from towns in the north of England; it was one of considerable importance, as, if the doubt which at present existed with regard to the licensing of borough justices were well founded, then all innkeepers who held licences from such justices were liable to be proceeded against for a penalty of £20, and he therefore trusted the House would accede to the Motion. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he should offer no objection to the introduction of the Bill, but he at the same time felt bound to say that he had received no representations to the effect that the result of the existing system was-as the hon. and learned Member had stated-a race for jurisdiction between the county and borough magistrates. He had not been aware, until he had heard the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that any doubt existed as to the jurisdiction which ought to be exercised in the instances to which reference had been made. When the Bill was before the House, however, they would be in a position to form a better judgment upon the question. the hands of local justices of the peace. | he had received various communications Now, the object of the Bill which he asked for leave to introduce was, to remove all doubt as to the law, and so to frame it, that in boroughs in England having a separate commission of the peace, but not a separate court of quarter sessions, the borough justices should be licensing justices. There were three distinct classes of magisterial jurisdiction. There was the county jurisdiction in which the power rested unquestionably with the county justices; there were the boroughs, established under the Municipal Reform Act, where there was a separate commission of the peace, and a separate court of sessions and here, undoubtedly, the borough justices were the persons to grant the licences; and there was another class of boroughs which had a separate commission, but had no distinct quarter sessions, and it was with regard to them that the doubt had arisen. To show how important was the subject, he might state that there were no less than seventy-seven boroughs in England which answered to that description, and which were represented in that House by ninety Members. Practically speaking, in seventy-one out of those seventy-seven boroughs, it had been assumed that the law actually was that which he now sought to make it, inasmuch as the borough justices had within those boroughs exercised a licensing authority. It had of late, however, been suggested that it might possibly be so determined in the courts of law, upon a strict construction of the Act of Geo. IV., that the county justices were the licensing justices within the boroughs in question, and that the borough justices had no jurisdiction of that nature within them. Now, that was a state of things which would be clearly at variance with the spirit of the Act, inasmuch as the House must be well aware that the borough justices, as being the magistrates who sat upon the bench in those towns from day to day, and who had laid before them all complaints preferred against the proprietors of public-houses, were, as a consequence, the fittest tribunal to decide whether a licence should or should not in a particular case be granted. Great inconvenience resulted from the present system, and not the least was that which had been described by Lord Kenyon as "the indecorum of a race for jurisdiction" as prevailing between the county and borough magistrates in particular cases. The subject was one with respect to which Resolved, "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FITZROY, MARRIED WOMEN'S REVERSIONARY LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. MALINS in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to enable Married Women to dispose of Reversionary Interests in Personal Estate, stated that it was the same measure which had passed through the House of Commons in the years 1854 and 1856 withhout opposition, but which had failed to pass through the other House of Parliament, from the circumstance that he had not been able to induce any noble Lord in that House to move the Second Reading, owing to the influence of the only person who opposed, a noble and learned Lord of great legal eminence. He had, however, been more fortunate this Session, and he had every reason to hope that, under the auspices of the noble Lord Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MALINS and Mr. MULLINGS. Bill read 1°. DUCHY OF LANCASTER MR. BERTOLACCI. SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. who had undertaken to move the Second that a married woman might be the owner Reading, the Measure would be successful. of the reversion of £40,000 or £50,000 The Bill related solely to the reversionary contingent on her outliving her husband, interests of married women in personal and yet not be able to raise a shilling for estate. As the law at present stood, a her immediate use. married woman had full power to dispose Leave given. of real estate, whether in possession, reversion, remainder, or contingency. The House was doubtless aware that as the law now stood, the wife could, by executing a simple deed, with the consent of her husband, dispose of her real estate, just as though she were an unmarried woman, but with reference to personal property, in expectancy, the law was different, for although the husband and wife might be equally anxious to dispose of reversionary property, or to effect a loan or a mortgage upon it, such was the existing state of the law, that those steps