Commons Sitting of 9 August 1869

MINUTES.]—NEW WRIT ISSUED—.For Caithnessshire, v. George Trail
, esquire, Manor of Northstead.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee— Ordered First Reading—Merchant Shipping and Navigation [267]."
Ordered—First Reading—Compulsory Church Rates Abolition (Scotland) * [260].
Committee—Report—(Parochial Schools (Scotland) [205].
Considered as amended— Third Reading—Charity Commissioners * [239]; Parochial Schools (Scotland) [265], and passed.
Withdrawn—Queen Anne's Bounty (Superannuation Allowances) * [210]; Steam Boilers Inspection* [64].
The House met at Three of the clock.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILLS—STANDING ORDERS.
MR. DODSONsaid, he had to ask the House to adopt two new Standing Orders in relation to Private Business. The first of these was simply an Order substituted for the 35th section of the Act of last Session for the regulation of railways. It was found inconvenient to have the rules embodied in that clause stereotyped in an Act of Parliament, which could not, like Standing Orders, be dispensed with in any peculiar case; and, therefore, with the concurrence of the noble Chairman of Committees in the other House, an Act had been passed this Session which repealed the 35th section of the Act of last year, on the understanding that, when the Private Bills of this Session had been disposed of, a Standing Order should be proposed to the same effect as the repealed clause. It related to the meetings of incorporated railway companies, and the approval by such meetings of Bills and certificates for conferring additional powers on those companies; and the new Standing Order was substantially the same as the clause, with this modification—that the Standing Order required that a statement of the number of the votes should be deposited at the Private Bill Office, instead of being laid before Parliament or the Board of Trade.
Ordered, That every Bill originating in this House and conferring additional powers on the Promoters thereof, being a Company already constituted by Act of Parliament, shall after the
1486
first reading thereof be referred to the Examiners, who shall report as to compliance or non-compliance with the following Order:—
The Bill, subsequently to the deposit of the Petition for the same, shall be submitted to the Proprietors of such Company at a meeting held specially for that purpose.
Such meeting shall be called by advertisement inserted once in each of two consecutive weeks in a morning newspaper published in London, Edinburgh, or Dublin, as the case may be, and in a newspaper of the county or counties in which the principal office or offices of the Company is or are situate; and also by a circular addressed to each proprietor at his last known or usual address, and sent by post, or delivered at such address, not less than ten days before the holding of such meeting, enclosing a blank form of proxy, with proper instructions for the use of the same; and the same form of proxy and the same instructions, and none other, shall be sent to every such proprietor, and shall be addressed to each proprietor on the back of the form of proxy; but no such form of proxy shall be stamped before it is sent out, nor shall the funds of the Company be used for the stamping any proxies, nor shall intimation be sent as to any person in whose favour the proxy may be granted, and no other circular or form of proxy relating to such meeting shall be sent to any proprietor from the office of the Company, or by any director or officer of the Company so describing himself.
Such meeting shall be held not earlier than the seventh day after the last insertion of such advertisement, and may be held on the same day as an ordinary general meeting of the Company.
At such meeting the said Bill shall be submitted to the proprietors aforesaid then present, and approved of by proprietors, present in person or by proxy, holding at least three-fourths of the paid-up capital of the Company represented at such meeting, such proprietors being qualified to vote at all ordinary meetings of the Company in right of such capital. The votes of proprietors of any paid-up shares or stock other than debenture stock, not qualified to vote at ordinary meetings, whose interests may be affected by the Bill, if tendered at the meeting shall be recorded separately.
There shall be deposited at the Private Bill Office a statement of the number of votes if a poll was taken, and of the number of votes recorded separately.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House [to follow Standing Order 70] Standing Order 70 was read, and repealed.
Ordered, That in the case of every Bill brought from the House of Lords in which provisions shall have been inserted in that House, empowering the promoters thereof being a Company already constituted by Act of Parliament to execute, undertake, or contribute towards any work other than that for which it was originally established, or to sell or lease their undertaking, or any part thereof, or to amalgamate the same, or any part thereof, with any other undertaking, or to abandon their undertaking, or any part thereof, or to dissolve the said Company, or in which any such provisions originally contained in the Bill shall have been materially altered in that House, or by which any such

1487
powers are conferred on any Company not being the Promoters of the Bill, the Examiner shall report as to compliance or non-compliance with the following Order:—
The Bill, as introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House, shall be submitted to the proprietors of such promoting Company and of any other Company on which such powers are so conferred, at a meeting held specially for that purpose.
Such meeting shall be called by advertisement inserted once in each of two consecutive weeks in a morning newspaper published in London, Edinburgh, or Dublin, as the case may be, and in a newspaper of the county or counties in which the principal office or offices of the Company is or are situate; and also by a circular addressed to each proprietor at his last known or usual address, and sent by post, or delivered at such address, not less than ten days before the holding of such meeting, enclosing a blank form of proxy, with proper instructions for the use of the same; and the same form of proxy and the same instructions, and none other, shall be sent to every such proprietor, and shall be addressed to each proprietor on the back of the form of proxy; but no such form of proxy shall be stamped before it is sent out, nor shall the funds of the Company be used for the stamping any proxies, nor shall intimation be sent as to any person in whose favour the proxy may be granted, and no other circular or form of proxy relating to such meeting shall be sent to any proprietor from the office of the Company, or by any director or officer of the Company so describing himself.
Such meeting shall be held not earlier than the seventh day after the last insertion of such advertisement, and may be held on the same day as an ordinary general meeting of the Company.
At such meeting the said Bill shall be submitted to the proprietors aforesaid then present, and approved of by proprietors, present in person or by proxy, holding at least three-fourths of the paid-up capital of the Company represented at such meeting, such proprietors being qualified to vote at all ordinary meetings of the Company in right of such capital. The votes of proprietors of any paid-up shares or stock other than debenture stock, not qualified to vote at ordinary meetings, whose interests may be affected by the Bill, if tendered at the meeting shall be recorded separately.
There shall be deposited at the Private Bill Office a statement of the number of votes if a poll was taken, and of the number of votes recorded separately.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House [in place of Standing Order 70, repealed].
Standing Order 77 was read and amended, by leaving out in line 4 the word "or," and inserting after "71," the words "or 72."
Ordered, That the said Orders be Standing Orders of this House.—(Mr. Dodson.)

APPOINTMENT OF REVISING BARRISTERS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FBENCHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
1488
Home Department, If there is any foundation for the statement which appeared in the "Morning Star" newspaper on Wednesday the 4th of August last, that the Lord Chief Baron called a meeting of the Revising Barristers for the Home Circuit at Lewes, and informed them that the Judges had agreed that the appointment to their offices should be considered temporary, and that in future a preference should, always be shown to the sons and relatives of Judges in selecting individuals for these offices? If this were true it was the extension to England of a practice long pursued in Ireland.
MR. BRUCE: Sir, I am satisfied that my hon. and gallant Friend, in putting this Question, did not believe the statement to be true, and did not think the circumstances alleged in it were in the remotest degree probable; but he wished to give to me, or rather to the learned Judge, an opportunity of denying a statement which tends to reflect discredit on him and upon the whole Bench. The best answer I can give to the question is to read a letter I received from the Lord Chief Baron this morning. It is as follows—
"The statement in a newspaper to which Colonel French's Notice refers must be founded upon some unaccountable mistake, or is a mere fiction. I never informed the Revising Barristers for the Home Circuit, or anybody else, ' that the Judges had agreed that the appointment to their offices should be considered temporary, and that in future a preference should always be shown to the sons and relatives of Judges;' nor have the Judges ever so agreed. These appointments are, as you are aware, made under an Act of Parliament, and the Judges have no power to make them permanent or temporary at their pleasure, or otherwise than merely for the revision next ensuing the date of the appointment. I lately called together at Lewes the gentlemen whom I intended to appoint, in order that they might assist me in arranging the districts in which they were respectively to act, and inform me of the addition to their number which they thought would be required. I have since appointed them according to the statute, ten in number, and for the approaching revision only. One of them, is the son of a Judge, another the grandson of a former Lord Chancellor, and the remaining eight are the Revising Barristers of last year, whom I simply re-appointed, and who are, as far as I know, unconnected with the Bench. All are unquestionably competent, and I believe among the ablest and the best who could have been selected. This is all the information I am able to give in relation to the Colonel's question."

