The Right honourable Henry Thomas Lowry OXFORD UNIVERSITY AND LEOMINSTER ELECTIONS. Gathorne Hardy, esquire, being chosen to serve in this present Parliament as a Burgess for the University of Oxford, and also as a Burgess for the Borough of Leominster, made his Election to serve for the University of Oxford. NEW WRITS. though they had now in Parliament all | Northern Division of the County of Northampton; the Irish Law Officers of the Crown not one of them felt it to be his duty to attend in his place to give the benefit of his advice upon a matter which equally concerned England and Ireland. The objections which had been urged against the measure were entirely unanswerable. Some of the matters to which it referred were still sub judice. As for allowing a jury to separate once that a prisoner had been given in charge, however it might work in England, it would be absolutely impossible that anything of the kind should be allowed in Ireland. The great difficulty in conducting Irish trials was to keep the case to the particular issue sent to the jury-the guilt or innocence of the prisoner; and such a provision as that would be attended with the greatest mischief. To give refreshments to a jury after being locked up was not at all so objectionable, but other provisions of the Bill were either mischievous or unnecessary, and therefore he could not give it his support. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH called attention to what he considered the hardship of compelling persons to give their services as jurors without any compensation for their loss of time, while witnesses and every other person connected with the trial were allowed their expenses. ordinary sessions and assizes there were as many as four sets of jurors called upon to give their services, and it was often done at the greatest possible inconvenience. He recommended the Home Secretary to remedy this grievance, whether anything was to be done by legislation or not. SIR COLMAN O'LÖGHLEN said, he would consent to postpone the second reading, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford University. He would put it off to the 18th of April. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. At Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 18th April. CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. For Tiverton, v. Right hon. Viscount Palmerston, deceased; for Brecknock, v. Colonel John Lloyd Vaughan Watkins, deceased; for Lancaster County (Northern Division), v. Right hon. Marquess of Hartington, Secretary of State; for London, v. Right hon. George Joachim Goschen, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; for Limerick County, v. Right hon. William Monsell, Vice President of the Board of Trade; for Sunderland, v. Henry Fenwick, esquire, Commissioner of the Wood, baronet, Manor of Northstead; for LeoAdmiralty; for Ripon, v. Right hon. Sir Charles minster, v. Gathorne Hardy, esquire, who has elected to sit for the University of Oxford. House adjourned at Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, February 22, 1866. SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION BILL. COMMITTEE. (No. 2. 2a.) Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the said Bill read. LORD ST. LEONARDS said, this Bill Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House, had been introduced for the purpose chiefly that his Warrant for the appointment of of putting an end to the conflict between Members to serve on the General Commit-law and equity, law holding that every tee of Elections was upon the Table :Warrant read, as followeth : Pursuant to the provisions of "The Elections Act, 1848," I do hereby appoint-The Right honourable Spencer Horatio Walpole, Member for the University of Cambridge; John BonhamCarter, esquire, Member for the City of Winchester; George Ward Hunt, esquire, Member for the Mr. George appointment of a puffer vitiated the sale, whereas equity, on the contrary, recognized the now almost universal practice of appointing a puffer, so far as this was necessary, to prevent the estate from being sacrificed. The Bill did not introduce any novelty-it was intended rather to con form the strict letter of the law to the ex- | law, and the plant and machinery under isting practice, and to give protection, as another. It might be said that if the far as possible, both to the owner and bona principle laid down by his noble and fide bidder. It therefore provided that the learned Friend were extended to personal conditions should be read before the sale; property it would bring in all cases of the it provided that if it was declared in the sale of books, furniture, and stocks, inconditions that the sale was "without re- cluding mock auctions; but if the object of serve," no "puffer" should be allowed; their Lordships was to prevent persons but, if not, a puffer was permitted; but if from being deluded into giving a higher the biddings did not reach the reserve price than the articles were worth, there price, the auctioneer was to declare that were no cases in which the interposithe land had been bought in on account of tion of the Legislature were more rethe owner. The Court of Chancery was quired than in sales by auction of personal expressly exempted from the operation of property. In case of sales of land the the Act. buyers generally employed an agent to bid on their behalf, and this arrangement was attended by this benefit-that an agent was never carried away by his feelings to give a higher price than the property was worth, but acted merely upon the instructions which were given him. In