1867, was passed in accordance with recom. mendations of the Royal Commissions of 1863 and 1866. The official information which had reached him as to the working of the Act was favourable, both as regarded the quantity of fish taken and as to the cessation of those acts of violence which had frequently resulted from the enforcement of the prohibitions against trawling. He had therefore no intention of introducing a measure to repeal the Act of last Session. QUEENSLAND POLYNESIAN LABOURERS.-QUESTION. MR. P. A. TAYLOR said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government has received from Queensland a Bill passed by the Legislature there to legalize the introduction of Polynesian Labourers; and, if so, whether he will state what course the Government propose to recommend Her Majesty to adopt in respect to such Bill? MR. ADDERLEY said, in reply, that although the Bill had passed both Houses of the Legislature in Queensland, the Governor did not state that he had as yet given his assent to it. he had done so. Bill included all the provisions which had been suggested both for regulating the immigration of such labourers and for guarding against abuse. The Papers which had already been moved for were being prepared, and, if the Bill arrived in time, it would be laid with them upon the table. No doubt, however, He mentioned that the METROPOLIS-PARK LANE.—QUESTION. MR. LOCKE said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, By whose authority a Pavement is being laid down on the West Side of Park Lane, thereby reducing the portion of ground taken from the Park for the purpose of the roadway from eighteen feet to less than twelve feet? LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said the operations to which the hon. Gentleman referred were being executed by the Metropolitan Board of Works in accordance with |