NAVY —CORRUPTION IN THE ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENTS.—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHOsaid, in the absence of his ton. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) and at his request, he would beg leave to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If any further steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to punish the officers of the Admiralty departments who are officially accused of having been engaged in an extensive system of corruption both at Somerset House and at the Dockyards, with a view to the complete exoneration of those gentlemen upon whom no such imputation rests; if any representations have been made by the officers at Somerset House to the Admiralty on the subject; and, if there will be any objection to lay the Correspondence upon the Table of the House?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply, Sir, to my noble Friend I have to state that the words of his Question do not accurately represent what was said in this House by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. My hon. Friend stated that there had been corruption both at Somerset House and at the dockyards in connection with certain contracts, as there had notoriously been in public companies; that he hoped the country would set its face against these transactions; and that it had been his and his Colleagues' endeavour to detect and punish these practices. But my hon. Friend did not either name or point at individuals whom it was possible to prosecute, and so exonerate others. Answering, then, the second Question first, I may say that a letter was addressed to the Admiralty by some of the clerks in Somerset House on this subject. It was in our power to decline to account outside the House of Commons, and especially to subordinates, for words spoken in Parliament; but we thought that, under the circumstances, it was better to make an exception to the rule, and a reply was given to these gentlemen very much to the effect of the answer which I shall presently make to the first Question, and I believe that it has been satisfactory to them. But, as the words complained of were spoken in Parliament, and as I am giving the explanation in the same place, I think it would be inexpedient to publish the letters. I beg, then, to say, in reply to the first Ques-
1490
tion, that my hon. Friend and his Colleagues would much regret that anything said by him should be misunderstood, and especially that he should be thought by the House to cast unmerited reflection on any officers of the Department whose honour I—and I am sure he —feel it my duty to protect. But there is no doubt that corruption did for some time exist in connection with naval stores; and the papers found on Mr. Rumbold and Mr. Gambier, and information received before and since, leave it beyond a doubt that the particular offence for which they were punished was not an isolated one. I would further say that it must be evident to everyone that these matters are not easy to detect, as both the giver and the receiver are, or imagine themselves, interested in complete secresy, and there is usually no one else privy to the transaction. But I have no hesitation in adding that the great body of the service, and of the branches especially referred to, even while these transactions were going on, was entirely free from the slightest taint of dishonesty, and that should occasion arise for their assistance in detecting and punishing any case which we may hereafter be able to follow up we should unhesitatingly appeal to them for it. Beyond that I decline to give any promise, and I hope that the House will give us credit for determination to do what is, in our opinion, for the public benefit in this matter, and will trust us as to the best means of carrying out this end.

INDIA—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the probability of the early establishment of independent direct telegraphic communication between this country and India, by the way of Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, and Aden, it may not be desirable to use for other purposes than the extension of the Persian Gulf line the Submarine Cable now on its way to Bombay in the ships "Calcutta" and "Tweed"; and, if he will state the length of the Cable in question, its cost, and the expense of its transport, all charges for freight, demurrage, or otherwise included?
MR. GRANT DUFF: With reference to my hon. Friend's first Question, I

1491
have to say that we do not intend to make any change in the destination of the cable to which he alludes. With reference to his second Question, I have to say that the length of the cable is 520 miles. Its original cost, delivered on board, was £ 87,067. The insurance of the cable in dock, and fittings for the Calcutta and Tweed, will cost, it is believed, about £6,000 more. The hire of the two ships to Bombay, including demurrage and all other charges so far as they are at present known, will amount to about £33,000, and there are further undecided claims. Nearly £8,000 out of this £33,000 is the estimated cost for repairing the damage done by the accident to the Calcutta, which, as my hon. Friend knows, was all but lost in the Channel, with a large part of the cable on board. After arrival at Bombay the Calcutta and Tweed will cost respectively 15 s. and 20 s. per ton per month during the operation of laying the cable.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL—CONVEYANCE OF CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Anstruther), he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can inform the House what steps the Government intend to take in the exercise of the powers entrusted to the Privy Council by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill for the protection of animals carried by railway or in steamers from unnecessary suffering?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the powers entrusted to us by Parliament by the Bill now speedily to become law, for the protection of animals carried by railway and in steamers from unnecessary suffering, shall have the best attention of Earl De Grey and myself, and it is a matter which each of us has much at heart. However, on considering the question, we found it would be impossible to use those powers without obtaining full information with regard to the present conditions of both railway and steamboat traffic as far as regards the carriage of animals. It was necessary to find out what was the present state of things before we could make up our minds as to the alterations to be made. Earl De Grey and myself have, therefore, appointed a Committee, consisting of gentlemen in our own Department, with a
  1492
  gentleman from the Board of Trade and another from the Customs, to look into the matter and make as early a Report as the nature of the inquiry will admit of. In the meantime we have seen the managers of the principal railways, and it is only justice to them to state that they have expressed great willingness to meet us in this matter. We are addressing to them a letter asking them to inform us, by an early date, at what stations they already supply water, and at what other stations they will by that time have made arrangements to supply it. When we have thus ascertained what the railways will do of themselves, it will be more easy for us to consider the serious question in what way we shall use our powers in relation to railways and steamboats.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL—SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can inform the House what steps the Government intend to take in the exercise of the powers entrusted to the Privy Council by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill for the slaughter of fat cattle coming from in-footed countries at the ports of entry?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that if the Bill to which he had just alluded became law, foreign animals coming from an infected country would be required, as now, to be killed at the port of entry. On Tuesday, or as soon as possible after the passing of the Act, a Council would be held to determine what countries were to be considered infected; and it would not be becoming in him to anticipate the Order to be issued; but they were exceedingly anxious to frame the Order in a way that should be satisfactory. If they were to lean on either side, they must lean on the side of care and caution to prevent the introduction of diseases. He would take that opportunity of correcting a mistake he had unfortunately made in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), in which he had said that foot and mouth disease was prevalent in Ireland as well as England. He found that this was a mistake into which he had fallen from having been led to suppose that in-

  1493
  formation respecting pleuro-pneumonia, which he regretted to be compelled to believe existed in Ireland, applied to foot and mouth disease. With regard to foot and mouth disease, he wished to state the course the Government intended to take to meet present circumstances. With regard to cattle coming in from suspected countries, they would, whether affected with foot and mouth disease or not, be killed at the port of entry, after the issue of the Order in Council he alluded to, as at present; but with regard to cattle coming in from countries not suspected, directions would be given to the Customs' officers for the present to take care that should there be in a cargo of such cattle any cattle affected with foot and mouth disease, not only those animals should be slaughtered, but the cattle which had come with them should be put under the same conditions of slaughter as if they had come from suspected countries.

  THE COLNE FISHERY.—QUESTION.
  DR. BREWERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If during the Recess he will take into his consideration the subject-matter of two Petitions presented to this House from the Freemen Burgesses of Colchester, praying for such effective restoration of their rights and privileges to the Colne Fishery, and certain corporate estates known as "The Severalls and Chantry," as were vested in them by ancient customs and Royal Charters?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he had not had time to consider the Petitions sufficiently to enable him to give the slightest indication of the course the Government might feel it advisable to to take in the matter.

ARMY—WIMBLEDON REVIEW.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Lord ELCHO,
  CAPTAIN VIVIANpromised to lay on table a Letter of His Royal Highness Commanding-in-Chief respecting the recent Wimbledon Review.

  PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [BILL 265.] [Lords.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  LORD ELCHOmoved the Amendment of which he had given notice—namely, that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of leaving out, in schedule A, the words ''beyond the minimum sum fixed by the Parochial and Burgh Schoolmasters (Scotland) Act (1861)." Before making any remarks on the Motion, he wished to congratulate the Lord Advocate on being so near the goal of his long labours in the cause of education, and on the prospect of a Bill for the improvement of education in Scotland becoming law during the present Session. The Bill was by no means a perfect Bill, and there was probably scarcely a Member in the House who was thoroughly satisfied with its provisions. It excluded the parochial schools entirely from its operation. It made no provision for religious teaching; and yet, by the enactment of a Conscience Clause, it implied the existence of religious teaching. Still, on the whole, he thought it was desirable that the Bill should pass. The opposition to it in this House had originated mainly on two grounds. In the first place, he regarded the incidence of taxation proposed in the Bill as unjust; and, in the second place, he entirely disapproved of the manner in which Government had attempted to force the Bill through the House. He still adhered to the opinions which he had expressed on these points, and he ventured to say that no Government, how-over strong, and no matter how many "thick and thin" supporters they had at their back, would again attempt to force a measure of this kind through the House in the same way. He wished to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the provisions in the Bill relative to the change in the heritors, with whom the management of the parochial schools rested. Under this Bill, the management, instead of being confined to the heritors who were valued at £100 Scots, would be given to all who were rated in the old Scots valuation, and would include, he believed, even feuars—although he was aware that his right hon. Friend would not admit that. The effect of the alteration would be very absurd in many cases. In Haddington the amount paid by the present eleven heritors would be reduced by the vast sum of 8s. Some of the new heritors would pay 2½d. each, yet these would have an equal share in the management. In Lismahago, heritors

  1495
  who paid 1d. each would have the same power as the Duke of Hamilton. This was really carrying the principle of taxation and representation to an absurd point. He had now come to the Amendment, the effect of which he would explain. Hitherto the £35, which was the minimum statutory salary of a parochial schoolmaster, had not been considered as entitling the parish heritors to any portion of the Privy Council grant. The 5th clause in the Bill, however, laid down the principle that all assessments raised in support of the new national schools should be treated as a voluntary contribution in allocating the Privy Council grant; and he therefore saw no reason why the £35 minimum salary to the parochial schoolmaster should be excepted. When he submitted this proposal in Committee, everybody spoke in favour of it but the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He hoped that the Government would consent to allow this Amendment on the Bill before it finally passed.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, in respect of an Amendment to Schedule (A),"—(Lord Elcho,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE,THE LORD ADVOCATE, in the first place, begged to thank his noble Friend for the manner in which he had spoken of the Bill, and for the observations which he had made in its favour. It was a great gratification to him, if he might be allowed to speak of himself, that after a great many years of labour and a great many years of difficulty they should at last have arrived close to the goal. Whether they were destined to reach it would be decided in a few hours; but he hoped they might entertain the hope that, whatever may be the materials of which this Bill was composed, it would in one shape or other be sufficiently solid and substantial to form a fabric for erecting again the fabric of Scottish education, and preserving for many generations the traditional reputation of Scotland. He wished, however, to take the opportunity of correct-
  1496
  ing a misunderstanding which had occurred in reference to what he said on a former occasion. He was represented to have said that even in Scotland the provisions of this Bill were not understood. He had never said so—he never meant to say so. What he did say was, that it would be very difficult to convey to the people of Scotland the proposals and the recommendations of the Government in reference to a measure which had been so completely altered in "another place;" and. what he meant to say was, that if the Bill had not been reprinted, it never would have been possible for the people to have understood what the proposals of the Government were. In illustration of that, he had said he found that, notwithstanding their having re-printed the Bill, there were in some quarters still difficulty in knowing what their proposals were. Everybody knew that had the Amendments of the Government only been placed on the Paper, and the Bill had not been reprinted, it would have been impossible for many of the people in Scotland to have become acquainted with the views of the Government. In regard to the proposition which his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had made, that the heritors' contribution of the minimum salary should stand in the Privy Council administration as a voluntary contribution—that matter had been considered by the Government, and he was glad to consider that that obstacle might be removed out of the way. Having considered the matter, the Government thought that the whole of the heritors' contributions should be reckoned in the sum which was to be received from the Privy Council. With that observation he could only trust that they might cherish the expectation that before many hours were past this Bill would become law.
  DR. BREWERwished to ask what amount of additional expense to the Consolidated Fund this concession to the heritors would occasion? He looked upon the question as affecting England as well as Scotland; and it was quite clear that before the question was done with the country would certainly have reason to complain of the enormous expense to which it would be put. No doubt education was a necessity; but the public were becoming rather tired of the great increase of local and imperial taxation.
  MR. ANDERSONwished to call attention to one or two inconsistencies which appeared to remain in the Bill— probably in consequence of the great haste with which the Government alterations had been made, and, in particular, of the large change in throwing the parochial schools out of the Bill. In Clause 23, for the maintenance and repair of the national schools, notwithstanding that the parochial schools were entirely thrown out of the Bill, the Board seemed still to retain the power of altering school houses, and the right of recovering from the heritors of the parish the expense of doing so. That appeared to him to be inconsistent with the fact of the parochial schools being out of the Bill. By Clause 37 the Board had also the power to dismiss parochial schoolmasters, not only for faults, but even for incapacity from old age. He did not mean to find fault with that power, because he thought it was a good power; but he wished to call attention to the inconsistency of not providing a retiring allowance for schoolmasters so dealt with. As the Bill at present stood, the school committee were absolutely prohibited from giving a retiring allowance, except in the case of national schools; and, if the parochial schoolmaster was dismissed from mere old age, there was no one to confer upon him a retiring allowance. He had not made these remarks with the view of impeding the progress of the Bill. He desired it to pass; because, although it was not a large and comprehensive measure, it was a very good Bill as far as it went. But he wished to point out the necessity of not considering this the final measure, but that it was a measure to which they must look forward to considerably extending in some future Session.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that in order to cure some of the defects referred to, he would propose that the Bill should be re-committed, in order that certain Amendments might be inserted in Clauses 13, 16, 21, 23, 28, and 65, and the Schedule.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, before the Bill was re-committed he wished to say a few words. The Lord Advocate had taken
  1498
  exception to some words which were used the other day on that side of the House. The hon. and learned Lord was under the impression that the words used were ''that Scotch education might wait, but that the House of Lords could not wait." But this was a misapprehension. Without venturing to express any opinion on the course that might be adopted by the other House, he would say that there was one thing which he thought the Government would find could not and would not wait, and that was the resolute determination of the rate-payers of this country no longer to submit to that grinding burden of local taxation which never seemed to decrease. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the other day commended to the hon. Members during the Recess the consideration of the subject of coinage. He (Mr. Lowther) would venture to suggest for the consideration of those who wished during the Recess to consider matters which would have to be brought before Parliament, the amount of opposition which would be offered to any scheme of education which would be likely to involve any addition to the present local burdens.
  MR. BRUCEaccepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman as notice that he would oppose any English Education Bill founded upon rating. He was hardly justified, however, in attacking the present Bill, for among all the representations from Scotland which had reached hon. Members on the subject, there were not any which had reference to the extension of rating.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He did not say he would oppose any Bill founded on rating; but he warned the Government that any addition to local burdens, until some adjustment had been made of local taxation, would meet with the most determined opposition.
  LORD ELCHOexpressed a hope that the Government would bear in mind, when they came to consider the question the incidence of taxation, that this was not a rich man's question, but much more a poor man's question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading discharged.
  Bill re-committed in respect of Clauses 13, 16, 21, 23, 28, 65, and the Schedule." — (The Lord Advocate.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with. Amendments; as amended, considered.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.
  MR. BRUCEexpressed his regret that he was not able to fulfil the undertaking he had entered into on Saturday to mention to the House the names of the members of the new Board. He was unable to do so for this reason—It would be easily understood that the matter was one of very great difficulty and considerable complexity, and the number being so limited it was necessary to take into consideration many circumstances, and a variety of interests which were involved. The Government had the matter under consideration for some time, but they had considerable doubt as to the manner in which the Board should be framed. It was found impossible to name the Commissioners to the House, there not having been sufficient time to select them and submit their names to Her Majesty. He was glad, however, for the satisfaction of the House, to state that in appointing the Secretary to the Board the Government had determined on appointing a layman.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