other cases, however, buyers were continually influenced by their feelings. It was a common thing in sales of farming stock to hold a luncheon before the sale, and the bidders were consequently often in a state of semi-intoxication. That was a great evil, and one which ought undoubtedly to be got rid of. The Bill, therefore, only dealt piecemeal with a subject which ought to be, and might be, treated as a whole; and he therefore suggested to his noble and learned Friend that he should postpone the Committee upon the Bill, as they were as yet at the commencement of the Session, and, after framing it anew to meet the necessities of these cases, to proceed with it again at a later period. Another serious objection to the measure was that it had the appearance of class legislation. The upper classes were those most interested in sales of land by auction, and while laying down principles for the protection of their interests, they appeared to be neglecting those of the remainder of the community. He did not, however, intend to take any further step to stop the Bill, and would leave the matter in the hands of his noble and learned Friend. He had, if persevered in, given notice of some Amendments on the Bill as at present framed. It had been found by long experience that in sales by auction by order of the Court of Chancery the auctioneer ought to be allowed as little latitude as possible. An auctioneer should not be permitted to make a declaration, but ought to be compelled to state everything in writing. A person frequently came into Court with ten or fifteen wit LORD ROMILLY said, that although no one could doubt the importance of the measure under consideration, yet he was of opinion that it did not go far enough, and that it ought to extend to personal property. He had intended to explain his objection in detail, before their Lordships went into Committee, to the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill, but he had been prevented by his occupations from doing so, and he had therefore given notice of the Amendments he should propose. No one could doubt the great importance of the object of the Bill. The conflict between law and equity ought to be put an end to, and one uniform system should prevail. But he was at a loss to understand why this measure was confined to sales of landed estates. He ventured to say that not one reason could be advanced in support of this Bill with reference to sales of land by auction which could not be advanced with far greater force in support of a similar Bill respecting sales of personal property. The number of sales of the latter description was far greater, and the property more valuable. Sales of pictures, ships, reversionary interest in stocks, large quantities of goods in bulk, and sales of plant and machinery were continually occurring and realized a very large amount. But the law regulating both classes of sale at present was the same; and it would be a matter for regret if the law were altered in one and not in the other. It had become his duty, quite recently, to order the sale in the Court of Chancery of a large factory, with the machinery; and it was sold in two lots, one the freehold of the factory, and the other the plant and machinery. If the Bill under consideration passed into law, their Lordships would observe that the freehold of the factory would be sold in accordance with one nesses, who swore in their evidence that the auctioneer had not made the particular statement in question; that they were in the room the whole time of auction, and that if he had stated it they must have heard it. The auctioneer, on the other hand, would bring two or three persons who swore that they heard the statement made; and the decision that the Court was consequently compelled to arrive at was that the declaration had been made but that it had been made in such a manner as not to be audible to one half of those present. He wished, therefore, to have all these matters printed upon the particulars of the sale. He did not understand from the Bill before their Lordships whether his noble and learned Friend intended the omission to read the conditions of sale on the part of the auctioneer to constitute invalidity in the sale; if he did it would create a new source of litigation; if he did not the clause would be complied with or not, at the pleasure of the auctioneer. His noble and learned Friend's measure also provided that property knocked down to the puffer bidding in contravention of the law should be sold to the last boná fide bidder, supposing he were willing to complete the purchase. But there would, no doubt, be conflicting evidence as to the last bond fide bidder, and, moreover, as property was constantly sold by trustees, if the last bond fide bidder was allowed to take the property on account of an error by the agent employed to bid, it might be sold very much below its value. What he wished was that there should be an opportunity, by the reserved price given to the auctioneer, to prevent the accidental error of a person employed to bid destroying the property. The only other suggestion he had to make was that a clause should be introduced putting an end to the practice of the Court of Chancery opening biddings after the property had been knocked down to a bond fide bidder at a sum equal to or higher than the reserved price. The practice had been condemned by Lord Eldon, the present Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill, and many other authorities. The only two Amendments he had to propose affecting the scope of the Bill were, first, that the