could not be taken in the case of the wife, except liable to the condition of her outliving her husband, and the husband was equally powerless, unless in the event of his surviving his wife. The practical inconvenience which followed was this-that loans or mortgages could only be effected upon the most unfavourable terms, and whereas the law of England tended to make property alienable, this particular species of property was virtually rendered inalienable. There was no reason why the principle of the law which applied to real estate should not apply to reversionary personal estate, and the object of the Bill which he proposed to introduce was to correct the anomaly. Therefore, it would still, supposing the Bill to pass, be impossible to alienate such property without the wife's assent; but with that assent-taken, be it observed, separate and apart from the husband-it would be possible, as it ought to be, to deal with it. The Bill was not opposed by the Government; indeed his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had informed him that, if it did not pass this Session, he should himself embody its principle in a Government measure, and introduce it on a future occasion. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL thought that the public at large would be greatly indebted to his hon. and learned Friend if he succeeded in passing this Bill into law, for it would remove a great anomaly, which was not, in truth, a legitimate deduction from the law of England, but which had grown up out of a decision now too old and too frequently followed to be reversed by anything but Parliamentary interference. The result of this anomaly was MR. CONINGHAM, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the statements contained in the Petition of Mr. Francis Robert Bertolacci, praying for an inquiry into the proceedings of certain functionaries of the Duchy of Lancaster in preventing him from exercising the rights, powers, and privileges of the office of Auditor of the Duchy, and in superseding him by a near connection of the Receiver General to audit that officer's accounts, such Committee to consist of five members to be appointed by the General Committee of Elections, said that as the Government did not mean to oppose the Motion, he should content himself with stating that he brought forward this question entirely on public grounds and in the interest of public justice. All that he sought was a full, searching, and public investigation into the statements of Mr. Bertolacci, and he had such faith in that gentleman's truth and integrity that he felt assured he would pass honourably through that ordeal. He wished to explain that as the number of members to serve on the Committee had been printed five instead of seven, he trusted he should be allowed to retain the power of adding two members in order to make up the latter number. LORD CAVENDISH seconded the Motion. He said he was nearly related to one of the individuals whose conduct had been impugned by Mr. Bertolacci. The public were much indebted to the hon. Member for bringing forward the facts of this Petition, and no one was more grateful to him than the relative to whom he had referred (Earl Granville). The individuals whose conduct had been impugned were Lord Granville, the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Harrowby, and one or two others. Had he been present on a former occasion when the hon. Member brought this subject forward he should have pressed on the part of his relative grant this Committee, when they had, for an immediate inquiry, and he had now to state on his part that his only desire was that as full and searching an investigation as possible should be made. He was at the present moment prepared to show the utter falsity and groundlessness of the charges that had been brought forward, but it was thought better that the case should not be gone into now. His relative preferred to go before a Committee to enter into the question of malt mittee of that House, believing that the facts as they would appear when he was examined before the Committee would be the best answer to these charges. He had now only to express a hope that the Committee would be so chosen that no doubt could be entertained of its impartiality towards the accused individuals, and that whatever conclusion the Committee arrived at they would not shrink from declaring. For these reasons he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. HOP DUTIES-COMMITTEE. MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN moved that this Committee consist of sixteen members, and that Sir Brooke William Bridges be added to the Committee. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on the Hop Duties do con sist of sixteen Members." MR. FITZROY reminded the House that there was a Standing Order against the Motion, and that some special reason ought to be shown for proposing it. MR. DODSON said, that there were four Members for Sussex on the Committee, and only three for the county of Kent. COLONEL WILSON PATTEN recommended that a Sussex Member should be struck off the Committee rather than that an additional member should be appointed. There was at present a paucity of hon. Members to serve on Committees, in consequence of the numbers required for Election and other Committees. MR. STAFFORD could not understand why the Government had consented, upon the Motion of one of their own friends, to VOL. CXLV. [THIRD SERIES.] as well as hops. He thought the Government ought to give some explanation of their reasons for consenting to the appointment of this Committee. MR. BENTINCK said, he joined in the same request for explanations. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was in his place when the Committee was agreed to on a previous night, and would have been ready to give any explanation on the part of the Government to any hon. Gentleman who wished for it. But the Motion for the Committee not originating with him, but simply receiving his assent, he had not felt it incumbent upon him, unasked, to offer explanations in regard to it. It was well known that the mode in which the hop duty was levied had from time to time given rise to great dissatisfaction; and not long ago he had an interview with a deputation of gentlemen from the counties of Kent and Sussex, who applied for a remission of this tax, or for an extension of the time of paying it this year. After due consideration, he felt it his duty to grant an extension of two months beyond the month of May last. A new question had also been raised, principally by persons connected with the county of Kent,namely, that the present mode of levying the duty should be commuted from a charge per pound to a charge on the acreage a proposal which seemed to excite some interest, and which might very fairly be investigated by a Committee. Many hon. Members belonging to the hop districts wished for such an investigation, and he did not conceive that he ought to oppose the appointment of the Committee inasmuch as he did not understand that any revenue would be endangered thereby. The question now before the House, however, was whether the Members of the Committee should be increased to sixteen; and as far as this particular case was concerned the point was not one of much importance. But it was important that, without reason assigned, they should not depart from the general rule limiting Com 2 Q mittees to fifteen members. He believed | Act. The petitioners were not unfriendly that the Committee, as originally nomi- to the principle of the Act. They connated, was not unfairly constituted in re-sidered it desirable that the laws relating gard to the hop districts generally; and, to the mercantile marine should be conseeing that they had one representative solidated into one Act, and that proper prefor the eastern division of Kent already, cautions should be taken to secure a right he doubted whether there was any good description of vessels, and a proper descripground for an addition to the number. tion of persons to command them; what they contended for was, that there were clauses in the Act which rendered it nugatory in these respects. They complained of the cumbrousness of the Act, which consisted of 548 clauses, many of them so prolix and complex that no seaman could be expected to understand them. Then, on the subject of limitation of liability, which was contained in the ninth part, they stated that the 504th clause declared that no shipowner should be liable for any damage done to property or life beyond the value of the ship and the value of the freight, and that in no instance was that value to be taken at less than £15 per registered ton; while by the 510th clause, in case of life or injury to the person, the liability was limited to £30 in each case; but this limitation was rendered a nullity by the 511th clause, which provided that parties not satisfied with the statutory award might have recourse to an action in a court of law; so that the shipowner was liable to two several actions for every pas MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN said, if he had expected any opposition on the part of the Government he should have objected to the constitution of the Committee when it was originally proposed. There had always been considerable difference of opinion between the hop-growers of Kent and those of Sussex, the one party advocating the entire repeal of the duty, and the other asking only for its modification. All he desired was to see the planters of each district fairly represented; and he hoped that the understanding which had been previously come to would be kept. SIR JOHN SHELLEY thought it ought to be remembered that this was a consumer's as well as a producer's question. The hop duty operated detrimentally on agriculture; and in these days of free trade the farmer ought to be allowed to cultivate what crops he pleased. Question put, The House divided:-Ayes 35; Noes senger who might be lost or injured. The 112: Majority 77. House adjourned at a quarter before HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, June 5, 1857. MINUTES.] Took the Oaths.-Several Lords. The Lord Cowley, having been created Earl Cow ley-Was (in the usual Manner) introduced. Sat First in Parliament.-The Duke of Portland, after the Death of his Father. petitioners admitted the principle that the shipowners should be liable to penalties proportioned to their responsibility, but they objected to the unlimited responsibility laid down in the Act. Foreign ships were generally exempt from the liability to which British merchant ships were exposed, and especially the American mercantlle marine, which was our greatest competitor. The total tonnage of British shipping was nearly 4,000,000 tons, and the American tonnage was about the same, but being free from liabilities to which to find the former increasing more rapidly English ships were exposed, it was natural than the latter. These provisions acted as a premium in the employment of American shipping in preference to British. In consequence of the liability not being defined, it was difficult for shipowners to insure, and therefore the Act tended to deter men of capital from entering into THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE presented the passenger trade, which was left chiefly petitions, from Merchants, Shipowners, in the hands of speculators. Thus, and others connected with the ports of the very clauses which were intended to Bristol and from Southampton, for the protect the interests of emigrants were amendment of the Merchant Shipping found to operate to their disadvantage. PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Roman Catholic Charities 2 Hereford Cathedral Restoration. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT. PETITION. QUESTION. Another point of which the petitioners power of recovering damages which, by the complained was the construction of the common law of the land, the deceased, if tribunals which tried cases under the Act. he had been alive, would have been able The objections were that such a court was to recover for any injury which he might arbitrary, not recognized by the law of the have sustained by the negligence or misland, and, inasmuch as its decision was conduct of any person engaged in carrying not final, the effect was to prejudge the him from one place to another. By the case. The court consisted of two magis- law previously existing the shipowner was trates, aided by a nautical assessor, who liable to the value of ship and freight for in nineteen cases out of twenty was a post any injury done to property by collision, captain in the Royal marine. The pe- and by the law which was now complained titioners objected to justices of the peace of, to the same extent only was he liable, as being totally unacquainted with nau- in case of loss of life from wilful neglitical matters, and to naval officers on gence on his part. In the Merchant account of the antagonism which pre- Shipping Act two modifications had been vailed, or was supposed to prevail, be- introduced. The one case was when a tween the Royal and the mercantile ma- number of poor people went out in a rine. In some countries abroad similar vessel, when, as it might be extremely courts existed, but were composed in a difficult for them to institute a sepadifferent manner, there being two officers rate suit for each particular person, it of the mercantile marine and one officer of was provided that the Board of Trade the Royal Navy-an arrangement which should make a claim on the part of all the was found to work well and satisfactory parties for any misconduct on the part of to all parties, they therefore suggested the master, or for any damage sustained some such constitution for the courts of by his negligence. And when such claim this country. Having stated the objections was established, the Act limited the which were entertained by the petitioners, maximum amount to £30 for each person; he would ask the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Trade the Questions of which he had given notice-whether they intend to introduce any measure to meet the requirements of the shipowners; and, if not, in what other way they mean to grant relief. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, he had listened to the noble Earl with much attention, and, as far as he could understand, the grievances complained of were, first, that the present Act, being a consolidation of all the laws on the subject, was a very large and extended Act, containing 548 clauses. That was not very surprising, considering that the consolidation comprised not less than 120 or 130 Acts of Parliament relating to merchant shipping. He believed there never was a consolidation of laws made with greater ability, or that had met with more general approbation. At the same time he must say that the Act, though lengthy, was not obscure; for it had been so arranged under distinct heads, that a person wishing to know what the law was, might at once obtain any information he required. The chief objection of the shipowners, however, appeared to be their liability for loss of life under what was called Lord Campbell's Act. They had little reason for so doing, for that Act merely gave to the relatives of the deceased the same and the total amount which could be so claimed against a shipowner was limited to the full value of the ship and of her freight. By that limitation the shipowner was placed in a better situation than railway companies or any other persons whatever. So far, therefore, from the shipowner having any right to complain of the Act, he thought railway companies had a right to complain that they were not placed on the same footing as shipowners. In regard to the complaints of the constitution of the Naval Boards, it was difficult to constitute any other courts equally available and competent to discharge the duties of such inquiries, which, on the whole, were satisfactorily performed. Those courts were of two descriptions the local Marine Boards, composed of the principal merchants of the different ports; and the other Boards of two ordinary or stipendiary magistrates, assisted by a nautical assessor, to give them such professional information as they required, to enable them to come to an accurate decision. In all ordinary cases, such as drunkenness, they had invariably been tried before the local Marine Boards. In the case of wrecks the matter was submitted to the magistrates, assisted by the nautical assessor. In the more grave cases that officer had been sent from the Board of Trade. When the decision was given, |