MERCHANT SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in rising to move that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Merchant Shipping and Navigation, said, that on an early day in the present Session his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave a pledge that before the close of it he would lay on the table of the House the long promised Merchant Shipping Bill. When the present Government came into Office they found that very little advance had been made with it; in the interval incessant work had been applied to it at the Board of Trade, and the result was that they were now able to redeem that pledge, and the Bill, the size of which, he feared,
  1500
  would alarm many Members, would shortly be in circulation. At the same time his right hon. Friend had thought that it would not be right to the great interests concerned that they should present such a Bill to the House without some explanation of the changes proposed in it; it would be waste of labour for anyone without some guide to travel through the 800 clauses of the Bill, and, by comparison with the existing law, to ascertain those changes; he had, therefore, permitted him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to make a statement with reference to them, which he promised should be as short as possible. Before doing so, however, he should wish to say a few words upon the present condition of our merchant shipping compared with what it was when last this great subject was before the House in 1854. In 1854 the registered tonnage of this country and her possessions was 5,155,000. It was now 7,232,000 tons, of which 5,700,000 belonged to the United Kingdom, showing an increase of 41 per cent. The real increase, however, had been even greater, for in 1854 the Register was in a very bad state, and was encumbered by a very large number of vessels which did not exist; great pains had since been taken to clear that Register of these non-existing vessels, and it now represented within a few thousand tons the actual number and tonnage of vessels. Another return of the vessels belonging to and actually employed in the United Kingdom showed the increase since 1854 to be over 50 per cent. He believed, therefore, he might take the increase of British shipping at 50 per cent. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade took occasion recently to state in public that he believed that at the present time the sea-going shipping under the British flag was equal, if not superior, to that of all the rest of the world. Exception was taken to this statement in the papers, but he believed it to have been substantially correct. The aggregate tonnage of all other countries as given in their most recent returns was 9,794,000 tons; but from this very great reductions had to be made in order to compare it with our own. The United States return included her river and lake tonnage, amounting to considerably over 2,000,000 tons. The registers of most of the Continental States included many thousands of fish-

  1501
  ing boats and small craft of all kinds down to canal boats. Making these and other deductions which seemed proper for the purpose of comparing with our own figures, he could not take the aggregate of sea-going foreign tonnage to be more than 7,150,000, against 7,230,000 of this country and her possessions. When they looked at the materials of which it was composed the difference was still greater. He did not hesitate to affirm that the tonnage of our sea-going steamers was more than double that of all other countries put together. These proportions were more favourable to us than at any previous period. While our tonnage had increased 50 per cent in the last fourteen years, the tonnage of France had remained nearly stationary, and had actually diminished the last ten years by 3 per cent. Dutch tonnage had decreased 13 per cent. The seagoing vessels of the United States had diminished 50 per cent in the last ten years. Much of this last was, doubtless, due to the destruction of their commerce during their great war; but it was also due in great part to the commercial policy since the war. A very large number of vessels were during the war transferred under simulated papers to our flag; but at the close of the war Congress passed an Act prohibiting the re-registration of these vessels as American, on the ground that having fled the flag during the time of danger, they were not entitled to share in its advantages in time of peace. They had also adopted a tariff which had almost put an end to their shipbuilding trade. He would take again the shipbuilding trade as a test of progress. The tonnage built in this country had increased from 196,000 tons in 1854 to 379,000 tons in 1868, a year of much depression, as compared with two or three previous years. During the same period the tonnage built in France had diminished from 94,000 tons to 81,000 tons; in Holland from 55,000 to 25,000. In the United States the building of sea-going vessels had almost been extinguished. In Norway alone was there any increase — namely, from 29,000 to 43,000. One further illustration he might give. In 1854, of an aggregate of 18,669,000 tons entering and clearing our ports for foreign trade, 10,744,000 tons were British, 7,924,000 under foreign flags—a proportion of 57 per cent British to 43
  1502
  per cent foreign. In 1868, out of 33,680,000 tons, 22,660,000 were British, and 11,020,000 foreign, showing an increase of 120 per cent for British against 37 per cent foreign, the new proportion being 67 per cent British to 33 per cent foreign. Having described the progress of shipping, he must say a few words of their crews. While the tonnage of the United Kingdom had increased 50 per cent, the number of seamen had increased since 1854 from 162,400 to 197,500, or 21 per cent. Of these 8 per cent were foreigners in 1854, and 12 per cent in 1868, showing an increased proportion of foreigners, although by no means an alarming one. The proportion of men to tonnage in our coasting trade had remained about the same; but in our sailing vessels employed in the foreign trade the proportion of men had fallen from 3·97 per 100 tons in 1854 to 2·90 in 1868, and for steamers from 7·69 to 5 men per 100 tons. Taking the whole force of merchant vessels there had been a reduction of one man for every 100 tons. In other words, if the same number of men were now required to man these vessels as in 1854 we should want 55,000 more sailors. This reduction had been due, in some respects, to the increased average size of our vessels; but it was also due to greater economy of all kinds in working them, to the use of machinery, and to the adoption of double topsails, patent block, steam windlass, and other means of economizing labour in our sailing vessels. As an illustration of this economy, he had been able to procure the actual number of men employed on twenty-two large sailing vessels at three different periods. In 1849, the crews of these vessels numbered 463, of whom 227 were able seamen. In 1859, their crews were 417, of whom 188 wore able seamen; and, in 1869, the crews of the same vessels, making very much the same voyages, were 348, of whom 153 were able seamen; showing a reduction of 25 per cent since 1849. Had this economy of labour tended to increased risk? He found it difficult to answer the question. Accurate information on the relative proportion of casualties was not to be had; till lately the wreck returns were badly kept. From the information, however, he had received from Lloyds, he believed it was safe to say that there had been a reduction in the premiums for insurance on

