Bill read 2a.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE read a Message from Her Majesty, That Her Majesty being desirous that the house called Marlborough House should be secured to His Royal Highness Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, after he shall have attained the age of eighteen years, during the joint lives of Her Majesty and His said Royal Highness, recommends it to the House of Lords to concur in enabling Her Majesty to grant and settle the same in such manner, and with such provisions, as will most effectually accomplish the said purpose.

Ordered to be considered To-morrow.

LOSS OF THE SHIP "HEMISPHERE."

The EARL of MOUNTCASHELL wished to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, respecting an unfortunate occurrence which had happened, at the beginning of last month, to a passenger-vessel called the Hemisphere, with 400 or 500 passengers on board. The vessel had commenced her voyage to New York, when a sudden lurch took place in a gale of wind, the masts went overboard, and several sailors were thereby washed overboard and drowned, while others were severely injured and killed. She was fortunately met by a steamer, which towed her into the port of Liverpool. A sailor, whose arm was entangled in the rigging, and was broken, was said to have had that limb cut off by a surgeon on board, with a common carving-knife, just as a butcher would cut off a leg of mutton. The arm afterwards mortified, and the man died. A coroner's inquest was subsequently held on his body, and a verdict of "Accidental death" was returned. Now, the Passenger Act provided that there should be a competent surgeon on board of all vessels carrying a certain number of passengers. He thought it likely that the noble Earl would say, in reply to him, that this vessel was an American vessel, and that therefore the master was exonerated from carrying a surgeon, as he would have been compelled to do, had it been an English vessel. What he wanted to know was, whether the noble Earl had received any information as to this very serious occurrence, or whether he would have any objection to his moving that the evidence

EARL GREY said, he had received the report of the Commissioners of Emigration with reference to the case alluded to by the noble Earl. The fact was, that until lately it was not required that passenger ships should carry a surgeon; but in the Passenger Act it was provided, that in cases where the passengers exceeded a certain number, and where, consequently, the risk of sickness would be greater, a surgeon should go out with the vessel. There was, however, a clause in the Bill which enacted, that wherever the space allotted to each passenger should exceed fourteen superficial feet, the presence of n medical officer might be dispensed with. Now, every emigrant ship entering New York was bound by the laws of that State to have that space for each passenger, and consequently with ships bound thither the statute was a dead letter. The case alluded to by the noble Earl was that of the ship Hemisphere, a remarkably fine vessel. She was not bound by law to have a surgeon, nor had she one on board as such. In consequence of the inclemency of the weather, one sailor met with a dreadful accident, his arm being broken in such a manner as, perhaps, to render its restoration impossible. A gentleman happened to be on board who had a diploma, but no instruments, and the arm being held by only a small piece of flesh, he severed it from the seaman's body, in the hopes of affording him some temporary relief from pain. He (Earl Grey) believed that the operation did afford the poor man some temporary relief, although he ultimately sank under the accident and died. Such being the state of the facts, and the ship not being compelled by law to carry a surgeon, he did not think it a case for Government interference.

The EARL of MOUNTCASHELL read

an extract from a Liverpool paper, the purport of which was, that the gentleman alluded to had been shipped by the owners of the vessel as a surgeon, and that it was understood he was to give his professional assistance when necessary.

EARL GREY said, that the owners did not conceive themselves bound to send out a surgeon with the vessel; but as this gentlemen had applied for a passage, his professional skill was taken advantage of in the case of the accident. Besides, the accident happened to a sailor, and not to a

passenger, and might, therefore, have occurred on board any other than an emigrant ship. If the noble Earl liked to move for an address for the Emigration Commissioners' report, he (Earl Grey) should have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.

The EARL of MOUNTCASHELL adopted the suggestion of the noble Earl, and the Motion was agreed to.

LEASEHOLD TENURE OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL.

Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Amendment moved on the Third Reading of the above Bill, read.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the insertion of a proviso to the effect that compensation should be given to head landlords in reversion, who should convert leases in perpetuity into fee-simple, not exceeding one year and a half of the rent. LORD REDESDALE suggested, as an Amendment, that the difference between the value of the lease in perpetuity and of the fee-simple subject to a fee-farm rent, should be deemed the loss for which the owner of the reversion should be entitled to compensation.

The EARL of WICKLOW objected to the maximum of compensation proposed by the Lord Chancellor as insufficient.

LORD MONTEAGLE suggested the insertion of the words, "Leases of lives renewable for ever." He said, that the original intention of the Act had been to meet the case of such tenures, and that, strangely enough, they had been omitted altogether.

The EARL of MOUNTCASHELL said, that the Lord Chancellor's compensation proviso would operate very unequally. Its effect in Ulster, where land had but slightly depreciated in value, would be widely different from its operation in Connaught, where the value had become almost nominal.

