VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCE 165 



tion of the Board of Trade — and that no important 

 change in it ought to be made without equal care. He 

 did not say in so many words, but his language implied, 

 that the Board of Trade had not gone thoroughly into 

 your Bill, and he suggested that, between this and the 

 next meeting of Parliament, the subject should be 

 thoroughly discussed with the Board of Trade, the reasons 

 for the change of law brought before them by substantial 

 instances of inconvenience, and the clauses carefully 

 considered. I gather that he has talked over the matter 

 with Thring — a great authority on the Companies' Act 

 and Commercial Law — and that his own opinion has 

 been strengthened by Thring' s opposition to the Bill in 

 its present form. 



As a minor criticism, he suggested that the security 

 for a Dividend offered by the " Trustee " clause might 

 operate injuriously on the interests of the Company. 



Such being the case, I see nothing but the withdrawal 

 of the Bill. This course would be better than its 

 rejection by a vote of the House. 



I shall be at the House at 5 o'clock. — Ever sincerely 

 yours, Aberdare. 



In consequence of this, Sir John saw the Lord 

 Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) more than once, 

 and eventually convinced him that the Bill 

 effected an improvement in the Law. The Lord- 

 Advocate then took exception to it, but eventually 

 he also withdrew his opposition and the Bill 

 passed both Houses. 



For many years Lady Lubbock had been in 

 very indifferent health. It seems doubtful 

 whether her system ever recovered fully from the 

 shock of the terrifying railway accident in which 

 she and Sir John were involved, as previously 

 mentioned, only a short time before the birth of 

 their youngest son. On October 19 she passed 

 away at High Elms, and Sir John was left 

 a widower with six children — three boys, of 