  1503
  the principal voyages of vessels engaged in the long sea trade; but it was also stated that much of this reduction was due to increased competition among underwriters. It would, however, be satisfactory if the ratio of losses remained the same; because that would shew that the economy effected in the number of the crew had not increased risks, and had not, therefore, been effected without reason. He had quoted these figures in no spirit of boasting, but with the view of showing how vast were the interests affected by the Bill he proposed. They showed how idle were the fears of those who dreaded the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and they were also, on the whole, testimony to the general well working of modern legislation affecting shipping. That legislation might be said to have commenced in 1850, when the late Lord Taunton, then Mr. Labouchere, first provided for the examination of masters and mates of foreign-going vessels, established shipping offices for the protection of seamen, and provided for inquiries into wrecks. The next great change was in 1853–4, when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, then at the Board of Trade, placed the Trinity House under the control of the Board of Trade, and threw open our coasting trade to foreign vessels, and, lastly, consolidated all previous legislation in the great Act of 1854, which had since been the groundwork of our shipping laws. In the course of this he provided for a complete revision of the ship registry, for a new system of measuring tonnage, and for a limitation of the liability of owners in cases of collision. Since that time not a year had passed without additions or amendments to that Act. In 1856 seamen's savings-banks and money orders were established. In 1862 Mr. Milner Gibson extended examinations to engineers, laid down rules as to lights, and provided summary proceedings in salvage cases. In 1864, the Anchors and Chain Cables Act was passed. In 1868, Admiralty jurisdiction was given to County Courts, and this year an important Act was passed with reference to colonial merchant shipping. In the same time shipping had been relieved from a variety of local charges, passing dues and charitable charges; exemptions in favour of particular vessels and differential dues against foreign vessels had been disposed of. He had men-
  1504
  tioned but a few of the changes, but, in fact, seventeen or eighteen Acts had been passed since 1854 regulating the business of shipowners, and interlacing one with the other in such a manner that on a subject in which, above all others, it was important there should be clearness and certainty, so that he who sailed might read, there was so much complexity and uncertainty that only experts could say what was the law. Consolidation, in fact, was almost as much needed now as it was in 1854, and although there was not so much field for improvement, there was still much to be done in detail. It was proposed, then, in the Bill which he should ask leave to introduce, to consolidate all these Acts, and include one great branch which was omitted in 1854 — namely, the Acts relating to harbours and the protection of navigation, the working of which had since been placed under the Board of Trade, and to take this opportunity of introducing a number of Amendments which the experience of the last few years had shown to be desirable. In doing this they had the advantage of the aid of Mr. Farrer, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, who assisted in the preparation of the Act of 1854, and all subsequent Acts, and who had been concerned in their good administration. In describing the proposed changes, he thought it would be most convenient to the House that he should advert to them in the order in which they appeared in the Bill. He should be able to do little more than indicate them, without going at length into the reasons which had induced them to adopt them. The first item related to the registry and measurement of ships. It was proposed in future to make more stringent rules against the change of the name of a ship. A clause in the Act of 1854 was aimed at this, but as it only affected British ships, and did not prevent the registration of foreign ships under any name coming into the hands of British owners, advantage was taken of this and vessels had not unfrequently been sold under simulated bills of sale to foreigners, and resold for registration under new names, and thus vessels had been able to get rid of a character and underwriters and the public had been taken in. This would be prohibited in the future. It was also proposed to give greater facilities for the

  1505
  registration of ships in foreign ports. A fine would be substituted for confiscation in the case of vessels improperly sailing under the British flag. With respect to the measurement of tonnage, on which the important question of port dues and other charges depended, there was no intention to alter the system under which the gross tonnage of vessels was ascertained by measuring their actual cubical contents. It had given great satisfaction, and had been adopted by nearly all other countries. The deductions, however, allowed to steamers in respect of their engine rooms and coal bunkers had been calculated on a system of percentages, which had given rise to inequalities, and vessels were sometimes built to avail themselves of the greatest amount of deduction. He believed that in some few cases steamers had been proved to be of a minus quantity of tonnage. It was proposed therefore to measure these deductions in the future on the same principle by which the gross tonnage was ascertained. Another point dealt with under this head arose out of the question of deck cargoes. Complaints had been made, and particularly in the Baltic trade, that vessels had been overloaded with deck cargoes; and the Board of Trade had been pressed from time to time to prohibit the carrying of deck cargoes. They had, however, objected to this on the ground that for certain trades and for certain seasons it was not unreasonable or improper to carry deck cargoes, and that to prohibit them altogether would unnecessarily interfere with trade; but it had seemed to them that if such cargoes were carried, port and other dues ought to be paid in respect of it, and, accordingly, they had provided that vessels might be registered to carry deck cargo, a proportionate tonnage being added for that purpose; but if when not so registered they carried deck cargo, they would have to pay double tonnage dues. The next part of the Bill had relation to masters and seamen. It was proposed that in future the examiners of masters and other officers should be placed directly under the Board of Trade, instead of as now under the Local Marine Boards; it was believed that greater uniformity or a higher average standard of qualification would be maintained by the adoption of this course. Already great good had resulted from these examinations, but
  1506
  there was room for improvement among the masters of the smaller class of foreign-going vessels. As to seamen, coasters were to be exempted altogether in future from the obligation to have written agreements. Foreign-going ships were to be allowed to have running agreements, so that they did not extend over more than a year. And during that time they might engage men and discharge men at any port at homo or abroad on complying with the other provisions of the Act. Another change had in view the protection of seamen from crimps. He found that one of the greatest evils the seamen suffered from was that, on the termination of the voyage at our great seaports, they were generally discharged or left their ship immediately on arrival, but they were seldom paid their wages till four or five days afterwards. In the meantime they had to hang about the port without money. They fell into the hands of the crimps and other bad characters who haunted the purlieus of the docks, who advanced them money and tempted them into debauchery. The seamen often did not get out of the hands of these persons till they had lost everything, and had pledged their future wages by advance notes, going on board again ill-clothed and often suffering from disease and the effects of drink. He believed that few things would do more good than some provision which would enable the seamen at once to proceed to their homes after arrival in dock. It was provided in the Act of 1854 that the seamen should be paid one-fourth of the wages due to them on discharge from the vessel. This, however, was rarely carried out. It was proposed that the discharge at the shipping office should be not later than one day after the arrival of the vessel or the termination of the agreement, or, if not, that the wages should run on until such discharge. This would give a great inducements to owners to pay the men at once. Facilities would, at the same time, be given to seamen to authorize the shipping officers to receive and remit their wages for them, so that they might leave the neighbourhood on arrival. Other minor provisions were directed against the crimps, with whom the Board of Trade had waged a constant warfare. The next point he had to deal with was that of distressed seamen abroad. The House would recollect that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr.

  1507
  Graves), a few nights since, raised a question on this point on the Vote for distressed seamen, on the ground that the Vote was yearly increasing; he complained also on behalf of the owners of steam vessels who were compelled to bring home these distressed seamen at considerable expense. The question was one of considerable difficulty. A large proportion of the seamen relieved and sent home in this way were the crews of vessels wrecked abroad, in respect of whom no one could raise a complaint. Others were colonial seamen, for whom they thought the colonies in future should pay; but others were men who had been discharged from their ships, or had deserted in foreign ports, and who had afterwards been found destitute and unable to find a berth in a ship. The obligation to return these men to their homes was one which they owed to the country in which they were found. It was like the case of the removal of paupers to the parish bound to support them, and the question was at whose expense ought this to be carried out. In old times any voyage was presumed to be out and home, and no voyages were terminated in a foreign port. Now, however, it was different; voyages were often seeking voyages; many vessels were sent out for sale. The Bill they proposed would give facilities for the engagement and discharge of men in any part of the world. But they still thought, on the whole, that the principle of the Act of 1854 should not be departed from, and that the ship taking men out to a foreign port and there discharging them should be liable to the expense of bringing them home again if they were unable to find other employment, or if they were destitute there. The clauses of the Act, however, were ambiguous, and they only applied to foreign ports, and not to colonial ports. It was proposed to simplify them, to extend them to colonial ports, and to provide that no seaman should be left abroad without a discharge from some functionary, with whom the wages or a sum sufficient to bring the man home should be deposited. As between the Government and the shipowner, the ship was to be liable for expenses incurred on behalf of the man, except in cases of proved desertion. As between the seaman and the ship, the ship was only to be liable when the man was discharged
  1508
  without fault on his part, but not otherwise. Another change to be noted here was one due to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty. Under the present law any seaman might leave his ship for the purpose of entering the Royal Navy, and for that purpose might demand his clothes and wages without regard to the convenience of the owner or master of the ship he left. This privilege had at times been abused, and had caused great complaints from shipowners. Though the practice had been much less frequent of late years, the practice of hanging out the red shirt in presence of a ship of war was still occasionally resorted to. But his right hon. Friend had consented to forego this privilege of the Navy except in time of war. The next part of the Act had relation to safety and provision against accidents at sea. The present law contained numerous minute regulations as to the number of boats, the use of lifebelts, the safety valves of engines, compasses, and other such like matters. It was proposed to simplify these and to leave it to the Board of Trade to decide what in the case of passenger ships should be the actual requirements. A provision would be inserted empowering the master to throw overboard dangerous goods if they had been sent on board without his consent. At present the master might refuse to receive such goods, but once on board he was bound to carry them. Another change had reference to the inquiries into wrecks and the misconduct of officers. It would be admitted by everyone that there was no more legitimate and proper function of Government than to inquire into these cases of loss. He believed they had done much good in bringing home responsibility to owners and masters. As at present constituted, the courts of inquiry combined two functions—-the one to inquire into the cause of the loss of the vessel, the other to determine the innocence or neglect of the master and officers; and, as the latter was followed, by most serious consequences — namely, the loss of their certificates and ruin in their profession —the inquiries were too apt to be eon-ducted as if they were penal proceedings against the officers, instead of being inquests before which everything should be brought out bearing upon the loss of the vessel. It was proposed, therefore,