LORD BEAUMONT said, the proper course would have been to repeal the Act of last Session, which was unjust as it now stood; but, instead of that, a declaratory Bill had been introduced for the purpose of explaining away the injustice. He opposed the proviso as unjust to the lessor, and would prefer the Act as it stood at present to any amended Bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he had understood the difference of opinion which had arisen among noble Lords on

the subject of this Bill to have reference to the amount of compensation to be given to lessors, and he had therefore had interviews with noble Lords, to see whether a compromise could not be come to. It did not appear to him that the Bill was as clearly worded as it might have been, but still it would not do to alter it more than was absolutely necessary. He had, therefore, confined his attention to one pointnamely, to protect tenants from being called on to pay more for their fee-simples than they ought to pay. He had heard that demands would probably be made by landlords in proportion to their supposed powers of litigation, and had attempted to put the matter out of dispute by adopting the proviso before the House. He looked upon the object of the present Bill to be merely to amend the Act of last Session in one particular feature, and that where it did not alter, the former measure was to be the rule of proceeding. He should not follow noble Lords in reopening the general question. On the 5th clause a difference had arisen in consequence of the Bill having proposed that the value of an estate should be ascertained at the time of the last renewal of the lease. That was objected to, and he proposed, as an Amendment, that such compensation should be made and given by an increase in the amount of the fee-farm rent equivalent to the value of the amount of such leases. He also moved to insert a clause to the effect that the difference in value between the reversionary interest and the fee-farm rent might be compensated for by a proportionate increase in the fee-farm rent to be reserved.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.

journed Debate on Sir R. Inglis's Motion, with reference to the request of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild to be sworn on the Old Testament,

MR. HENLEY said: Before the Order

of the Day for the adjourned debate is read, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask you this question -- whether, to give a proper locus standi for the discussion of the important question which is about to be raised by the Amendment put upon the notices by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, it would not be expedient that some further question should be put to Baron de Rothschild, one of the hon. Members for the city of London, in order to get upon the records of the House the fact that to take the oath in the way he has requested-the only answer he has yet made being, that he requests to be sworn upon the Old Testament-is binding upon his conscience, and the reason why he requires so to take it? I think that, simply to give order to our proceedings, we should do this. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex admits the proposition that it is binding upon his conscience, but we have it not upon record; therefore, it seems to me it would give greater regularity to our proceedings to have the answer from Baron de Rothschild himself. I wish, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to know from you, if it is open for any hon. Member to make a Motion to this effect before the debate upon the question comes on?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment is upon the Order of the Day. The only record upon the Journals of the House is, that Baron de Rothschild came to the table, and when asked that which is the usual question, he said, "I demand to be Sworn upon the Old Testament." Of course, that being a novel claim, it could not be admitted without the assent of the House; and I requested the hon. Member to withdraw. With regard to the question now put to me, I do not think, unless it has the full consent of the House, it is desirable to put the question to Baron de Rothschild which has been suggested. Of course it may be put; but otherwise, according to our regular and ordinary rules, we must proceed with the discussion of the Order of the Day.

MR. W. P. WOOD: I apprehend that the only possible question to be put to Baron de Rothschild is, whether or not he considers an oath so taken in form binding upon his conscience? That question, I

apprehend, might be properly put; and I' cannot suppose that he would have any objection to answer it. If he has, it would be for him to state it.

MR. SCOTT: I wish to ask a preliminary question. It fell from you, Sir, that the oath could not be put to the hon. Member upon the Old Testament, without a decision of the House to that effect. Now, I wish to know whether, if the decision of the House be to the effect that he should be sworn upon the Old Testament, he could not then take his seat in this House, as a Member of this House, entitled to vote upon all questions? If that were so, it would, I think, obviate the necessity of any Bill being introduced into Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, he will see at once that there are two questions-first, the form of swearing, and the other as to the oath to be taken. With regard to the form of swearing, if the House should decide that the hon. Member for the city of London be sworn upon the Old Testament, of course it would be my duty to call him to the table to be sworn; but then comes the other question, whether he would take the oaths that are prescribed by the Act of Parliament.

SIR G. GREY: The suggestion, as I understand it, is, that Baron de Rothschild be called in, and asked whether, having asked to be sworn upon the Old Testament, he admits that to be the form of oath most binding upon his conscience? The hon. and learned Member for Oxford, as I understand, has no objection to that course. But, of course, it is for Baron de Rothschild to answer or not, as he thinks fit. I understand from you, Sir, that if the House concurs in the propriety of that course, there can be no objection to its being adopted. No objection being made, it appears to me that the best course would be to move that Baron de Rothschild be called in, and the question asked from him.

MR. HENLEY: My only object is to get something formally upon the records of Parliament, because the entry seems to stand so bald at present, inasmuch as a proceeding is entered of which we do not know the reason. This is the usual form of courts of justice.

SIR J. GRAHAM: I confess I think it would be expedient that the question should be put to Baron de Rothschild; because, as the matter stands at present, it