[BILL 9.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 2 March 1864)

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, he thought it very desirable that, previous to going into Committee of the Whole House on the Bill, it should be referred to a Select Committee. The subject was one of a very special kind, and there were many technical points to he considered in order to render it a good working measure; and it was not an unfrequent course for the House to adopt in matters of a technical character, to refer Bills to the consideration of a Committee upstairs, where they could be more advantageously dealt with. There were also some points in the measure affecting private interests on which it might be necessary to take evidence. He therefore moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

§ MR. CRAWFORD,
being of opinion that the interests both of individuals and the public would be promoted by such a course, seconded the Amendment.

§ MR. JACKSON,
as one of the Committee who had already considered the subject, and on whose Report the present Bill was founded, wished to state that private interests were amply considered by that Committee. If evidence was still to be taken on private interests, he hoped that evidence would also be taken as to the power and appliances for testing cables now in existence able to meet the requirements which this Bill would create. He hoped also that evidence would not be taken on one side only, but that if taken at all it would be taken fairly. Should it be deemed desirable, he would have no objection to sit on the Select Committee, and do his best to bring it into practical operation. He doubted, however, whether it could be made practicable.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he would recommend the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) to accept the Select Committee. He felt bound to express his conviction that there would be much difficulty in legislating on this subject; but he was willing to give the hon. Member every assistance in his power towards making the Bill a satisfactory one.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, his object in bringing in this Bill was to produce a workable measure, and he thought it would be unwise for him to reject the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He agreed also with the remark of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Jackson), that if evidence were to be taken as to private interests it should also be taken with regard to the general operation of the Bill. Having twice brought forward the Bill he thought it due to the House to state, that among the influential bodies in its favour were—Lloyd's Registry of British Shipping; Liverpool Underwriters' Association; Mersey Dock Board; London, Liverpool, and Glasgow Shipowners' Association; Steam Shipowners' Association—London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Dublin, Belfast, Waterford, Cork; Liverpool Mercantile Marine Association; the principal chain manufacturers in Staffordshire, Newcastle, and district of the Tyne, Chester, and other places; the firms of H. Wood and Co.; Bloomer; Parks and Co.; Crawshay and Co.; Abbott and Co., and many others. Also the following large steam packet companies:—Peninsular and Oriental, the Cunard Company, Inman and Co., Bibby, Sons, and Co., City of Dublin Company, Wigram and Co., Somes and Co., G. F. Young, and 1362 numerous first-class shipowners. He had mentioned those names to the House because they were a justification of his having brought in the Bill twice, and having done all he could to secure its passing into a law. He agreed to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, believing that the result would be the production of a workable measure.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
asked the hon. Member whether Messrs. Brown, Maddox, and Co. were supporters of the Bill.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, the firm mentioned certainly were not. But Messrs. H. Wood and Co., Bloomer, Parks and Co., Crawshay and Co., Abbott and Co., and many others were; and anyone connected with shipping or manufactures knew that these were the establishments most largely interested in the question.

§ MR. BENTINCK
, as a Member of the Select Committee to which the matter was referred last year, confirmed the statement of the hon. Member for Newcastle, that the interests of private individuals were fully gone into. At the same time, in a case of this kind, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Laird) had done right in accepting the proposition which had been made by the President of the Board of Trade. He did not share the doubts entertained by the hon. Member for Sunderland, and did not see the slightest difficulty in dealing with the question. This was one of the many cases in which fraud led to the most disastrous consequences. The list of names which had been read by his hon. Friend (Mr. Laird) showed the interest which was felt on the subject by the great majority of the manufacturers of anchors and cables; and he had no doubt the result of the inquiry before a Select Committee would be the production of a useful and satisfactory measure.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, that having had the honour to preside over the Committee, he wished to express his concurrence in the remarks which had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck), that the interests of private firms had been fully inquired into. The question had been gradually attracting public attention, and many firms which had not made up their minds at the time of the inquiry were now supporters of the measure. With the exception of the firm of Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co., all the great chain-makers in Great Britain were in favour of the Bill, and he believed the interests 1363 of that firm had been greatly exaggerated in the House. He thought it desirable that the inquiry suggested by the right hon. Gentleman should take place, and trusted that it would have the effect of narrowing the issues and of removing objections to a really good and necessary Bill.