  1509
  in the new Bill to separate these two inquiries, and to hold an inquiry or inquest on the loss of the vessel, on which there should be a general report of the Board of Trade; and, if there were sufficient cause, to hold a separate inquiry into the conduct of the officers. A complaint was made that in such cases the Board of Trade were at once prosecutors and judges, appointing the assessors; it was proposed that in future the assessors should be appointed by the Admiralty Court. With respect to wrecks which happened on our coasts, they had carefully revised the Bill with a view of strengthening the law against the robberies which too often occurred. He need hardly remind the House of the scandalous cases which had been reported to it within the last three or four years arising out of the wrecks of the North, the Kit Karson and the Olivia. These and some other cases which had occurred to foreign vessels had given us a very bad reputation abroad, and no efforts should be spared to prevent a recurrence of them. They proposed that where wrecks had occurred, and property was found in possession of persons in the neighbourhood presumedly taken from them, the onus should be thrown upon, the holders of showing that they came honestly by it. He trusted that, with some other amendments, and with a more careful administration of existing laws, which the Board of Trade had lately arranged, they would be able to put a check upon these scandalous cases. He might here mention another change clue to his right hon. Friend at the Admiralty with reference to naval salvage. At present salvage in respect of merchant vessels might be claimed by officers and men in the Royal Navy, and proceedings might be taken by them against the ship in any Admiralty Court. Before final adjudication, however, the consent of the Admiralty must be given. His right hon. Friend proposed that in future such claims should only be made by the Admiralty itself; and the owner would be relieved from having his vessel taken into port and detained by the local Admiralty Court pending proceedings. The number of claims of this kind was already very small, and it was believed that this proposal would further reduce them, and prevent any claim being set up except in cases where there was substantial cause for some recompense for
  1510
  services rendered. He now came to the last subject which he had to mention— the vexed question of pilotage. There were, no doubt, very strong arguments against the compulsory pilotage. It was alleged, with truth, he believed, that where pilotage was not compulsory, pilots were as numerous and as experienced. On the other hand, there was a very strong desire to maintain it in some parts of the country with a view to insure the supply of competent men. The Government thought that even if it were desirable to put an end to compulsion it would not be well to raise the question on a Consolidation Bill. There were, however, anomalies in the existing law which the Government thought ought to be amended. Great injustice and absurdity had arisen from the law which exempted a ship from liability for damage when in charge of a compulsory pilot. The chief question in many, if not most, recent cases had been not which ship was to blame, but was either of the ships in charge of a compulsory pilot. The consequent refinements, absurdities, and injustice was very remarkable. To meet this it was proposed that where ships were not otherwise exempted from compulsory pilotage they should pay for a pilot, but should not be bound to employ him or to be placed under his charge. The money would be paid, where a pilot offered and was not employed, to the pilotage authorities, to be devoted to the pilot fund, as they might determine. The Government proposed, also, that the exemptions from pilotage which now existed in the Thames and the outports should be extended to other pilotage districts; and further that the recovery of pilotage rates should be by civil process, and not, as at present, by criminal proceedings. They proposed also to give the Trinity House power to license pilots for the seas surrounding Great Britain outside the present pilotage districts, but not in any way to make their employment compulsory. It was also intended to take more stringent powers to compel local authorities to keep their lights in a satisfactory condition, and, if they failed in doing so, to enable the general lighthouse authorities to take them in hand. Power would be given to the Board of Trade to prevent injury to navigation by throwing ballast into navigable waters or by taking shingle from

  1511
  the shores. Power also would be given to local authorities to remove wrecks which were an obstruction to navigation, and to charge the expense on the property. The Government also proposed to give the Board of Trade power to prepare provisional orders dealing with those cases of local charges upon shipping or passing dues which still existed, and which only survived because of the expense of applying for local Acts. He had now gone through the details on which the Government proposed changes. There were numerous other amendments, having for their object greater simplicity or more perfect remedies, which it was unnecessary to notice. The House would perceive that the tendency of the amendments proposed was not in the direction of more minute regulations or further inspection. The experience of the Board of Trade was not favourable to such legislation. It tended to shift the responsibility from the shipbuilder or shipowner to some inspecting officer, and in some cases had certainly retarded, improvements. The Bill he asked leave to introduce had been prepared by the Board of Trade out of the materials and experience at its hand; but he by no means wished to exclude the possibility of further amendments. The object of presenting it at this period of the Session was to give full time to those who were interested in this great subject to examine it during the Recess, and the Government would gladly receive from them their criticism and suggestions. He hoped they would recollect, however, that it was the duty of the Board of Trade, in considering these suggestions, to hold the balance between the various conflicting interests, and to regard them from the point of view of the public interest. In conclusion, he could not express a better hope than that the Bill, when it passed into law, might be succeeded by a period in which the extension of British shipping would be as great in proportion as in the period which had preceded it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he desired to express his satisfaction with the general purposes of the Board of Trade in the introduction of this measure, it being manifestly for the advantage of shipping that the law affecting so large a section of the trading community should be em-
  1512
  braced within the four corners of one statute, instead of being spread over numberless Acts of Parliament. The Act of 1854 did much in the way of consolidation; but since then one or two Acts had been passed every year, so that at the present moment the Mercantile Marine was under seventeen or eighteen different Acts of Parliament. It was better for a Department to wait its opportunity and delay legislation for two or even for five years than to pass immature legislation in an inconvenient form. The great consolidating Poor Law Act passed in 1834; but it still left on the statute book 100 Acts affecting the administration of poor relief. Since 1834, at least three Acts a year had been passed affecting this subject, directly or indirectly, so that there were about 200 statutes governing and constituting the Poor Law system. The result was that there was no single man in the country—neither the President, the Secretary, nor any of the able officials of that Department—who was able to speak with confidence as to his knowledge of the whole of the Poor Law. He regretted very much to hear the statement of his hon. Friend as to compulsory pilotage being retained. No system would be permanent and final which did not establish perfect free trade in pilotage. His hon. Friend was perfectly aware of the pinch that was felt as the law now stood. A ship, value £50,000, navigating the same waters as a ship value £1,000, or value £50, might be free to take a pilot or not, as she thought proper, while the ship of smaller value was bound to take and to pay for a pilot. What his hon. Friend proposed to do would not much improve matters. Was it to be seriously propounded to the House of Commons at this time of day that the trade of this country was to be compelled to pay for services which it did not require and would not accept? No trade should be subjected by Act of Parliament to anything so unfair; and he hoped, therefore, that this provision would disappear from the Bill next year. There was another matter also which he thought very objectionable, and that was that the Board of Trade should supersede the local management of harbour lights; because it was proposed that when the Board of Trade were not satisfied with the way in which the lights were kept, they might make provisions of their own