declaration proposed to be made by an auctioneer should be put upon the particulars of sale; and, secondly, that the bona fide bidder should not be allowed by the mistake of Lord Romilly the agent to get possession of property at very much less than its real value. House in Committee. Certain Amendments having been made, Lord ROMILLY proposed an Amendment to Clause 8 (Rule respecting open Sales). After a short discussion, LORD ST. LEONARDS said, the Amendment which had been accepted by their Lordships was entirely at variance with the principles on which the Bill was founded, and he should decline to proceed further with the measure. EARL STANHOPE trusted they might still have the benefit of legislation on the subject, notwithstanding that the noble and learned Lord had somewhat hastily, as he thought, thrown up the Bill. THE LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that before the Bill went into Committee, his noble and learned Friend had stated some objections to the principle of the Bill. It did not go far enough, and applied only to auctions of landed property. No one had more experience on this subject than his noble and learned Friend as Master of the Rolls. He therefore hoped his noble and learned Friend would introduce a measure to embrace the objects he had indicated. LORD ROMILLY said, if this Committee were adjourned for a short period, he would endeavour to frame clauses with that view. House resumed. ART BILL (No. 15.) COMMITTEE. House in Committee (according to Order). Clause 1 (Power to lend Works of Art for public exhibition). LORD TAUNTON, referring to the wording of the side note, said, it would appear that the Bill was intended to have a general application. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, that the Bill only applied to works of art lent to two Exhibitions-the Exhibitions of Historical Portraits, which it was proposed to have in London this year and next, and the Paris Exhibition next year. EARL GREY said, that he thought it was rather a strong measure for Parliament to authorize the trustees of minors and idiots to send valuable pictures out of the country. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, a great number of pictures had been sent to the last Paris Exhibition, and he had not heard of any of them being damaged. LORD OVERSTONE said, that a picture by Turner belonging to the National Gallery which had been removed for exhibition elsewhere, had been returned damaged by rubbing, though not very seriously; and another picture by the same artist had been returned with the canvas actually broken. He felt very strongly the danger of sending pictures of great value away from the places where they were deposited, and he thought that trustees would more efficiently discharge their duty by affording to the public every reasonable facility of access for seeing them. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Definition of Owner for the time being). preventing trustees from sending works of art out of the country. If he consented now to pass the clause, he would, on the third reading, propose an addition to the clause, which would have that effect. LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDE said, that in removing pictures the principal danger to be encountered was in the packing and unpacking, and many accidents occurred in consequence of inexperience and unskilfulness in conducting those two operations. Of course, a great deal of judgment and discretion must be exercised by those who had the selection of the pictures for removal, as many pictures, from old age and other circumstances, could not be exposed to the risk and danger of travelling. He thought it would be undesirable to extend the power now sought to the case of all trustees of private property, and that it would be better to limit it to those who had the charge of public property. He wished all success to the great undertaking which it was intended to carry out in this country in the present year; but he thought that it would be an ungracious and churlish feeling to deny to the Emperor of the French the gratification of seeing some of the chef d'œuvres of English art in the Great Exhibition to be opened next year in Paris, especially considering the liberality and generosity with which the Emperor had frequently sent pictures to exhibitions in this country. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH said, that this clause contained a principle of serious importance, started for the first time, and which he thought was highly objectionable. By this clause the national works of art might be sent to the Paris Exhibition; but there was such a rage for exhibitions now in every part of the globe, that if they once allowed works of art to leave this country, although only to Paris, that might be a precedent under which they might be sent anywhere, not only in Europe, but even across the Atlantic. Their Lordships ought to be very careful not to admit such a principle as this; and he would certainly, if the House divided on the subject, support the omission of the words of the Preamble extend-hibition. ing the power to lend to the Universal Exhibition at Paris in 1867. THE EARL OF DERBY remarked, that if these words were left out altogether its omission would defeat the object of the Bill, which he did not suppose his noble Friend (the Duke of Marlborough) to intend. THE MARQUESS OF BATH drew attention to the fact that this objection was the same as that raised on the second reading of the Bill; and was, in fact, an objection to the whole measure. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH said, that his object was not to prevent any work of art from being lent by trustees in this country; but simply to make such alterations as should have the effect of EARL GREY hoped that the noble Duke would not press his Amendment. France and other foreign countries had acted very well in respect of our exhibitions, and it would be a bad return on our part to say that pictures from our public galleries might not be sent to the French Ex He THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH doubted whether any foreign Government ever had sent its pictures here. thought Parliament would be putting the trustees of our public galleries in an invidious position if it invested them with a power which it might not be judicious of them to exercise. LORD TAUNTON concurred with his noble Friend (Earl Grey) in thinking that we should not be acting very courteously towards France if a limitation were inserted which would prevent trustees from lending pictures for the Great Exhibition of 1867. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, he did not recollect any case in which any ancient works of art had been sent from abroad to our exhibitions. Modern pic tures had been sent, the private property | CATTLE DISEASES ACT-THE ORDERS of foreign sovereigns, or belonging to the artists themselves, and the country was grateful for the loan of those pictures; but, as a matter of history and of fact, he did not recollect any pictures being sent from the Louvre, Florence, Milan, or any of the other places containing the art treasures of Europe to this country for exhibition. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY thought the noble Earl was mistaken. To the last Great Exhibition in London works of art were sent by the Government of France, by the Belgian Government, and, he believed, by other Governments. These works were modern, no doubt, but they were very valuable. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY believed it would be found that the works alluded to by the noble Lord were from private collections. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY thought not. THE MARQUESS OF BATH then moved an Amendment to leave out words of the clause which gave the power of loan to the trustees of married women, and of persons labouring under incapacities; and thus confining the power to the trustees of public institutions and to tenants for life. After a short discussion, Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved to omit the words "and to contribute British works of ancient art to the Uni versal Exhibition at Paris in 1867." THE EARL OF DERBY appealed to the noble Duke not to press the Amendment, on the ground that it would be ungracious to refuse the trustees of our public institutions power to send their pictures to France, while we were permitting them to lend to our own portrait exhibitions in London. EARL RUSSELL also urged the noble Duke not to persevere with his Amendment. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH said, that he should be sorry to do anything ungracious or discourteous towards a country with which we are on such friendly terms as we were with France. He would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment. IN COUNCIL.-QUESTION. THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, pursuant to notice, asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the Local Authorities established under the Orders in Council still exist and will continue until the new local authorities, under the Cattle Discases Act, are constituted? His Question meant, in other words, whether the Act which received the Royal Assent on Tues. day last abrogated the powers of the local authorities created under the Orders in Council issued by virtue of the Act of 1848. The agricultural world was in a state of the greatest uncertainty on these points. In Scotland considerable time must elapse before the new authorities could be constituted. First, ten days' notice was required; and then, after the Commissioners of Supply met, they had to nominate a number of their body, and the names thus nominated must be sent to the lord-lieutenant, wherever he may happen to be, for approval. The lord-lieutenant then had to find out in the best way he could who were the tenant-farmers to be nominated by him to join this irresponsible body-irresponsible they were, because when once appointed they could not be removed. After the lord-lieutenant had nominated the tenant- farmers not one could be removed, however inefficient and incapable he might be found. Nor was there any power given in the Act to fill up vacancies that might occur from time to time. Never was there a public body so constituted, nor an Act of Parliament He had also to ask, whether the Act of 1848, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 105, has been repealed by the Act passed this Session, or whether it was only in abeyance; and, if so, what portions of the same Act could be put in force? There was the greatest confusion on this subject both in England and Scot so loosely drawn. land. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL would first remind his noble Friend opposite that, although bound to support the Government measure, he had been quite willing to accept the Amendment of his noble Friend, retaining the local authorities_as originally constituted. He apprehended that the old local authority, established under the Orders in Council, was by no means extinguished until the new body actually came into existence; and with regard to the interval of time which |