  1513
  for their maintenance. In his opinion, the tendency of legislation should be in an entirely opposite direction. He hoped his hon. Friend would put all the legislation that would be operative for the government of our shipping trade into the statute, and not make the Board of Trade a legislative Department. The House of Commons ought not to delegate any of its authority to an executive body. There was very much legislation at present in the hands of the Board of Trade, and it would be a great advantage to the public at large if it were denuded of that power. Another thing which he hoped would be aimed at was to minimize legislation. Let them not intrude by legislation whore it was possible to avoid such intrusion. The more that was left to the free action of man and man, and to open bargain in the open market, the better for all parties. As to the measuring of steamers, the greatest absurdities prevailed at present. The mode of allowing for engine space and other things was such that in some cases the deductions had amounted to more than the whole gross tonnage of the ships themselves, which, therefore, were not charged tonnage rates at all. While he was not prepared to support the prohibition of deck cargoes altogether, he agreed in the necessity of discouraging them as much as possible.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the question of deck loads and the stowage of cargo deserved the attention of the Board of Trade. The latter subject had been investigated with great care and advantage by the Institution of Naval Architects, and if the Board of Trade should put itself into communication with that body they would receive some exceedingly valuable information. It was well known that from carelessness or a desire to carry large cargoes, great weights were often put at the extremities or in other parts of the ship where it could not be safely carried, the consequence of which was that the ships became strained and; unmanageable, and frequent losses occurred. It should be made legally binding that in each section of the ship only a given maximum weight should be carried, a matter also of great interest to underwriters and insurance offices. With respect to the payment of merchant seamen's wages, he was not quite sure what course was indicated by his hon. Friend; but it had been found in the Navy that
  1514
  great advantage both to discipline and morality had arisen from the fact that payment was made through the Post Office at the place to which the man be longed, so that his family got the benefit of his wages rather than crimps and such persons. If some such measure were adopted by the Board of Trade in the case of the merchant seamen, the greatest benefit would be found to result. With reference to the total abrogation of the powers of naval officers to avail themselves of the services of men volunteering from the merchant service, he did not think it would be advantageous. War vessels on foreign stations often lost numbers of men through the bad climate. To deprive a merchant ship entirely of the means of navigation would be unfair; but in many parts of the world Lascars, Malays, and Chinese and other foreigners might be found who would be able to do all that was necessary for the safe navigation of the merchantman. As our Navy was sent to different parts of the world for the purpose of protecting our trade, he hoped his hon. Friend would not make imperative the total abrogation of the powers of naval officers to accept the services of volunteers from the merchant service. Notwithstanding that some hardships had occasionally arisen in consequence of salvage being claimed by the officers and crews of Her Majesty's ships, he thought the power should be left to the Admiralty to decide whether any and what compensation should be awarded to Her Majesty's seamen for services rendered to vessels in distress. He was glad to hear that compulsory pilotage was not to be abolished; but he could not agree with the Board of Trade upon the subject of the rule of the road at sea, and he could only hope that the number of accidents that would occur during the ensuing autumn, in consequence of Regulation No. 14, might not be such as to open the eyes of the hon. Member to the danger of the present system.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he differed from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) with respect to compulsory pilotage, but the law on, that subject was in considerable confusion. Compulsory pilotage was derived from the laws of Oleron, and was first established in this country by Richard I., in 1195, with the view of keeping our

  1515
  home navigation secret from foreigners. The chief argument in its favour in these days was that it secured an efficient staff of pilots; and he thought that a shipowner should not be at liberty, from a false notion of economy, to refuse to avail himself of the services of skilled navigators. At the same time, the owner's responsibility in the case of his ship running down another ought not to be superseded by the pilot, and he entirely concurred in the provisions of the Bill upon this point.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped that next Session a continuous Return would be published showing the proportion of wrecks to voyages during the last three or four years, that they might see whether their lodging the management of shipping to so large an extent in the hands of the Government had resulted in more or fewer wrecks.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, they had never had compulsory pilotage on the North-eastern coast, yet they had never experienced any want of properly qualified pilots. He regretted that the measure did not propose to go to the root of the evil at once, and abolish compulsory pilotage altogether. He also thought that light dues should be put an end to. At all events, he hoped the extraordinary anomalies in the mode of charging them would be remedied. He was glad to understand that an inquiry would be instituted by the Government into the cause of every wreck that occurred— whether culpability on the part of the master or mate was or was not alleged.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had been asked a question by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay), who had left the House, with respect to the power of merchant seamen to volunteer into the Navy in spite of their engagements. It was not intended wholly to repeal that power, but only to abandon its exercise in time of peace. The effect of the Bill would be that during such times and for such places as Her Majesty, by proclamation, might appoint, this power, in circumstances of urgency, might be enforced. With regard to compulsory pilotage the Government had arrived at no decision. The Bill did not alter the law on that subject; but it was the intention of the Board of Trade to consider the subject during the Recess, and it would depend upon the result of that inquiry whether they would abolish it or not.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he was strongly of opinion that if shipowners were to be compelled to pay for pilotage, pilots should be made responsible for damage done to ships when under their charge. There were many anomalies in our pilotage system. It should either be done away with altogether, or the scale of charges should be so arranged as to make them less burdensome to the London shipowners. He objected to the examination of masters and mates by the Board of Trade, considering that the local Marine Boards had done their work well, and better than it could have been done by the Board of Trade.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he thought that the action of the Board of Trade in this subject entitled it to the thanks of the shipping interest. There would be no harm in preventing vessels from going to sea until they had undergone some kind of inspection, as a means of protecting the lives of the seamen. It was worthy of consideration whether there should not be some limit to the number of foreign seamen on board. There should be uniformity in the various ports, both as to the charges and the number of times the vessels were to be charged port dues, according to the number of voyages.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, he thought it a serious objection to the Bill that it consisted of 800 clauses. If the suggestions now made were adopted it might easily be extended to 1,000 clauses. It was already about six times as long as the Bankruptcy Bill, which was the longest measure of the Session. Many of the clauses might be made rules of court, in which case they might be struck out, and the Board of Trade left to make the necessary regulations.
  MR. BENTALLsaid, he hoped that the Board of Trade would give some consideration to the present practice of charging the whole of the light dues upon a ship whether she possessed a full cargo or not—a practice which was a great hindrance to trade. He lived in a port in the South of England, to which coals were brought, and the merchants there were constantly requiring to send back small quantities of cargo; but they could only send them upon the condition of being subject to very heavy dues, which was a great grievance.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVEEsaid, the question of local dues would be considered and re-adjusted. He wished to explain that there was no imputation cast upon the local Marine Boards; but it was desired to have greater uniformity in the examination. The statistics alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) should be laid upon the table of the House at the commencement of next Session, together with a great quantity of other statistical matter. He thanked the House for the manner in which the Bill had been received.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Merchant Shipping and Navigation.
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 267.]

COAL MINE ACCIDENTS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD ELCHO,LORD ELCHO, in rising to call attention to a Memorial signed on behalf of 30,000 Miners, praying for a special inquiry into the recent accidents in Coal Mines that have resulted in great loss of life, and to move for Papers on the subject, said, the public journals continually furnished their readers with the accounts of accidents in mines, which were attended with great loss of life. On one occasion 350 men were suddenly hurried into eternity, and in July and June last two explosions were attended with the death of something like sixty men on each occasion. Knowing that the men engaged in these mines attributed the constant recurrence of these accidents to the absence of proper inspection, he had some short time since asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would not, even at that late period of the Session, introduce a measure which would have the effect of making the working in mines more safe than it now was, and whether he would not in any case exercise the powers vested in him to order the inspection of such mines. In supposing that the minds of these men would be greatly excited by these accidents he was not wrong, because a meet-
  1518
  ing was hold only the other day at Manchester, which was attended by 120 delegates, representing a body of 30,000 men in Lancashire. He had had the honour of presenting to the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Memorial signed by these 120 delegates, and they had likewise signed a Petition which he had that day presented to that House. In that Petition they urged that they were very much alarmed at the frequent occurrence of accidents, which they believed might be guarded against; they were not satisfied with having inquiries before coroners' juries, and they prayed that that House would present an Address to Her Majesty praying for the institution of a sufficient inquiry by scientific men into these explosions. He should be very glad if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would accede to this request. He believed that these accidents might be frequently prevented by proper precautions. At all events, they might he believed, be more guarded against; because a Committee of that House, which sat for two Sessions on the question, had reported in favour of the amendment of the existing acts on mines, and the Home Secretary had brought in a Bill to render the working of these mines more secure than. it was at present. The very fact of a Bill having been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman appeared to admit that the position taken up by these men was a sound one. He did not know to what extent inspection existed in Saxony; but he observed that a lamentable explosion had taken place there by which 420 persons had been hurried into eternity; and the correspondent of The Times stated that the grossest possible carelessness prevailed there as to uncovered lights; the men, too, being allowed to go about smoking. It was not, therefore, surprising that there should be such a holocaust of victims to such reprehensible carelessness. He regretted that pressure of business had prevented the right hon. Gentleman from persevering with his Bill, because he thought it might have been passed without difficulty. No doubt there were a great many Amendments put down in reference to that Bill; but there had been. two meetings, one at his own house and another in a committee room, which had been attended by mine owners and

  1519
  the representatives of miners, and also by some of the most influential men in that House, and after what had occurred at those meetings he thought that portion of the Bill which related to the measures to be taken for the security of life and prevention of accidents might have been got through without difficulty. He regretted that his right hon. Friend did not try to press the measure through the House. But that Bill having been brought in, containing such clauses, was some justification for these men feeling so strongly as they did that their interests had not been sufficiently looked after—a measure of that importance not being pressed earnestly on the consideration of Parliament. Those men believed that until a more searching inquiry was made into the accidents that occurred they would not get at the root of the evil, and he should be very glad if his right hon. Friend would do what they wanted, which was to cause special scientific inquiry to be made into this matter. They thought a mine might be made so secure that even with an uncovered light in the working part of it there would be no risk of explosion. The way in which mines were inspected was not such as to give the security required. The view taken by his right hon. Friend was that they could not have personal, actual, ocular inspection of all mines in the United Kingdom— they could only appoint a certain number of Inspectors, who, if they had reason to believe there was anything wrong, or if an accident occurred in their district, should go and inquire into it and report what had passed. The memorialists held that this was practically no inspection at all. If they looked to other countries inspection there meant actual inspection. If this question arose in America thorough and complete inspection would be given. There were no inflammatory gases in the American mines, but there was a great deal of timbering. They had actual inspection in America, and the way it was accomplished was this— once every year every mine had to be inspected to see that there was a proper supply of timbering to the shafts, &c, and the owner of the mine paid so much—10 cents, he believed—upon every yard inspected during the year. It had been said on behalf of the Government that the inspection of mines should be like that of railways, and
  1520
  that those inspections were only had after some accident or complaint; but there was no analogy between railways and mines. A railway was perfectly made, and there it was; but mines were being continually made. No doubt it would be necessary greatly to increase the number of Inspectors if they had actual inspection, but he understood that one of the Inspectors had admitted that there ought to be more Inspectors. [Mr. BRUCE: No!] He knew his right hon. Friend would say it would take away responsibility from the mine owner if they had more inspection; but he thought there should be sub-Inspectors reporting to the Chief inspectors, which would not interfere with the working of the mine. He hoped his right hon. Friend would take this matter into his serious consideration, with a view to legislation, and that in the meantime he would not turn a deaf ear to the Petition of these miners, praying for a scientific inquiry into these accidents, for he must say, of all working men these were the most hardworking and industrious, on whom, to a great extent, depended the material wealth and the prosperity of the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Memorial presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, praying for special inquiry into the recent Accidents in Coal Mines."—{Lord Elcho.)
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he was certainly not prepared by the Notice which the noble Lord had given for a discussion on the general subject of mine inspection; nor did he think the present a fitting opportunity for it. His noble Friend requested that he should accede to the Memorial of a large number of miners in Lancashire and send down a member of scientific men to inquire into the cause of two recent accidents. He told his noble Friend some time ago that if any application were made from the locality he would take care that the inquiry should be duly attended by scientific men on the part of the Government. The Inspector of the district attended the inquiry as a matter of course; but he applied for assistance, and, in consequence, one of the ablest of the Inspectors, Mr. Dickenson, was sent

  1521
  down to assist, and he believed every step had been taken that could serve to trace the cause of this most deplorable calamity. Since he had received the Memorial he had communicated with these two Inspectors, and asked them whether, in their opinion, any further scientific investigation was necessary in order to arrive at the cause of this accident? If the causes of such accidents could not be discovered by the Inspectors at the inquests which wore held, it would be quite proper that a scientific inquiry should be made. The two main causes of accidents were defective ventilation and the negligence of the agents and the workmen themselves. Defective ventilation could, no doubt, be removed by stringent legislation; but many accidents were owing to the neglect of the agents and of the men themselves, and this was, of course, beyond the control of Parliament. Had he been able to pass the Mines Regulation Bill through Parliament during the present Session, he would gladly have done so. Notice of important Amendments extending over twelve pages of the Notice Paper, had been given, and he thought his noble Friend did not properly estimate the length and gravity of the discussions which would have arisen on the measure if it had been proceeded with. It was a Consolidation Bill, and, consequently, would have opened up de novo a great many old as well as new questions. With respect to the number of Inspectors, his noble Friend had quoted the original Act of 1820 for the inspection of mines, and had argued from that Act that the Legislature intended there should be a complete and continuous inspection of mines. He thought, however, that the intention of that Act was clearly shown by the action of the Government immediately after it became law, when only six Inspectors were appointed for the whole country. If it had. been intended that there should be a personal inspection of all the mines in Great Britain it would have been absurd to appoint so small a number of Inspectors as six. In his opinion, efficient ventilation and efficient precautions against accident could only be obtained by the active cooperation of the masters, agents, and workmen. Some of the worst accidents had happened from causes which had only been in operation a few days, against which, therefore, mere occasional
  1522
  inspection would have given no security. That at the Oaks Colliery arose from the accumulation of gas for a week. If his noble Friend would refer to the Reports of last year, he would find in the Report of one of the Inspectors an account by Mr. Dalgleish of the system pursued in the North of England. There the workmen formed themselves into a kind of committee for the purpose of daily inspecting every part of the collieries. The masters listened to and acted upon any suggestions they might make, and the result was a system of inspection incomparably superior to any other which could be devised or effected by Government. It was natural that the workmen, whose lives were constantly threatened, should look to the Government for protection from dangers, and, within proper limits, the Government ought to grant them that protection; but at the same time the workmen ought themselves to co-operate. Their occupation was attended by peculiar dangers, from which no Government could wholly exempt them. By the co-operation of the men those dangers might be much lessened; but, in the absence of such co-operation, he altogether despaired of seeing a reduction in the number of lives lost in consequence of accidents in mines. The Government ought to have in every locality a certain number of competent men to receive complaints, to examine mines which they had reason to believe to be in a dangerous condition, to listen to and to act upon every warning and rumour of danger; but it was no part of their duty to examine personally into the state of every colliery. He should only be deceiving the House and the colliers themselves if he held out on the part of the Government any promise of a largely extended system of inspection. That in other respects, however, fresh legislation might be advantageous he did not deny; and he hoped that early next Session the House would have an opportunity of re-considering the Mines Regulation Bill, amended as it would be in consequence of the suggestions he had received from the noble Lord and from other quarters, and that everything which legislation could effect would be done to promote the security of collieries.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  COMPULSORY CHURCH BATES ABOLITION (SCOTLAKD) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'LAREN, Bill for the abolition of Compulsory Church Rates in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAEEN and Mr. CRAUFURD.
  Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 266.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock.