Commons Sitting of 4 March 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Contagious Diseases (Animals), Mr. Norwood discharged, Mr. Clay added; Coal, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Locomotives on Roads* [88]; Children's Protection* [89].
Committee—Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2) [24], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Custody of Infants* [67]; Cove Chapel, Tiverton, Marriages Legalization* [86].

BETHNAL GREEN MUSEUM—THE TURNER DRAWINGS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. CHARLES REEDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the portion of the Turner Collection of Drawings, now about to be withdrawn from Birmingham, may be exhibited in the Bethnal Green Museum, after the removal of the Wallace Collection?
MR. BAXTER: My hon. Friend is not perhaps aware that the collection of Turner Drawings now at Birmingham, which he wishes to be sent to Bethnal Green Museum, consists of only 58 small sketches, and would not cover the side of an ordinary sitting-room. There would, however, be no objection to the exhibition at Bethnal Green of these sketches, provided that the same precautions are taken there for their safe custody as have been required at other places.
MR. CHARLES REEDasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the arrangements directed to be made in December, 1870, for the establishment "of a School of Science and Art and a Library, in connection with the East London Museum on Bethnal Green," are completed; and, if not, what steps have been taken in this direction?
MR. W.E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that the hon. Member for Hackney used rather too strong a term when he said that arrangements had been directed to be made in 1870 for the establishment of a School of Science and Art and a Library in connection with the East London Museum on Bethnal Green. Chiefly on account of the large collection of pictures which, through the liberality of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Richard
1284
Wallace), had been placed in the Bethnal Green Museum, it was impossible at present to find room for a School of Science and Art in the institution. As regarded the Library, however, if the Government saw reason to believe that one would be of use in that locality, they would be happy to form one there from the collection of books at South Kensington.

POLICE SUPERANNUATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN OGILVYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he proposes to introduce a measure this Session for providing superannuation allowances for the police forces throughout the kingdom?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, he was bound to admit that the state of the superannuation allowance to the police force in England, and still more in Scotland, was by no means satisfactory, and he much wished that he could have dealt with the subject during the present Session. The hon. Baronet would, however, see that, considering the position of the question of local taxation of which a large part went to the maintenance of the police force, there was but little chance of carrying a measure dealing with this matter on its own merits. Under those circumstances, he could hold out no hope at present of the introduction of a measure such as that indicated by the hon. Baronet for England and Scotland. With regard to the metropolis, however, the question was different, and he had now a plan under consideration which he hoped he should be able to bring into use before long.

  POST OFFICE—THE ANGLO-ITALIAN MAILS.—QUESTION.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been directed to the delay attending the transmission of the Anglo-Italian Mails by the present route via Belgium and Germany, and to complaints that the minimum charge for a letter is sixpence, while the transit occupies a period varying from four to ten days; and, whether he can state what would be the cost and the time necessary for the transmission of letters from England to Italy if the direct route through France were to be resumed?
  MR. MONSELL,in reply, said, he was sorry to be obliged to admit that the postal communication between this country and Italy was in a most unsatisfactory state. The present through rates for the conveyance of the Italian mails through France under the Convention were very high, and there was but one train daily from Paris to Italy. Her Majesty's Government, however, were negotiating with the French Government with the view of altering the transit rates, and securing an additional mail, and he hoped that before long some more satisfactory arrangement would be come to. At the present moment he was unable to say when such new arrangement would be made; but he had reason to believe that before very long the charge for the conveyance of a letter from England to Italy would be reduced to about 3d.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—THANKSGIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL—QUESTION.
  MR. BOWRINGasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is true that, on the representation of the Ratepayers of the Metropolis or for other reasons, the Official Auditor has just disallowed a sum of between £3,000 and £4,000 expended by the Board in erecting sheds for the accommodation of the Metropolitan Vestries and their friends on the occasion of the National Thanksgiving last year for the recovery of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales; and, whether the whole or any portion of that sum has already been actually paid by the Board; and, if so, what course they intend to adopt in consequence of such disallowance?
  COLONEL HOGG: In answer, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to reply that on the occasion of Her Majesty proceeding in State to St. Paul's to return thanks for the recovery of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the municipal authorities deemed it their duty to show their respect and loyalty, in accordance with usage in London and all other large towns. The expenses incurred by the Metropolitan Board for the erection of seats amounted to £3,579 17 s. 6d., and were for the purpose of enabling the local representatives of the whole of the metropolis to
  1286
  testify their loyalty by participating in the general rejoicing. The auditor has thought fit to disallow the sum in question, not, however, as far as I know, on the representation of the ratepayers of the metropolis, but of a small number of objectors, who were represented at the audit by about eight ratepayers. I may add that the money has been paid, and that I am not aware what course may be adopted by the Board.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THE COAL TRADE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. J. B. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the London and North Western or any other Railway Company can legally refuse to carry coals for any other persons than coaldealers, designated by the Railway Company as "registered traders?"
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied that he could hardly give an authoritative answer to the Question of the hon. Member. As far as his own belief, however, went, he thought that if the railway company carried coals for one class of people they must also convey them for other classes. They could not refuse to convey for those who were not coal dealers. It did not, however, follow that all coals must be carried under all circumstances at the same rate, seeing that much depended upon the peculiar circumstances of each case, such as the largeness of the quantity sent, and the regularity of the delivery on the part of the customer. He had no official means of knowing more on the subject.
  MR. EYKYNasked, Whether any restriction has been laid on the conveyance of coals between Rugby and London?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: I know nothing whatever about it. I have no official means of knowing anything about that matter.

  ARMY—THE EASTER VOLUNTEER REVIEW.—QUESTION.
  MR. HENRY SAMUELSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the hitherto annual Easter Review of Volunteers has not proved to be of great use to the Force, as a stimulus to recruiting; and, whether, it is to take place this year as usual; and, if not, if he would state to the House why the Review is to be given up this spring?
  MR. CARDWELL: I share, Sir, in the belief which has been expressed by the Committee of Commanding Officers that the Easter Monday Review has had the effect in former years of giving a stimulus to recruiting. This year, in answer to a letter received from the Committee, the Inspector General of the Auxiliary Forces stated that he had no objection to the Review being held, and that if the Chairman of the Committee of Commanding Officers would submit the name of the place at which it was proposed to hold it, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief would give directions for conducting it in such a manner as would be likely to conduce to the same results as those which elicited General Ellice's Report on the last occasion. To that letter no answer was returned, and I only know the decision of the Commanding Officers from having seen the proceedings reported in the public papers.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the announcement in Her Majesty's gracious Speech of a measure "for the amendment of certain provisions of the Education Act of 1870," Whether the House can be in possession of the proposals of the Government before it is invited to discuss the Resolution which stands in the name of the honourable Member for Birmingham for the 11th of March?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he never had any serious expectation that before the 11th of March it would be possible for them to make such progress with the Irish University Education Bill as to put the Government in a condition to bring before the House its proposals with regard to the Education Act of 1870. The progress so far made with the Irish University Bill had confirmed him in that belief. But his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) was well aware that the Government not only desired, but fully intended to make proposals to the House, and to make them in such time as should give a favourable and advantageous place to the subject in the Business of the Session; and he trusted that under these circumstances his hon. Friend might be
  1288
  disposed to postpone his Motion from the day for which it stood until a future day, relying upon the assurance which he had given him on the part of the Government.
  MR. DIXONasked, Whether, in the event of the first reading of the Education Act Amendment Bill taking place and he should wish to bring forward his Motion, the Government would give facilities for so doing?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be competent for his hon. Friend, if he should think fit, to make his Motion as an Amendment to the Government Motion; and the very fact of the Government making a proposal would give him the opportunity which he desired to have.
  MR. DIXONsaid, he did not think that that was quite the same thing. If he were to move an Amendment on the Bill brought forward, that would be taking a position of antagonism to the Bill. That was a position which he hoped not to have to occupy. His Resolution was not necessarily antagonistic to the Bill at all, and was not intended to hamper any measure brought forward by the Government; and therefore be hoped that the Government would give him the opportunity of bringing forward his Motion at some other time. Under such circumstances he would accede to the suggestion of the Prime Minister.

  COUNTY PALATINE OF DURHAM—THE QUEEN v. COTTON.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Northern Circuit in reference to the conduct of the prosecution of "The Queen v. Cotton" at the present Durham Assizes; and whether steps will be at once taken to place the Attorney and Solicitor General of the County Palatine of Durham in the position to which they were rightfully entitled, as officers of and appointed by the Crown, in reference to such prosecution?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that he received a note about two o'clock from the hon. Member, giving him Notice of his intention to put these questions, and he (Mr. Gladstone) had spent a good deal of time since that hour in endavouring to ascertain what he could possibly have to do with the matter.

  1289
  He was bound to say that he had been unsuccessful in that investigation. It was a Question, so far as he understood it, about a matter which belonged to those formidable mysteries of the legal profession into which he had never presumed to pry—the question of the right of a certain person to hold a leading brief in a certain case under certain circumstances, and the right of the Attorney General to override that supposed right and to make the arrangement at his own discretion. His share of worldly wisdom might be very small, but he was not at all disposed to interfere between the Attorney General and the other legal functionary, until it appeared clear to him that, in virtue of some official title or obligation at present quite unknown to him, it was his duty to do so. The hon. Member in putting his Question had selected the wrong man. It should have been addressed to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he thought that surely the head of the Government would have interfered between his two Attorney Generals.

  COUNTY COURT JUDGES—MINUTE OF JUNE 1872.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. JAMES,in moving a Resolution, that the application of the Treasury Minute, dated June 22, 1872, to County Court Judges appointed prior to the 17th September, 1870, would be unjust and inequitable, was understood to say that the object of his Motion was to obtain a determination of certain questions that had arisen between the Lords of the Treasury and certain of the County Court Judges, and his contention was, that so long as the County Court Judges continued to perform substantially the same duties as they had hitherto performed, they were entitled to a fulfilment of the contract into which the Treasury had entered with them on their appointment. He understood that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept his Motion in its terms, and therefore under ordinary circumstances he should not have thought it necessary to address the House. He hoped, however, he might be excused from asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he quite clearly understood the
  1290
  spirit in which this Motion had been placed upon the Paper because the mere acceptance of it in its literal terms without the intention of carrying out its spirit would be of no avail? The object of the Resolution was to secure to the County Court Judges who were appointed prior to September, 1870, the same position in reference to travelling expenses as they held now, so long as they continued to perform the same duties which they now performed. If the right hon. Gentleman fully accepted the Resolution, then he (Mr. James) would move it without further comment.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he was ready to accept the Resolution, but he could not undertake to say what meaning might be put upon it.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that that being so, he would briefly state the grounds upon which his Motion was based. Its object was not to increase the emoluments of the County Court Judges in any way, but to secure those of them who had been appointed prior to the 17th September, 1870, against being affected by the retrospective action of the Treasury Minute issued in June, 1872. When these Courts were first instituted, the County Court Judges sent in every year detailed statements of the expenses they had had to incur in travelling over their circuit. But in 1862 the Lords of the Treasury proposed that those expenses should be commuted, and that the Judges should receive a sum certain, and an arrangement to that effect was entered into with the Judges. He had to put a very simple proposition to the House—that the arrangement entered into between the Lord Chancellor and the County Court Judges who then held the appointments amounted to a contract—he did not mean such a contract as could be enforced by law, but such an one as would be hold binding by all honourable men—at all events, it amounted to an obligation which Parliament, he thought, would respect. The nature of the arrangement was this—The County Court Judge, on receiving his appointment, was told that he must give up his private practice at the Bar, and that he would receive a salary of £1,500 a-year, and allowances for travelling expenses amounting to between £200 and £300 a-year. If a commercial traveller or a domestic servant were engaged on the

  1291
  same terms, with a fixed allowance to the traveller for expenses, or to the servant for board wages, and if afterwards the employer sought to reduce the fixed allowance on the plea that the one might travel more cheaply, or that in the other case provisions were cheaper, the traveller and the servant would have a right to say—"We know we save money out of what you allow us; but the arrangement was one which you yourself made; we are willing to perform our part of the contract, and we call upon you to perform yours." But the case was even stronger in the case of the County Court Judges, for they had probably given up a lucrative practice, and could not, like commercial travellers or servants, return to their profession with any hope of success. They had relinquished professional incomes and hopes of professional advancement, and they now asked, with reason, that the State should continue to pay them what the State had contracted to pay them. Perhaps it might be said that a public appointment was subject to conditions of public policy. If so, the County Court Judges should have been told at the time that these allowances would be subject to further revision; and if the allowances were to be diminished, let them be diminished by a Parliamentary vote. The right of the Judges, however, was taken away not by a vote of this House upon the Estimates, but by a simple Minute of the Treasury. This contract continued to be made with the Judges appointed between 1862 and 1870; but in 1870 the Treasury concluded that economy might be effected by arranging with future County Court Judges that they should not receive the same amount as their predecessors. No complaint could be made of such an arrangement. If Judges took their appointments subject to it, they could have no ground of complaint, and his Motion did not apply to them. But in September, 1870, the Treasury, having this subject under consideration, came to the conclusion that it would be unjust to give retrospective effect to their new Minute, and he only wished the House to say that what the Treasury thought right then was right now. It would be in the recollection of the House that in that particular month which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had described as one in which hon. Members were apt
  1292
  to be inactive in the performance of their duties.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon. What I said was that hon. Members suffered more from the Parliamentary work during the hot months than at any other period of the Session.
  MR. JAMES: Well, it was, at all events, at that period of the year when the House was in possession of the Estimates, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. West), whose mind was something like an elephant's trunk, capable of dealing with the greatest and the minutest subjects, condescended to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to these allowances. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to be in a great minority in this House, and withdrew his Amendment; but somehow or other he prevailed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry his views into effect. In what zephyr-like whispers, wafted by what Favonian gales, his hon. and learned Friend's suggestions reached the Treasury he did not know; but, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman yielded to private representations what he had refused to the argument of debate. Now, advice to a Minister from the bench immediately behind the Ministry was advice which should always be looked upon with suspicion. He was not referring to Members of long experience in Parliament who sat behind the front bench, but rather to those more active and assiduous Members of the House, who always felt or seemed to feel uneasy unless they were in immediate contact with some favourite Minister. Advice from such Members should be regarded with suspicion, because it was likely to be moulded not upon the circumstances and exigencies of the case, but in order that it might suit the ear or the disposition of the favourite Minister. The discussion occurred in the House on the 17th of June; and on the 22nd of June the Treasury issued a Minute which was sent to every County Court Judge, and contained the following paragraph:—
  "My Lords being, of opinion that no expenses should be allowed beyond what may be necessary to indemnify a Judge for his outlay, on the supposition that he resides at the most convenient place within his circuit, direct that the allowances made to all the Judges appointed

  1293
  prior to September, 1870, should be revised upon the principle upon which allowances have been fixed since that date."
  The rule, therefore, was retrospective in its effect. This Minute appeared to be based on the principle that a Judge should reside in the district where his Court was situated. But in the great majority of cases the Lord Chancellors had acted on an opposite principle—as would almost every practical man. Almost every common law Lord Chancellor who had sat on the Bench since the County Court Judges were first appointed had acted on the presumption that it was better that the County Court Judges should not reside in the district of their Courts. Lords Cranworth, Campbell, and Chelmsford, and an able equity Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns), had all acted on this presumption. The reason they had come to this conclusion was obvious—they had themselves travelled on circuit and seen the inconvenience of either Judge or counsel associating with the suitor. If that were the conclusion come to in the case of Judges in Eyre, how much more imperative would the rule be in the case of a County Court Judge, holding not so distinguished a position as a Judge of the Superior Courts, who would accept invitations to the house of the attorney and local barrister, who would sit by the side of the suitor, or, what would be far worse, beside the suitor's wife—and who, under such circumstances, would be in danger of drawing a conclusion upon a case of the future from chance conversation rather than from evidence, and might even be influenced by prejudice or local influence. Lord Campbell was so strongly impressed with these considerations that at one time he was moved not to allow a Judge to remain more than five years in any particular district, so that he might rid himself of influences likely to result in favouritism. But notwithstanding that no Lord Chancellors but Lord Hatherley and Lord Westbury had expressed a wish that County Court Judges should live in their districts, and notwithstanding that those Judges had in almost all cases been told upon being appointed that it would be preferable if they lived at a distance, the Lords of the Treasury now told them they would be fined if they did not choose to live in the district of their Courts. To illustrate the inconvenience of the enforced residence of a County Court Judge, he would give
  1294
  an instance. When Mr. Rupert Kettle, whose name was, probably, familiar to most hon. Members, determined to accept the offer of the County Court Judgeship of Staffordshire, he did so on the understanding that he should occupy his house in Wolverhampton, where he had property, and be allowed his travelling expenses. Mr. Kettle had, however, recently received a letter from the Treasury, which was, probably, a fair specimen of the letters which had been sent to other County Court Judges. It was an extraordinary production; the work of some most industrious and able Treasury official, who seemed to have studied Bradshaw, and probably a map, before ordaining the way in which Mr. Kettle was to go to his Court. Now, it happened that Dudley, and not Wolverhampton, was the centre of the district; and the Treasury clerk ordained, in the first place, that Mr. Kettle should live at Dudley, and that if he declined he should be fined. Dudley was in the middle of "the black country," and, as far as he recollected it, was composed principally of mounds of cinders or slack, and it was not unusual to find heavy-looking men lying upon these mounds, with short pipes in their mouths and a bull-dog between their legs. Mr. Kettle, not being particularly partial to cinder heaps, and not liking bull-dogs, preferred to reside at Wolverhampton. That, however, did not satisfy the Treasury clerk, who required him, under certain forfeitures, to take up his residence at Dudley, and then dealt him out right and left, like a round game at cards, irrespective whether it was market or fair day at the places he would come to, and irrespective also of whether the sessions were being held; and he was to do this because it would result in a saving of £130. The Judge was not asked whether he approved the course marked out for him, but only whether he approved the calculation; and it did not appear to have occurred to the Treasury that the course marked out by the clerk might not suit the convenience of the public. On the 29th of July last, the hon. Member for South-east Lancashire (Mr. Assheton Cross) asked a Question, whether it was still intended that the Minute of June, 1872, should apply to Judges appointed prior to 1870. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that circumstances had come to his knowledge since deciding on this scheme

  1295
  which had induced him to modify his opinion; that he had now learnt that in the opinion of several Lord Chancellors, it was not desirable that County Court Judges should reside within their districts; and he added that if any Judge had made his arrangements for life in deference to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor appointing him, that circumstance constituted a claim on the Treasury, and that expenses ought to be paid which otherwise would not have been allowed. So that if a gentleman had taken a long lease of a house or had bound himself by contract, he would get relief from the right hon. Gentleman; but if he had taken a house from year to year or by a short lease he would obtain no relief, but must be fined if he declined to live in the town fixed upon by the Treasury clerk, notwithstanding consideration for the public convenience would not allow him to live there. Surely the County Court Judges were entitled to be more fairly dealt with? Their labours had been added to by giving them jurisdiction in Equity, Bankruptcy, and Admiralty cases; and although they had contracted to give their whole time to the public service the value of money had decreased since their appointments were made, and with more work they received less actual pay than they did 10 years ago. These Judges had not only technical duties to perform, but others of a higher character. It was expected of them that they would check rapacity and control dishonesty; they had to carry out almost a patriarchal system; and he could not believe it was worth while to pursue with regard to such men a policy of discouragement. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the application of the Treasury Minute dated the 22nd day of June 1872, to County Court Judges appointed prior to the 17th day of September 1870, will be unjust and inequitable; and that no Judge appointed before such date should be subjected to the operation of any Minute which will prejudicially affect the position upon the faith of which he accepted his appointment.—(Mr. James.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to call attention to the extraordinary method of proceeding adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House; but before doing so let me make a single remark on the closing part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He has entered upon
  1296
  a general eulogy of the County Court Judges, and, describing the unparalleled functions they have to discharge, he has appealed in the most impassioned manner to the House in favour of dealing with them on the most liberal terms. That would be very fair matter to introduce into a Motion for augmenting the salaries of the County Court Judges, but it is not in the slightest degree pertinent to the issue raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion, which involves simply a question of good faith. It is to this question of good faith—notwithstanding the hon. and learned Gentleman has favoured us with as bewildering a statement as ever I have heard in this House either by lawyer or layman—["No, no!"]—as bewildering a statement—["Oh, oh!"] I do not know what calls forth the indignation of some hon. Members. There is nothing indecorous in the expression I made use of. I say a statement which places out of view the main issue and leads the attention of the House from it is, in my opinion, a bewildering statement. A Motion stood upon the Notice Paper of the House until last night in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James.) At the last moment the hon. and learned Gentleman appears not to have been satisfied with the language of his Motion, and—doing that which he was perfectly entitled to do—he altered its terms, and it appears in that altered form upon the Paper this morning. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on reading the Notice as it appeared this morning, considered that it was one to which he could accede, and I believe that a communication to that effect has been made to the hon. and learned Gentleman. On receiving that Notice my hon. and learned Friend rises and says—"I understand that it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accede to my Motion in its terms. I hope, however, I may be excused from asking him whether he clearly understands the spirit in which this Motion has been placed upon the Paper?—because the mere acceptance of its literal terms without the intention of carrying out its spirit will be of no avail," and then proceeds in his speech to put an interpretation on the terms of the Motion which he had amended this morning, and to require my right hon. Friend by a categorical answer to bind himself to that interpretation. Now, I

  1297
  ask whether, in the memory of hon. Members of this House, they ever recollect such a proceeding to a Government or the Member of a Government before? Such a proceeding, if adopted and acted upon, would throw into confusion the whole Business of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be supposed capable of accepting the Motion in letter and not in spirit he deserves not only what has been already said, but a straightforward censure. That an hon. Gentleman should make a speech and attach to the terms of his Motion some construction of his own, and upon the instant ask a Minister if he adopts the Motion in that sense is an entirely unfair and an unwarrantable proceeding. But what is the question—because, though I complain of the proceeding, I want to know what the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman really is. I suppose that the Members of this House understand it, who were displeased when I said that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was "a bewildering statement." I suppose they understand it, but I declare I do not. I will now endeavour, if I can, to get at the nature of the case. We thought we had done all the hon. and learned Gentleman required. He places an amended Motion on the Paper; that Motion was to be understood as a full and clear exposition of his views. We accept it, but he is not satisfied; and he wants to know whether we accept it in the sense of his speech. But I do not know what the meaning of that speech is now, or what it is to which he intends to bind us. The hon. and learned Gentleman has complained very much of the Minute of the Treasury, of June 1872. There is no question about that Minute. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated distinctly that he does not propose to apply that Minute; he accepts the words of the Motion as applicable to it. What, then, is the contest about? My hon. and learned Friend amends his own Motion; we agree to it; and as to the meaning, strange as is the manner in which that meaning is put to us, I am sincerely anxious to find what it is. Anyone who has listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman would suppose that the Treasury had been laying down some rule as to the residence of the County Court Judges. I ask, was not that the impression con-
  1298
  veyed to the House? But as I am told the Treasury has never interfered in the matter at all.
  MR. JAMES: I admit that the Treasury have never interfered; but they fine them if they do not do it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. and learned Gentleman says they fine them if they do not do it. I should like to know the meaning of that expression. As I apprehend it is not comformable to what the Government conceive to be the state of the facts. I say that the Treasury has never interfered. I am not conversant with the details of this proceeding, but I do not admit that the Treasury "fine them if they do not do it." We undertake to say that no just ground of complaint shall in future exist on that score; and why is not the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the acceptance of his Motion by the Government? What, then, is it that the hon. and learned Gentleman asks of us? There is a Committee appointed at this moment, and that Committee is to consider the practicability of reducing the public expenditure; this is a question of reducing public expenditure; will he be content to refer the matter to that Committee? [Mr. JAMES: No.] The hon. and learned Gentleman says he will not. That Committee is not under the control of the Government. That Committee is composed, the Chairman being in the chair, of an equal number of hon. Members chosen from each side of the House. But the hon. and learned Gentleman is not content with the acceptance of his own Motion; he is not content with the proposal that it shall be referred to an impartial Committee. Well, then, what is it that he wants us to do? I have told him that the Treasury does not stand upon the Minute of 1872; that it does not stand upon any title to interfere with the residence of Judges—that is a matter for judicial consideration rather than for ours—and if there has been what he calls "fining," the Treasury adheres to no such intention. What, then, does he ask? Does he ask that those County Court Judges who have received a certain circular dated September 24, 1852, and signed "G. A. Hamilton," shall have a life interest recognized in the scale of travelling expenses as then determined? Does he ask that?
  MR. JAMES: If the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me, I say that the

  1299
  Circular applies only to County Court Judges who were appointed prior to 1852, and not to those who were appointed subsequently.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I want to know whether upon the terms of this Circular the hon. and learned Gentleman claims a life interest for those County Court Judges who had travelling expenses settled upon the basis of it? That is the question, and that is, as far as I know, the only question upon which we can be at issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He seems desirous to raise questions—I will not say "desirous," but he has needlessly raised this question. I tell him we do not differ about the Treasury Minute about the residence of the Judges; but I want to know whether he really requires us to recognize a title for life in the scale of expenses then allowed to County Court Judges who were appointed before 1852?
  MR. JAMESsaid there were only seven of them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Never mind that.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid there were 12.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to be so correct as he should have been upon the point. If we are agreed upon the construction of the passage in question, I do not believe any ingenuity can get up any other point of difference. [The right hon. Gentleman then read the passage of the Circular to which he referred, which was to the effect that in order to relieve the Judges from the necessity of rendering periodical accounts of travelling expenses a fixed sum would be allowed, and accordingly the Treasury had been directed to pay to them by equal quarterly payments "until further directions" the sum of—pounds.] Does my hon. Friend claim that as a title for life? Will he not allow that a County Court Judge has not acquired under that Circular a title for life to a scale of expenses which was to continue "until further directions?" Does he or does he not claim a title for life under that Circular? I have a right to ask that question; and as he waited for an answer, I also wait—
  MR. JAMES: I am anxious not to be wanting in respect to the right hon. Gentleman, and if he wishes for my answer I will give it. In the first place, it was never communicated to any Judges appointed after 1852 that this arrangement was only to be "until further
  1300
  directions;" and the only discussion is as to the Judges appointed since then to whom the circular was never communicated up to the present time.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then I am aware of no difference of opinion between us and the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he says it is for life, I will not be bound to support either his speech or his Motion. If he says it is not for life, I can only say that we have every disposition to work with him in considering this matter in an equitable spirit, and I am not aware that there is any other point of difference between us. But where payment is ordered and notice given that the payment will be "until further directions," I cannot really see that any life interest can arise.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the House had been made aware about 12 months ago that Her Majesty's Government, in spite of all their abilities, had difficulty in understanding the meaning of Acts of Parliament. Since then they had painful experience that they did not well understand the meaning of Treaties, and now it appeared they had difficulty in comprehending the meaning of a Notice of Motion. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had alluded to the fact that two Notices had been placed upon the Paper; it would be as well that the House should see in what respect those Notices differed, and then they would be able to form their own conclusions as to the difficulty in which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. James) had been placed by the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what he certainly thought a very plain and simple question—an answer which he ventured to say no man in the House really understood the meaning of. The first Notice as it originally stood on the Paper was this—
  "County Court Judges,—That the application of the Treasury Minute dated the 22nd day of June 1872, to County Court Judges appointed prior to the 17th day of September 1870, will be unjust and inequitable"—
  Now came the important clause in the Notice—
  "and that the operation of such Minute should be limited to the Judges appointed subsequent to that date."
  As the objectionable Minute had been withdrawn, the Notice of Motion, as originally drawn, had become useless, for the Minute being withdrawn could have no further operation; but it was

  1301
  quite clear that those County Court Judges might still fall under the operation of some other Minute different in terms, but similar, at all events, in spirit to the original Minute. The last words of the amended Notice, therefore, were most important—
  "And that no Judge appointed before such date should he subjected to the operation of any Minute which will prejudicially affect the position upon the faith of which he accepted his appointment."
  He asked the House whether it was not perfectly clear that when his hon. and learned Friend asked the question whether the amended Notice was accepted in good faith by the Government, it was no answer for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he accepted it fully and fairly, but could say nothing of the spirit in which it was taken—the spirit being that no future Minute whatever should be made which should in any like manner prejudicially affect the County Court Judges. The question was simply this—would they or would they not fulfil the contract they had entered into with the County Court Judges appointed before 1870, and on the faith of which they had accepted the appointment? The contract was not such that the County Court Judges could in a Court of Law compel the Treasury to pay the money; if that was the case there would be no occasion to come to that House. The question was one as between honourable men—a contract between the County Court Judges and the Government; and if the Government would say they would not disturb that contract in any way, but accept it fairly and fully in its spirit, and that the rights of the County Court Judges would be preserved untouched, they would be satisfied. It was said by the First Minister that the Treasury never interfered with the residence of the County Court Judges, and never fined them for non-residence in a particular locality. He would read to the House the terms of the Minute, and they would see whether the right hon. Gentleman really understood the position which the Treasury had taken up. The Minute stated—
  "In 1870, upon the appointment of the present Judge of Circuit 35, My Lords took into consideration the size and circumstances of that circuit, and caused to be forwarded to the Judge a calculation showing the sum to be allowed, based upon the supposition that the Judge should live at, or in the immediate neighbourhood of,
  1302
  the town in which that Court was held at which he would have to sit most frequently, and that he should go to and return home from those Courts which were within easy distance either by rail or road of such town. Upon this principle the allowances to all subsequently appointed Judges have been made."
  So far all was right, for the Minute only related to the Judge appointed in 1870, and all Judges to be afterwards appointed, who were all appointed subject to the alterations made in 1870. But now came the important words of the Minute—
  "My Lords, being of opinion that no expenses should be allowed beyond what may be necessary to indemnify a Judge for his outlay, on the supposition that he resides at the most convenient place within his circuit, direct that the allowances made to all the Judges appointed prior to September, 1870, should be revised upon the principle upon which allowances have been fixed since that date."
  He asked if that was not a breach of the faith on which the contract made with those Judges who had been appointed before 1870, had been accepted? That was the Minute of 1872. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The Minute is withdrawn.] He knew it it had been withdrawn. He was coming to that point. That was the strongest argument possible against the action of the Government. Why had it been withdrawn? How had it been withdrawn? Why Her Majesty's Government had been forced to withdraw it because it was in bad faith. By its withdrawal the Treasury had condemned itself. What was now wanted was an assurance that no other Minute would be placed on the Treasury books which would have a similarly prejudicial effect on the position of the County Court Judges. Unless that assurance was given, he hoped the House would feel it to be their duty to affirm the Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had but scant courtesy extended to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Mr. Cross). He had stated in the plainest words that the action of his right hon. Friend at the end of last Session in expounding a Minute which had since been withdrawn was taken in bad faith towards the County Court Judges; and that having been convicted of bad faith his word should not be accepted when he assented to the Mo-

  1303
  tion of his hon. and learned Friend. ["No, no!"] Then, why was he not content with the answer of his right hon. Friend? The hon. and learned Gentleman took care not to quote the answer he received last Session, but said it was uncertain and unsatisfactory.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShad said the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer now to his hon. and learned Friend was uncertain and unsatisfactory.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. He accepted the explanation; but he was entitled to refer to the answer of his right hon. Friend last year to show that a more explicit answer had never been given, and, if believed, there was no excuse for the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. What was the answer of his right hon. Friend on that occasion? He said—
  "Since the issue of this Minute he was bound in candour to say that fresh facts had come to his knowledge since the decision of the Committee was arrived at. It appeared to have been the opinion of several Lord Chancellors—though not of the present one nor of Lord Westbury—that County Court Judges should not reside in their districts; and he freely admitted that if any gentleman had made his arrangements for life in deference to that opinion, the circumstance constituted a claim on the Treasury, and that expenses ought to be paid which otherwise would not have been allowed. The Treasury, therefore, were not willing to take the matter in a lump, but intended to consider each case separately, with a view of rendering complete justice to those who had submitted their claims."—[3 Hansard, ccxiii. 48.]
  Here was as clear and explicit a statement as had ever been made by a Minister in that House. Nevertheless, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. James), chose to bring forward his Motion, which was in these terms—
  "That the application of the Treasury Minute dated the 22nd day of June 1872, to County Court Judges appointed prior to the 17th day of September 1870, will be unjust and inequitable; and that no Judge appointed before such date should be subjected to the operation of any Minute which will prejudicially affect the position upon the faith of which he accepted his appointment."
  But even then he was not content, for when told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he accepted his Motion in its own terms, he replied that he must bind himself to it in spirit—that was in the spirit of the gloss which he (Mr. James) put upon it. But that gloss could not, and ought not, to be accepted, because it was not consistent with the
  1304
  terms of the Motion itself. If there was a contract, and so far as there was a contract the Treasury was bound by it; but the gloss which the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to put upon it, and to get accepted on the spur of the moment, was that in every case there was a contract, that it remained binding under any circumstances, and that the Treasury henceforth was not at liberty to revise the allowance as regarded those to whom the Circular referred, or who held office before September 1870. He would explain the arrangement of 1870, which was proposed by himself; as it might have some bearing upon the criticisms of the hon. and learned Member, who had spoken severely of the necessity it would impose upon County Court Judges of changing their residences or being fined in default, if it were made to apply to the past. In order to arrive at a fair and reasonable calculation of the amount which should be allowed for travelling expenses, he assumed that a County Court Judge resided in the centre of his district, in some town which would probably furnish the largest amount of business. ["Oh, oh!"] That was his own assumption, for he made the arrangements in question. He then had a careful calculation made of the number of Courts the Judge would have to attend and of the way in which, according to experience, he would have to pass from Court to Court, and made an addition of 15 or 20 per cent to such estimate; and in the case which had been referred to, on the appointment of the Judge, he asked the Judge to call at the Treasury, and there explained to him the basis of the calculation, inviting his criticisms upon it. The learned Judge took it away, and after he had taken time to consider the calculation, when he returned it, certain additions, based on his criticisms, were conceded, 15 per cent was added, and the result was accepted by the learned Judge as satisfactory. When it was proposed by Minute to apply the same principle to Judges already appointed, all that occurred was that the method of calculation was set before them, and they were invited to dispute its correctness, if they thought fit to do so. It was putting the worst construction, rather than the best, upon the Circular to say that they were asked merely to check the arithmetic of the calculation;

  1305
  and as that was not the process applied to the Judges of the future, it could not be held that it was intended to be applied to the Judges of the past. With regard to the question of contract, he could not for a moment admit that in each and every case of the appointment of a Judge before 1870 there was a contract absolutely binding upon the Treasury during the rest of the Judge's life and service. In the first place, with respect to the 11 Judges out of the 37 or 38 who might be affected by this matter, the Circular of 1852, read by his right lion. Friend to the House, showed that no contract was entered into with them, and that the arrangement which the Treasury had made for the payment of personal expenses was subject to revision and correction in the future. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James) said that every one of the County Court Judges appointed between 1852 and 1870 left the Bar and accepted a Judgeship upon a prior understanding with the Treasury not only that he would receive a specific salary for the rest of his term of holding the office, but that he would also have a sum that would never be varied for the payment of his travelling expenses. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman had produced no evidence on which to found that allegation. The closest inquiries had been made by the Treasury, and upon the strength of those inquiries he was prepared, on behalf of the Treasury, emphatically to deny the accuracy of the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Although the Treasury could not admit that there were binding contracts in cases in which there were not, and although the Treasury could not tie their hands from in-inquiring into these cases, there was no disposition on the part of the Government, or of the Treasury, to inquire too closely or in any hostile or unfriendly spirit into the receipts in respect of personal expenses of men who had held office for 15, 20, or 25 years. If hon. and learned Members would have the goodness to dismiss unwarrantable suspicions from their minds, they would be quite satisfied with the assurance of his right hon. Friend, and with his acceptance of the terms of the amended Motion.
  MR. WESTsaid, he wished to set his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. James) right as to what had actually occurred with
  1306
  regard to this question. In 1869 he first called attention to the absurd extravagance of the travelling expenses of the County Court Judges. In 1872 he proposed a reduction of the Vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion pressed him not to divide the House, promising to take into consideration the whole question of the travelling expenses of those Judges. His hon. and learned Friend had fallen into a series of mistakes upon matters of fact. Ample Notice was given of the Motion he proposed in 1872, and it was idle for any one to talk of being surprised. It was a mistake to suppose that he had any communication on the subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer beyond what occurred publicly in the House. It was a mistake to say that since 1852 any bargain as to expenses had been made before the appointment of a Judge, for he received his appointment first and struck his bargain with the Treasury afterwards as to travelling expenses; and, indeed, any fixed contract might have involved great injustice in such a case as had occurred in Devonshire and Cornwall, where a vacancy was not filled up, but two districts were incorporated, and a Judge was required to hold his Court at 12 places, instead of eight. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. James) was mistaken in nearly all his assumed facts. He said there had been extension of duties without increase of remuneration; but during 1857 the salaries of County Court Judges had been increased by £300—from £1,200 to £1,500 a-year—and since then their work had been diminished by 10 per cent. Since 1857 the total number of sittings in the year had fallen from 9,019 to 8,041. From the letters he had received since he took up this question it might be supposed that his life was in danger. He could assure the House that he had nothing to do with the Treasury Minute of 1872, and was absolutely ignorant of it until he heard from a friend of its having been issued, and he never had seen it until it was published in a pamphlet written by Mr. Daniel.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he was somewhat astonished at his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. West) getting up and stating that what everybody else had said was entirely wrong, and he was not less astonished that his

  1307
  hon. and learned Friend had not made any effort—except one, which nobody could regard as an effort at all—to show that he was right. What had been the course of his hon. and learned Friend? Certainly he had not shrunk from pocketing the money of the public, nor had he been ashamed of taking any place that had been given to him. His hon. and learned Friend had obtained one place after another; he had filled no fewer than eight places in succession; and he now held several, which made the sums paid to the County Court Judges appear mere trifles in comparison with what he himself received. What would his hon. and learned Friend have thought if a hard-worked County Court Judge had come forward and said that his hon. and learned Friend was too well paid? He would have been most indignant; and yet he was surprised that when he attacked a whole body of men by his Motion to reduce their salaries, they should write letters to him. It was a wonder they did nothing worse to him. Probably some of them might have been tempted to say to him—"Pray, why don't you look at home? Why do you come forward and attack us, when the duties that you perform might, in our opinion, not in your own, be performed at a very much smaller price than that which you put upon your genius?" Really, when his hon. and learned Friend got up to set right all the hon. Members of the Government sitting in front of him, and came forward with arguments which they could not have found out, and which they had not been able to adduce, it was very extraordinary that he should not have known more about the subject than he had shown that he did. His hon. and learned Friend stated that no arrangements had been made between the Government and any County Court Judge with regard to the exact sum that should be paid to him for his travelling expenses between 1852 and 1870. [Mr. WEST dissented.] Those were the words which his hon. and learned Friend used, that no such arrangements were made, and no sums agreed upon as those which a County Court Judge should be entitled to receive.
  MR. WESTsaid, that what he stated was, that the contract with regard to the payment of travelling expenses was always made after the acceptance of the office.
  MR. LOCKE: That was a distinction without a difference. A gentleman having been appointed a County Court Judge, his hon. and learned Friend said that simply because the Government entered into their compact with him after he had accepted the appointment, that was a reason why they should not pay him. Surely, whether the Government pledged their word before or after he accepted the office, they were bound as men of honour to pay the money. Therefore it was an extraordinary thing that his hon. and learned Friend, who had given such attention year after year to the emoluments of County Court Judges, should have made such an assertion as that there was no contract between the County Court Judges and the Government between 1852 and 1870, and that he should now explain that there certainly was a contract, but that they did not agree upon the payment till after the appointment had been accepted. Suppose they took a servant into their employment at £25 a-year, and, because he had accepted the appointment before they had come to a more definite arrangement as to money, they were to drop him down to £20. That would be a parallel to his hon. and learned Friend's argument.
  MR. WESTagain explained that what he had stated was that the settlement of the amount to be paid for travelling expenses was not made until after the County Court Judge had accepted the office, the contract being that he was to receive £1,500 a-year for the office he accepted, but a payment was afterwards to be arranged upon the scale of the expenses he had to incur with regard to the circuit in which he was employed.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he had no recollection of his hon. and learned Friend having said anything at all of that sort, but he left that matter to the House. He would content himself with giving a particular case. The County Court Judge of Manchester had Salford added to his district. His hon. and learned Friend being Recorder of Manchester, knew all about it, and would be able to correct any inaccuracy in the statement of the case. There was a compact in the case of the County Court Judge of Manchester in regard to the sum that should go for these expenses; that compact was made between 1852 and 1870. The compact previous to 1870 was that a certain sum

  1309
  of money should go for travelling expenses; and it was clearly understood that he should not live in the purlieus of Manchester or in any place near that city, but that he should have the advantage of living in London. That Judge had done so ever since his appointment, and there was no better County Court Judge sitting on the Bench. [Mr. WEST assented.] His hon. and learned Friend agreed with him at least in that. It being clear, then, that these compacts had been made, the Government had a plain course before them, which it would be almost impossible for them not to follow. The question might therefore be taken as practically settled, and they might expect to have rest, unless indeed his hon. and learned Friend should find out something else among his brethren at the Bar which he could bring forward in the House, and which would be extremely disagreeable. In that event he was sure the House would leave it entirely to that hon. and learned Member's efforts to do what mischief he could, but for his own part he was happy to say that his hon. and learned Friend had not been very successful on the present occasion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That the application of the Treasury Minute dated the 22nd day of June 1872, to County Court Judges appointed prior to the 17th day of September 1870, will be unjust and inequitable; and that no Judge appointed before such date should be subjected to the operation of any Minute which will prejudicially affect the position upon the faith of which he accepted his appointment.—(Mr. James.)

TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN,on rising
  to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, all Treaties with Foreign Powers ought to be made conditionally on the approval of Parliament, as was done in the case of the Commercial Treaty with France in 1860,"
  said, the question whether it was desirable to follow in practice the change his Resolution proposed, depended upon two considerations—namely, was the existing practice with reference to the negotiation and conclusion of Treaties by the Government consistent with the Constitution of this country or not; and was the existing practice with respect to the making of Treaties beneficial in
  1310
  its results? If he should be able to show that the present practice was not consistent with the Constitution, that would be a perfectly sufficient reason, to his mind, for adopting the Resolution. He was not unaware that the feeling which prevailed in the House and in the country upon this question was, that any existing practice which proved to be beneficial in its results should be continued, without reference to theoretical considerations. What was the practice always followed by the Government in making a Treaty? No information was given to the House with regard to these Treaty obligations until after they were settled. When a question was asked in the House, they were told that they should wait until the Treaty was concluded, and then express their opinion as to the conduct of the Government. In accordance with this practice, the Under Secretary for the Colonies declined, a Session or two ago, to lay on the Table a Treaty with Holland before it had been ratified. Then, however, it was too late either to reject a Treaty or to obtain any modification of its terms. He maintained that this practice was inconsistent with one of the well-ascertained rights of the people of this country. One of the best known provisions of the Bill of Rights was that all taxation by Prerogative was illegal; and it followed that the practice which allowed the Government to enter into engagements which would have the effect of imposing an immense amount of taxation on people must be unconstitutional. They were told that the House did maintain its control over foreign Treaties, because the Ministers were responsible to it; but cases might occur in which it would be impossible for the House to interfere until after a Treaty was concluded and ratified. A Government which had a large majority in Parliament on a domestic question might not be in harmony with the opinion of the country on questions of foreign policy. They had also had cases where a Government did not actually possess a majority in the House; and it was, therefore, possible for a Government not having a majority, and not supported by the public, to enter into engagements during the Recess, of the gravest character. The safeguard of Ministerial responsibility was perfectly illusory. They were told that the effect of such a change

  1311
  as that which he proposed would be to take the conduct of foreign negotiations out of the hands of Her Majesty's Government. He denied that the change proposed would lessen Ministerial responsibility, and remit the management of Treaties to Parliament, for the position of a Government with regard to a Treaty would be analogous to that with regard to an important Bill, the defeat of which might involve resignation; and just as the House was anxious to pass even a tolerably framed measure without factious opposition, so it would hesitate to reject or modify a Treaty except on the strongest grounds, and with a great preponderance of public opinion. It could not be contended that the country should be bound to a Treaty guaranteeing territory or involving a large outlay, if it was not approved by public opinion, and the rejection of a Treaty by the House would show that it ought not to have been concluded. At present, the only thing that Members could do to prevent the conclusion of a prejudicial Treaty was to raise a debate in this House, and obtain a decision adverse to the Government; but if it was the practice to lay Treaties before Parliament then all motive for raising premature discussion on the subject would be at an end. They could best test the merits of the existing system by seeing whether, at certain periods of our history, it was not in the highest degree probable that the practice of making Treaties conditional, on the approval of Parliament, would not have proved beneficial. He would refer to one of two Treaties which had been concluded during the last 30 years. In 1852, a Treaty was concluded between this country and France, Prussia, Austria, and Denmark regulating the succession to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The King of Denmark was Sovereign of Denmark by one law of succession, and of the Duchies by another; and to prevent the separation of the Duchies from Denmark, the diplomatists concluded a Treaty by which they should remain attached to the Crown of Denmark. This was a high-handed, tyrannical, and unjust proceeding; and, when the Treaty was concluded, probably not one man in the country knew anything of the merits of the case. Twelve years subsequently a question arose under that Treaty, and the Government of the day were in favour of going
  1312
  to war to enforce it. Fortunately, however, the Government of France were disinclined to assist us in carrying on a war which, had it been begun, would have been one of the most expensive and sanguinary in which this country ever took part. But, had it been waged, not one man in ten thousand would have known anything whatever of the merits of the dispute. Then, again, a Treaty was entered into between this country and the United States in reference to the boundary between their territory and ours, and it was agreed that, pursuing the 49th parallel of latitude, the boundary should be a line dividing the channel between Vancouver's Island and the main land. The House was familiar with the difficulty which had arisen as to the interpretation of that Treaty, and nothing could have been more unskilful and bungling than the manner in which the negotiations in reference to it had been conducted by the Government. The negotiators, ignorant as it would seem of the geography of the locality, did not know that there were, not one channel, but three channels, and a question arose between the two countries, the Americans claiming that the line should be drawn through the channel, which would give them the Island of San Juan. So ambiguous were the terms of the Treaty found to be that to ascertain its meaning and effect it was necessary to have recourse to the Arbitration of the Emperor of Germany. It was only necessary to refer to one further Treaty—namely, that under which the Geneva Arbitration had been conducted. It was impossible to imagine anything displaying greater want of care and attention which ought to characterize the proceedings of negotiators of International Treaties, than the Treaty in question evidenced. Not only was its wording obscure, but by it we gave up important rights as to the fisheries and navigation which the Canadians had theretofore exercised, and in return we undertook to guarantee £2,500,000 sterling for the construction of a great line of railway through the Dominion. Not only that, but we agreed to have our conduct judged and our liability decided in accordance with Rules then agreed upon, which were to have a retrospective operation, which we undertook to recommend to foreign nations for their adoption; but our interpretation of which

  1313
  was completely at variance with that put upon them by the majority of the Arbitrators. Surely, had it been referred to a Committee of that House to frame a Treaty, it could not have been drawn in so unskilful a manner as it was by the professional diplomatists who were engaged to negotiate it. But it might be said, that it was open to the House to discuss a Treaty after it had been entered into. No doubt it was; but they all knew that when a Treaty was once concluded, it would be hopeless to attempt to have anything like a full discussion of its provisions. The only reason that he ever heard given for dealing in this exceptional manner with Commercial Treaties was that they related to questions of taxation, and that, therefore, it would be contrary to the Constitution of this country if they were dealt with by the Prerogative of the Crown. The Commercial Treaty of 1860 had not the effect of imposing any taxes on the people of this country; but it had the indirect effect of putting on extra taxes, so that it was perfectly right that the Treaty should be made conditionally with the sanction of Parliament. But if they said it was not constitutional to make a Treaty except conditionally on the approval of Parliament, as a Commercial Treaty, how could it be positively said that it was constitutional without the sanction of Parliament, when the country was led into an outlay of £100,000,000? In one case, the Commercial Treaty dealt with the taxation of this country; in the other case, the Treaty dealt in a manner which might not come into operation for many years, and which might possibly never come at all into operation with the taxation of the country. But he held that if it wore unconstitutional to deal directly with the taxation of the country, it must be also unconstitutional to enter into Treaty engagements which might, at a remote and uncertain period, have the effect of introducing an infinitely greater amount of popular burdens. Having endeavoured to show, in the first place, that to bind this country by Treaties, over which Parliament had no control, was unconstitutional; having endeavoured to show that if the House adopted the practice he recommended, at all events, they could not be worse off than they were at present, and that, in some respects, they would be infinitely the gainers, he would conclude
  1314
  by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, all Treaties with Foreign Powers ought to be made conditionally on the approval of Parliament, as was done in the case of the Commercial Treaty with France in 1860."—(Mr. Aytoun.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he should have hoped, after the exhaustive reply given the other day by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to the Motion of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), that the present Motion would not have been pressed—especially as the feeling expressed on both sides of the House on that occasion was decidedly adverse to so great an innovation on the Constitution. The hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Aytoun) had passed over very lightly a main and fundamental objection to his proposal, and that was that his Motion would, if carried, not only make this great innovation on the Constitution, but affect most seriously the right, power, and privileges of the Crown, which, in matters of Treaties, had, at all events during the last 100 years, been always exercised in a constitutional spirit towards Parliament and the country. He thought the allusion made by the hon. Member to the Commercial Treaty of 1860 was scarcely a good one, because it was admitted that when Treaties made any fiscal alterations, or imposed any fresh taxation, it was necessary that they should be submitted to Parliament. Article 14 in that Treaty said—
  "The present Treaty shall be binding for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland so soon as the necessary sanction shall have been given by Parliament, with the reserve made in Article 6 respecting wines."
  And Article 20—
  "The present Treaty shall not be valid unless Her Majesty shall be authorized by the assent of Parliament to execute the engagements contracted by her in the Articles of the present Treaty."
  The fact was, there were various duties which in the interest of France the Sovereign undertook to recommend to Parliament to repeal, and a Bill was therefore necessary to secure to France these advantages by the formal and express assent of the Legislature. Again, the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 reserved in the same way the assent of the Parlia-

  1315
  ment of Great Britain and that of the British North American colonies. The Motion of the hon. Member required all Treaties to be conditional on the approval of Parliament. What would be the result? Tinder the plan proposed by the hon. Member in the case of a Commercial Treaty every clause, every paragraph, every reduction, every addition of imports or duties would be discussed on the floor of the House, bandied backwards and forwards from the Assembly in one country to the Assembly of the other, and would probably only pass, if at all, after a long and vexatious delay. He would say nothing about our other House of Parliament; but the House of Lords would have an equal right to discuss, amend, or reject these Treaties. Evils still greater would arise in discussing the terms of Treaties of peace with all the publicity demanded by the hon. Member while war was going on; it might prolong the war, at additional cost of lives and money, till Parliament could be called together to decide upon the terms of peace. As a proof of that, he might allude to the fact that many Treaties of peace had been concluded abroad. For instance, the Treaty of peace with China of August 29, 1842, was signed at Nankin; the Treaty of peace with China, of October 24, 1860, was signed at Pekin. If these Treaties had been submitted to Parliament before they were ratified, he apprehended that the war would have been prolonged. Again, many Treaties were made with articles in them contingent on the assent of Parliament being given. The following Treaties between Great Britain and foreign Powers since 1815 contained articles the execution of which was made contingent upon their confirmation by the British Parliament:—On May 19, 1815; a Treaty with Russia relating to payment of dividend of Russian-Dutch Loan; November 17, 1823, a Convention with Austria about Loan; November 16, 1831, a Convention with Russia about Russian-Dutch Loan-continuance of payment; May 7, 1832, a Convention with France and Russia relating to Greek Loan; August 2, 1839, a Convention with France dealing with Channel Fisheries; May 28, 1852, a Convention with France about Extradition; January 25, 1855, a Convention with Sardinia about Loan Guarantee; June 27, 1855, a Convention with France and Turkey relative to gua-
  1316
  rantee of Loan raised by the Sultan; June 3, 1856, a Convention with Sardinia relating to Loan; January 14, 1857, a Convention with France about Newfoundland Fisheries; March 5, 1864, a Convention with Prussia relating to the subject of Extradition; March 29, 1864, a Treaty with France, Russia, and Greece relating to Greek Loan and Pension to the King of the Hellenes; and April 30, 1868, a Convention with Austria, Italy, Turkey, Prussia, and France, to guarantee Loan to complete works on the Danube. There was no special Article in the Treaty of March 29, 1864, stating that the sanction of Parliament would be required for its execution, but an Act was passed for that purpose; and in the cases of the Convention of May 28, 1852, the Convention with France in January, 1857, and the Convention with Russia in 1864, Parliament exercised its powers and rejected the provisions which were submitted to it. But other engagements less important than Treaties or Conventions had been constantly entered into by the British Government, and these engagements did not require the ratification of either the Sovereign or of Parliament. Such agreements related, for instance, to postal arrangements, agreements for the settlement of claims of British subjects against foreign States, independence of certain places, such as the Sandwich Islands and other Islands in the Pacific, loans, national treatment of vessels, sugar refining, trade marks, emigration, joint-stock companies, boundary maps, and duties on patterns and samples. Sometimes an exchange of Notes occurred between the representatives of two Powers, as when Notes were exchanged between Great Britain and Portugal relating to the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of July 3, 1842. There were also cases in which Treaties were the final results of conferences and negotiations extending over very many years. Foreign Powers would not have gone into these Treaties, in all probability, if they knew that the consent of Parliament would be required to their agreements. Of this kind were—the territorial arrangements of Europe, the succession to foreign Thrones, the questions of Sound dues, Stadt tolls, and others. Parliament could address the Sovereign with respect to treaties and negotiations. This was done in February 20, 1700,

  1317
  when an Address was moved to the King, asking that His Majesty would be pleased—
  "To enter into such negotiation in concert with the States-General of the United Provinces and other potentates as might most effectually conduce to the mutual safety of the British Dominions and the States-General, and the preservation of the peace of Europe, and giving his Majesty assurances of support and assistance in performance of the Treaty made with the States-General on March 3, 1677."
  On November 21, 1739, an Address was moved by the Commons to George II., beseeching His Majesty—
  "Never to admit of any Treaty of Peace with the Crown of Spain, unless the acknowledgement of the British natural and indubitable right to navigate in the American seas to and from any part of His Majesty's dominions, without being seized, searched, visited, or stopped, under any pretence whatsoever, should have been first obtained as a preliminary thereto."
  In December, 1743, an Address was moved, asking the King not to engage the nation any further on the Continent in favour of the Queen of Hungary. In 1752, another Address was presented, asking His Majesty not to engage into any more Treaties of Subsidy. Parliament refused its sanction to a Treaty, after ratification, in 1864—namely, a Convention with Prussia for the surrender of fugitive criminals. Apart from the precedents on this subject, there were grave constitutional objections to the Motion. Kent, in his Commentary on International Law, said—
  "In England, as the sole prerogative of making war or peace is vested in the Crown, so also is it the Crown's prerogative to make treaties, leagues, and alliances with Foreign States and Princes; and though this power has in theory no limits, yet practically it is controlled by the authority of Parliament, and the contingency of its abuse is checked by means of Parliamentary impeachment for the punishment of such Ministers as from criminal motives advise or conclude any treaty derogatory to the honour and interest of the nation"
  Blackstone added—
  "It is by the law of nations essential to the goodness of a league that it be made by the sovereign power, and then it is binding upon the whole community; and in England the sovereign power quoad hoc is vested in the King."
  Do Lolme also alluded to the King as being the representative and the depository of all the power and collective majesty of the nation with regard to foreign nations. He must ask the House
  1318
  to reject this Motion on three grounds—first, because it made a great constitutional change which was not required by the spirit of the time; secondly, because, he believed, it would practically fetter the Ministry in the conduct of negotiations which were often of a comprehensive and delicate character; and, thirdly, because, anxious as the Government often were to conclude Treaties with foreign Governments, in which very important considerations of a mercantile character and affecting commercial interests were concerned, yet if the assent and—if he might use the word—the dissection of Parliament were required to everyone of these Treaties before they were finally ratified by the Sovereign, instead of affecting the good which the hon. Member desired, it would in many cases lead to entangling embarrassments and international distrust.
  MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, that we lived in strange times, and for his own part he would wish that hon. Members who desired to make these experiments would first be kind enough to read the History of England, in order that they might learn what the English Constitution really was. He had listened, on more than one occasion, with utter astonishment to the ideas put forth on this subject. In his professional studies and in his historical readings he had been taught that the Constitution was composed of Queen, Lords, and Commons, and that certain duties and Prerogatives belonged to the Crown of these Realms, and that one of these Prerogatives was the power of making peace or war, which also involved the Prerogative of making Treaties. They knew that the Sovereign could do no wrong, and if the Ministry of the day gave the Sovereign corrupt advice they might be impeached; or if they acted indiscreetly, might be obliged to resign their offices by a vote of the House of Commons. He was determined to lay down and abide by constitutional principles, because he had seen that the usurpation of the rights of the Executive by deliberative Assemblies had been leading other States to destruction. He would assure the House that he was utterly surprised at the indifference with which constitutional principles were passed over in modern times—"just as if"—to use an expression of the last century—"they had been Turnpike Bills." Would the House call upon

  1319
  a Ministry to lay before it the successive steps of a negotiation? Would any commercial man, in making a bargain with another, like to submit the consideration of the question to be agitated and controverted in a public assembly? The true motto in such matters was—"Strike the iron while it is hot"—and that was a very good adage in peace and war, and also in making Treaties. The responsible parties were the Government of the clay, and nothing was less desirable than to shift the responsibility of making treaties from the Ministry to the House of Commons. He was sorry the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been obliged to resort to precedents, which were dangerous things, as they were not always understood. As to the principles on which those precedents were founded he might remark that since the period of the Revolution a distinction had always been drawn between the power of the House of Commons, the Prerogative of the Crown, and the responsibility of Ministers. In those instances where Ministers had thought it their duty to lay a proposed Commercial Treaty before the House of Commons it would generally be found that in reality they wanted the advice of the House, and required the aid of the Legislature, with regard to that particular Treaty. This was essential where customs duties were to be repealed, changed, or regulated, and in the case of Extradition Treaties, Ministers were powerless to alter the common law of England, and, consequently, such Treaties were always sanctioned and confirmed by Act of Parliament, and could not be properly quoted as precedents. In conclusion, he protested against all endeavours to give to the House of Commons an authority which they had no right to usurp, and impose a duty which they could not satisfactorily discharge.
  Question put, and negatived.

COMMERCIAL MARINE.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. PLIMSOLL,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of, and certain practices connected with, the Commercial Marine of the United Kingdom,"
  said: *Sir, if I were as competent to
  1320
  speak as I am to work for and to sympathize with the maritime population of this country, I should make a speech which would not be unworthy even of this House; unfortunately, however, I am not, and am even less able to speak in this presence than to assemblies in other places. I trust therefore, Sir, that the House will accord to me its indulgence whilst I endeavour to lay before it a few facts, out of many, upon which I shall found a Motion for an Address to the Crown, even though my statement of facts and arguments should not be as clear as other statements to which it is accustomed to listen. I will do my best to avoid, on the one hand, leaving my statements unsupported, and, on the other hand, overlaying my subject with a redundancy of proof. Before I proceed, one observation further. I wish to guard myself against being understood, in any strictures or remarks which I may use, as applying them to the whole of the shipowners of this kingdom—nothing can be further from my intention than that. I simply wish to describe practices which prevail amongst a part, and, as I believe, but a small part, of those shipowners.
  Sir, considering the amount of general knowledge which prevails now on this important subject, I shall not consider it necessary to arrange my subject into as many divisions as a full treatment of it would require, and then support each by appropriate proof; I shall rest my case upon a general statement of the law as it affects this matter—supported by quotations from letters. My statement is that the law will not prevent me nor anyone else from building a ship of any dimensions which fancy or caprice may dictate. That the law will not prevent me from using timber altogether insufficient in scantling and unsuitable in quality in building that ship. That the law will not prevent me from building an iron ship in any way I please, and of so-called steel plates of such a quality that a strong man with a heavy hammer could knock a hole in them—plates, in point of fact, little better than cast metal. That the law will not prevent me, having selected a design for a flush-deck iron steamer, and having had the ship so constructed, from building upon her, after she is launched, a poop 120 feet long, then adding a top-gallant forecastle 50 feet long, then uniting the two roofs and

  1321
  calling it a hurricane-clock, and then putting upon the latter donkey-engines, steam-cranes, and other gear, in such a way as to provoke the strongest representations that I had simply built one ship upon another, and that the whole must certainly founder the first time she encounters half a gale of wind and a beam sea. That the law will not prevent me, urged by competition, from cutting a vessel in two, adding 50 or 70 or any other number of feet to her length amidships, without any diagonal bracing, any doubling of plates, any additional bulkheads, or any of those appliances which a competent naval architect would think necessary. That the law will not prevent me from keeping my ships at sea in a state of unrepair, fraught with the highest peril to those on board—keeping her at sea until she is 70, 80, 90, 100, or even more years old—from keeping her at sea in fact, when she is so utterly rotten that if she takes the ground or touches a rock she must inevitably go to pieces with quick and sudden destruction. That the law will not interfere to prevent my loading a ship, no matter of what class or kind, with an amount of cargo that shall sink her deck within a couple of feet of the water, and sending her to sea in a condition which not merely excites the forebodings of all on board, but gives rise to many condemnatory remarks on the part of those who see her set forth. That the law will not interfere to prevent me, having built steamers for what is called canal and general cargo traffic, from sending them across the Atlantic and loading them with grain in bulk, a most dangerous cargo, and requiring ships of extraordinary tightness and strength to carry in safety; because, should there be the slightest leakage, the grain absorbs the moisture and swells, and the bursting force thus accumulated beneath the superincumbent weight of the cargo may be easily judged of when we consider the familiar illustration that is afforded in the fact, that, if you lay a flag-stone upon a stool of crocuses or snowdrops in the spring, the vital forces which the spring sets in operation will lift the stone so as to enable them to get forth. That the law will not prevent me from so overtasking the engine-power of my vessel as to load from 17 to 19 tons cargo per horsepower, a fair load per horse-power not being
  1322
  more than from 12 to 13 tons, and so overtasking the human power on board as to sail a steam-vessel of over 2,000 tons from a foreign port for England with only eight deck-hands on board, three only of whom were able seamen and competent to understand the orders which were given to them. And, lastly, that the law provides for the measurement of ships in such a way as distinctly to encourage the building of ships of an unsafe character, inasmuch as, if you cover your ship from end to end with a hurricane-deck, which will enable the vessel to throw off the seas, you make her liable to considerably increased charges—as tonnages, dues, &c.; which additional charges you altogether escape if you build merely a long poop and a forecastle, thus leaving the engine-hatches and apertures leading to the fire-hole open like a funnel to receive every sea which washes on board. If then, Sir, all this is true, and the law does not interfere to prevent practices like these, the state of things which might be anticipated, even without experience of their effects, would be ample reason why an inquiry should be instituted, with a view to the establishment of a better system. But, Sir, we are not left to á priori reasoning on this subject. We have a great mass of evidence of the saddest and most melancholy character to show that the results which might have been anticipated have followed. The statements which occur with such distressing frequency in the Board of Trade Returns, and the statements which have been so repeatedly made in the Magazine of the Lifeboat Institution, and those which are repeated on every hand by papers published in our seaports towns, constitute what I may call general proof in support of my statement. I should however, I think, make a mistake if I did not submit to the House one or two special instances which have come to my knowledge even within the past few days. This letter reached me February 27th—
  "I was brought up at a seaport town, and was 12 years in a ship-building and repairing yard; six years of the time I acted as outside superintendent, so that I had abundant opportunity of noticing the sort of 'coffins' in which sailors are often sent to sea.—bring a depot for the North, there are two important trades carried on—namely, coal and wood. The coal trade, at least until three years ago—when I left—was principally carried on by small merchants. They

  1323
  employed schooners, brigantines, and brigs to carry coal from the Scotch and English ports; very few of these vessels were classed, and the majority were equipped in the most miserable way. One merchant whom I could name lost two or three vessels every year, and, generally, all hands with the vessels. He has often been known to send his vessels to sea without proper ground-gear, in order that the captains would have to beat a passage, and not take an intermediate port. I have seen dozens of such vessels that could not be properly caulked, the planks being so rotten that pieces of wood had to be driven in the seams, and if a piece of plank was taken out, no timbers or frames could be found to fasten it to, a plate of iron having to be laid on the ceiling or inside skin for this purpose; then, again, the running gear as a rule was perfectly rotten—rotten masts, spars and sails, and miserable cabins and forecastles: these vessels would make a passage across Channel in the middle of winter, with, perhaps, 18 inches of side above water. The timber-ships are employed running to North America, many of these vessels have no character or class, and their hulls are just as bad as the coal schooners. The timber-ships have generally to bring home heavy deck loads, and you are well aware of the number of such vessels that are lost annually.—being a very handy place for wind-bound and distressed vessels, I had many chances of seeing vessels which had put into the port leaky, carrying all sorts of cargoes, salt, pig-iron, rails, &c. These cargoes are very severe on old ships; often the crews have mutinied, or more properly speaking refused to proceed in the ships, having regard for their own safety, and very often they were imprisoned for doing so. I may add that I have no interest, at least, pecuniary, in this matter now, as I am in quite a different trade, but I know that you are right, although you may encounter a great deal of opposition. I am sure that my old master, who is still a shipbuilder and repairer would give you every information he could in a private way. I have written this letter on the impulse of the moment, so that I beg you will excuse any irregularities. If you wish to make a strong case you have only to visit the seaports and find out for yourself, as I am sure there is abundance of evidence."
  Then the next letter I would submit to the House is as follows:—
  "The British steamer—,305 tons gross, 193 tons net, 35 horse-power, launched August, 1872, owned by—.Left—for—,27th December, 1872, with 360 tons pig-iron. Arrived at—with difficulty. Left Sunday, 2nd February last, with about 415 tons of wheat on board. Barely got out of the port, the weather being stormy, when she became disabled in the machinery, got down her anchors, and hung on to them till they parted in a few hours, and about 3 P.M., Sunday, went ashore, and was broken up. Of the crew, eleven in number, three only were saved. When the captain's body came ashore it had two wounds near the heart, which, being examined by a surgeon, led to the conclusion that he had committed suicide in his cabin before the completion of the wreck. Lloyd's agent at—, writes, under date of February, 1873—'I was informed by—, an Englishman, representative of Messrs.—, the ship-
  1324
  pers of the cargo, that the master appeared to be vexed by a letter received on arriving to load, from the owners of the vessel—as to the length of time of the passage. He explained to—that the engines were entirely the cause of the delay. The vessel and engines being new, he said that the latter required an entire overhauling to be cleaned out, as the valves were probably choked, and that they had experienced a good deal of difficulty with them on starting from—, but that the vessel was never sufficiently long in port to give a proper overhauling. Again, putting to sea on the Sunday when storm-signals were hoisted at the head of the harbour, knowing the engines to be defective, must have been considered a most imprudent act. But had he remained in port the vessel would have been neaped—detained by neap tides—for about ten days, to the prejudice of the owners and shippers, and for which he probably would have lost the command of the vessel. I think, therefore, that these reasons, with the fearful position of the moment, may possibly have instigated the act."
  I will now read part of another letter—
  "A few months ago a crew refused to go to sea, alleging the unseaworthiness of the ship as their reason—they were sentenced to three months imprisonment; another crew was obtained, and the ship left, and went as far as Milford, when the second crew refused to go any further; a survey was ordered, and the ship condemned. Of course, the first crew was then released, but, I presume, no compensation was given them for their unjust imprisonment, and I am told that they lost their clothes, which remained in the ship, when they went to prison. I presume this fact can be obtained from the records of the Board of Trade. I hesitate to burden you with these statements, as I fear you have similar cases ad nauseam; should it however be in my power in any way to help in putting a stop to the fearful state of things now existing, I shall only be too glad to do so."
  Then the next letter is—
  "My dear Sir,—You have made a move in the cause of humanity for which you deserve immortal credit. I have not seen your book, but I read a review of it in The Times with the deepest interest. Cases have occurred where delinquents have been executed for murder who deserved the gallows less than the monied barbarians who have sent overladen ships to sea. I send you enclosed an illustration of the justice of my statement. But to judge accurately of the disgraceful case you should read the evidence on the inquiry. It was proved that the decks were so laden with bales of cotton that the crew had to stand and walk on the top of them, so as to manage the ship, and Mr.—, a shipowner, examined for the defence, swore that the higher the bales were piled the more it conduced to safety, as if the ship went down the crew and passengers would have a better chance of escaping."
  The next letter, which I will read a portion of, describes a case which in magnitude is of frequent, and in character of every-day, occurrence—

  1325
  "Scarcely a second day passes but the police court here encounters cases of refusing to proceed to sea.' Many occur through the vice of local crimps, but as many perhaps result from the resolve of seamen not to be hastened to a sure and certain death in rotten or overlade ships. Some three weeks since some men were charged with refusing to proceed;' a local shipbuilder and owner surveyed, no doubt for the purpose of conviction, and swore the ship was fit for sea. The men were all but sentenced, but justice happened to halt; a remand occurred; a qualified person surveyed immediately; swore the vessel was not fit for sea, and, lo! the men escaped the punishment which perjury or incompetence, perhaps both, would have inflicted upon them, and probably, in the then state of the weather, they escaped the inevitable doom so often forced upon seamen. The other fact is this—a local iron firm of brothers were engaged to remove and repair the shaft of a large steamer; it had been bent, and cracked, and was totally unfit for use. Being removed and examined, nothing could be done but cutting off the injured part, but the authorities of the ship would not hear of it; it was patched up, but the wound was dangerous as ever. These brothers remarked that it was a scandal to take a ship to sea with such a shaft—'they would not go to sea in her for all the world.' She was bound for America, and they remarked—'if she does get there she will never return.' She did get there, but never returned, and her history was obliterated in the dark and secret sea. No inquiry followed! no record of her fate, no sympathy! her crew, I believe, were erased from life as if they never lived; but the widow and the orphan's moans were heard in Heaven, where these Pharisees will some day be called to judgment! As to evidence, these gentlemen, the officers of Customs, pilots, and men who stow the coal and iron cargoes, could give invaluable and conclusive testimony, and should be called throughout the kingdom, while the gentlemen who related the incident of the broken shaft are prepared to swear to its truth."
  That extract, Sir, will complete my statement of the case. It will be seen by the House, that, as now stated by me, I have limited myself to extracts from official documents and cases which have come to my knowledge within the last few days. I have done this advisedly for the purpose of avoiding the introduction of controversial matter.
  I will now ask the House to consider with me for a moment the extent of the mischief which has resulted from the state of things which I have endeavoured to describe. I have endeavoured to get at the total loss of life recorded in the Wreck Register of the Board of Trade, but the totals are so distributed as to make this very difficult, and I am not even now sure that I have the whole; at any rate I am able to assure the House that the total annual loss for the following four years is not less than I
  1326
  now give the figures for:—In 1868, the lives lost were 2,488; in 1869, 2,821; in 1870, 3,411; and in 1871, 2,296. In all, 11,016, or 2,754 per annum on the average. I will next ask the House to consider with me for a moment the kind of men that are thus drowned in such appalling numbers; and I will, for this purpose, confine myself to entries which I find in the blue books issued by the Board of Trade—of opinions not uttered by Englishmen, but by the agents of foreign governments, who have been struck with admiration at the heroism and self-denial and humane feeling of our seamen at various times. The blue books of each year are crowded with instances of the same character as those of which I will read to the House a very few. In the blue book for the year 1868, at page 81, it will be found that 12 Englishmen, whose names are given, were rewarded by the French Government each with a silver medal for rescuing, at great risk, the crew of the French galleot L' Anemone, of Nantes. The same page records that a gold medal was given to an Englishman for rescuing, with much risk, the survivor of the ship Courier, of Dieppe. The very next entry is that of the master of the Perthshire Lassie, who was rewarded with a gold medal for rescuing, with much difficulty, the crew of a French ship. Further down we find that an Englishman was rewarded with a binocular glass for rescuing the crew of a French ship L' Aimable Virginie, and treating them with much kindness for 13 days. In the same page 14 Englishmen were each rewarded by the French Government with a silver medal for attempting, at the risk of their lives, to rescue the crew of the French ship Trois Sœurs. These instances might be quoted ad infinitum. In the Wreck Register of 1865 it is recorded that two Englishmen were rewarded by the Government of the Netherlands for their gallant and humane conduct in rescuing the crew of a steamer which was in danger. I should weary the House if I were merely to attempt to read a tithe of these cases; to read them in the blue books is deeply interesting, and makes us very proud of our countrymen; but, although I will not trouble the House with any more special instances, I wish to guard against these being supposed to be at all singular, by stating that in the year 1861 30 instances are recorded where a British

  1327
  subject or subjects as the case might be were rewarded by foreign Governments for conspicuous gallantry in rescuing and saving imperilled life. Such instances occur in—1862, 39; 1863, 42; 1864, 21; 1865, 26; 1866, 26; 1867, 32; 1868, 53; 1869, 34. In many of these instances, of course, very considerable numbers of men were included in the rewards and commendations of foreign Governments, and we may fairly assume that the cases of courage and self-devotion exhibited are vastly more numerous than those which were brought to the notice of the authorities and followed by reward. Does not the reading of these testimonies to the gallantry and self-devotion of our fellow-countrymen, at sea, cause all our hearts to beat high with pride that the fame of England is thus upheld in the eyes of other nations? Brave, tender-hearted, courageous, we yet suffer them to be drowned by the dozen and score at once, or to suffer torments worse than death to add to the ill-gotten gains of a few bad men. Now, Sir, let us see who they are who mourn the loss of these men.
  "Dear Sir,—I trust that the disappointment you have encountered in the outset of your gallant undertaking will in no wise deter you from what you propose doing. Only be bold enough and consistent, and you will find supporters everywhere. How little true patriotism there is—the base greed of gain swallows up every honourable thought and Christian principle. If I were a man I would uphold the cause publicly. Ah, it makes my heart burn to think that English lads by scores, like my own son, are sent out to perish in rotten tubs, while the 'honest' shipowner sits complacently in his Sunday pew and lays by his guineas with untroubled conscience. So onward I say, for the sake of England's name which is growing fast a by-word among nations.
  "AN ENGLISH MOTHER."
  Take another case—
  "Dear Sir,—It is with feelings of deep, deep gratitude that I address you, and trust you will pardon my seeming intrusion. I am simply doing what a vast number of widows and fatherless would endorse. Thank you for taking the part of the sailors, to whom the nation at large owe so much and care for so little. Two years ago I lost my dear husband, he left me to join a splendid steamer called the—, and there were on that same vessel men of tender, loving hearts, and upright minds—37 of the men went into eternity. God only knows how bitter it is to part from those dear as life itself, waiting to hear the old step again, waiting to see the happy manly face, and to hear the voice once more, but waiting in vain, for they have had the bright eyes closed in death, not by loving hands at home, but amid the angry billows, far from
  1328
  those who would gladly have saved them from such a cruel end.
  "I have not read your book, but have heard about it; it would only intensify a sorrow bitter enough at times. I can only say I know the truth and justice of the cause you set forth, and hope it will meet with the sympathy it demands. One could more fully submit to the loss of friends when all has been done for them, when no fault of carelessness is left to haunt the soul after, but England has permitted men to go to sea in rotten vessels. What is the consequence? Every winter numbers of brave strong men find a watery grave, and all that is left for the poor widows and children is a little sympathy, unless it be in the case of a Captain or Northfleet, then it goes far enough to help as well as pity. How do we act on shore when danger or disease overtakes us? We take every precaution, use the means, then leave the rest to God. But people are in the habit of speaking as if all the loss of life at sea ought to be expected. We know that God holds the waters in the hollow of his hands. He raiseth the stormy wind, but are we to charge Him with what man does? I do not, and how much pain it would save the childless mother, the widow and fatherless, did they but know that all care had been taken of the loved and lost. Your work cannot recall those who are gone, cannot bring back my husband and home, but there are others now on the deep who will thank you for spared lives, and many a tender woman will unite with me in thanking you. May God grant that the interest now awakened may not subside as it has before; for two years I have prayed that someone would come forth, and I have faith to believe that not only something may be done, but all that will ensure the safety of those who leave home and loved ones to ply the great deep. If they are taken then we as a nation could say the Lord hath taken. Pardon my writing, God knows what I feel, may He bless and help you in your work is the prayer of yours respectfully"
  Sir, I ask this House to put a stop to this wanton and wicked waste of precious human life, and I gather that that is their will.
  I will now proceed to consider the steps necessary to give effect to that will. We must first—and I trust that will be some time before we sleep—appoint a Commission which shall make a thorough and searching inquiry into the whole subject, including undermanning, bad stowage, deck loading, deficient engine power, over insurance, defective construction, improper lengthening, overloading, want of repair, necessity for certificated masters between Brest and the Elbe, rate of speed lawful in fogs, rule of road, and code of signals. I trust Her Majesty's Government will see that the Commission consists of the very best men that can be found for the purpose, and that it is sufficiently numerous, after prosecuting the inquiry, so

  1329
  far as it can be prosecuted with advantage in London, to divide itself into two sections, one of which might take the East Coast and Scotland, and the other the West Coast and Ireland, so as to lose as little time as possible in completing their investigations. In the meantime I trust this House will pass a Bill dealing with the most obvious and easily-remediable sources of disaster, which Bill can give place to the more perfect and thoroughly-considered measure which we may anticipate as the result of their Report. We may also in the meantime avail ourselves of the ample information possessed by the Board of Trade to compile a series of Tables or Returns which shall greatly aid the Commission when they conic to frame the recommendations which they will lay before the House. I find that the Board of Trade has the most ample records, and the fullest details on this subject—details sufficiently extensive and exhaustive, with the aid of such particulars as we may easily obtain from the Register of British and Foreign Ships to compile the Returns, which I will now suggest to the House should be ordered forthwith. The Returns I suggest are-1st. Debiting all wrecks to the various ports. 2nd. Debiting them to the various kinds of cargo. 3rd. Showing lengths; other dimensions. 4th. Showing proportion of man power to ship's tonnage. 5th. Man power to the weight of cargo. 6th. Showing the proportion of engine power to ship's tonnage. The 7th should show the proportion of engine power to the weight of cargo. For the 8th. Use water draught line for deep loading. And 9th. An alphabetical list of owners, showing the losses of each individual shipowner. And then, 10th. Arranged so as to show first those who have lost none for the 10 years—a large proportion of the whole. Then those who have lost fewest, and so on. And at the end of this list the country will see what they will see. The records of the Board of Trade are amply sufficient to furnish the whole of this information—they are like the still waters of Bethesda's pool, full of latent capability of blessing, and like them only waiting to be troubled by the spirit of inquiry to give forth healing and life. And, Sir, I am satisfied that when the Commission, which I trust this House will appoint this evening, has completed its work and reported thereon, and this
  1330
  House has adopted such measures, in consequence, as the exigencies of the case may require, so great a change will ensue, that, whereas our fellow-subjects at sea have hitherto pursued their most beneficent calling in constant and imminent peril of their lives, they shall in the future pursue that calling with as much as, or even greater safety, than that in which we travel by railway ashore; and as to the homes of those who are dependent upon them, of those they love, so great will be the change, that, whereas in the past their homes have been like those of the Egyptians on that dread night when the angel of death went from house to house throughout all the land taking his toll of dead, they shall in the future be like the homes of the Israelites on that same night, which, when the angel of death sought to enter, he could not, because they bore upon them the symbol of His loving and protecting care. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Address.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONhad great satisfaction in seconding the Motion, having himself in the year 1870 moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the loss of life and property at sea. He was led to take a great interest in this subject from the terrible loss of the large steamer called the City of Boston, which crossed the Atlantic between America and England, which went to sea and was never heard of again. Having put a question to the Government on the subject, he received letters from all parts of England entreating him not to let the matter drop, but to endeavour to institute an inquiry into the practices which led to disasters of such a terrible character, and the loss of such an immense amount of life and property. In the year 1870, when he brought forward his Motion for a Commission, he did so under this great disadvantage—that, owing to the illness of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), there was no President of the Board of Trade in the House, and therefore the attention of the Government could not be fully given to the subject. The answer he received from the Government was that that huge Bill—which the House must recollect, and which had 700 clauses, and was, he believed, still lying unadopted by the House—dealt with the subject. He ad-

  1331
  mitted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Fortescue) acted in the fairest spirit with reference to the clauses bearing upon the loss of life and property at sea. But the utility of those clauses, in his (Sir John Pakington's) opinion, amounted to nothing, and were insufficient for the great object the House had in view. His object on the present occasion was two-fold. He wished to entreat the Government to concede this inquiry, and to concede anything which would render it most effective. Our national character was involved in this inquiry. He would make no personal charges, for the question was far above any personal charges—he wished to raise one of the most important questions that could excite the interest of the country and the House. The stoppage of the evils which existed was far more important than the question whether A, B, or C had transgressed the rules of propriety. But he had a second object in view, and that was to tender his thanks to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) for bringing forward this question. The hon. Gentleman had taken up the question in a manner which he (Sir John Pakington) thought must excite the gratitude of every reflecting and right-minded man in the country; he had published a book which they all admired, and which had excited not only the interest, but the sympathy of a large portion of the public of this country. He wished to place before the House some additional reasons for the appointment of the Commission now asked for. He believed that few hon. Members of that House and the public in general had very little idea of the immense extent of the loss of life and property at sea. In the year 1871, according to Lloyd's Lists, which he believed was the highest authority that could be referred to on the subject, more than 13,000 wrecks and casualties occurred, and the lives lost in the course of that year amounted to 2,040. In the year 1872, the autumn of which, as they must all remember, was very severe, the loss was above the average of former years. Of sailing ships the number absolutely lost was 2,682, of which 1,310 were British ships. He would now call attention to the distinction between wrecks and. casualties, and those ships that were either abandoned or foundered at sea, or were what was called "missing."
  1332
  The number of ships that foundered in 1872 was 637, and the number missing was 135—the meaning of "missing" being ships that went to sea, of which nothing was ever heard afterwards, and. the fair inference was that they had gone down to the bottom of the sea with every soul on board. The number of steamers lost during that period. was 244 of over 100 tons, of which 142 were British ships. From the 1st January in the present year up to this time no less than 50 vessels were missing, many of them being fine iron steamers, and in all probability they had gone to the bottom. Under these circumstances, he considered it the duty of the House to inquire into the probable causes of the terrible loss of life and. property. He believed that the great and prominent cause was overloading. On a former occasion he mentioned a number of casualties that had occurred from overloading. He would now mention a single case—which was a very remarkable one—and in doing so he would refrain from mentioning names. A ship of 550 tons sailed in December from England for New Orleans laden with 786 tons of iron, which was among the substances known to shipowners as "dead weight"—dead weight consisting of iron, coal, and corn. It was the rule of the Council of India that no vessel laden with dead weight should be allowed to carry more than three-quarters of a ton of cargo to each ton of her register, and the rule of the Admiralty with regard to transports was still more stringent, for no vessel was allowed to carry more than half a ton of dead weight to each ton of her register. Now, iron, he understood, was the most dangerous of all dead-weight cargoes, yet here was a vessel of 550 tons register carrying 786 tons of iron. What happened? Just what might have been expected. The ship put into Falmouth in a leaky condition in December, and she sailed again on the 31st January last, but on the 4th February, four days afterwards, she went down. That was a specimen of the evils to which we were liable from the practice of overloading ships. He was happy to add, however, that some passing vessel picked up the crew, who were saved. Another source of these evils, and a more fruitful source than it was generally supposed to be, was the faulty and bad construction of our mer-

  1333
  chant ships in the first instance. Ships wore badly built, so that they could not float. He would give an instance. On the 1st February an entirely new ship sailed on her first voyage from this country to Bombay with a cargo of coals, and on the 3rd of February, she went down. He had two other cases of the same kind, in one of which what ought to have been a very fine ship of 2,600 tons bound to the East Indies with passengers and cargo, got as far as Portsmouth, but there she was found to be so strained and injured by the voyage that she was obliged to put in, and her passengers were transferred to another vessel. These facts ought to be explained. They were thoroughly disgraceful to a portion of the Mercantile Marine of England, and it was the interest, as it ought to be the earnest desire, of the respectable portion, which constituted the great majority of those who were connected with the Mercantile Marine of England, to have an end put to such a shameful state of affairs. Another fruitful cause of these terrible calamities arose from the habit of overloading the timber ships which carried on the timber trade with America. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had said truly that when a ship was loaded with timber she would not sink, but from the very nature of the cargo there was a temptation, which was too often yielded to, to load timber ships to an extent inconsistent with their proper navigation. Such vessels were often not only filled, but piled up with wood to such an extent, that if bad weather came on they could not be properly navigated. In seconding this Motion, he had thought it his duty to lay before the House some grounds which appeared to him to be convincing and conclusive as to the necessity for a searching inquiry. He saw from the Paper that an Amendment was to be moved by Isis hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), and he presumed that the object of that hon. Gentleman was substantially the same as that of the hon. Member for Derby and himself. The hon. Gentleman did not object to the inquiry, but wished it to be conducted with all the sanctity and additional authority conferred by having the witnesses examined on oath. For his part he cared little in what shape the inquiry was granted—that point was rather one for the President of the Board of Trade. He felt
  1334
  convinced, however, that the Government would not again refuse this inquiry, for the feeling throughout the country which had been elicited by the remarkable book published by the hon. Member for Derby put it out of the question for this or any Government to refuse the investigation asked for. It was vital to our national credit, to our commerce, to our Mercantile Marine, and above all to the lives of the gallant men who manned these vessels, and who were now in many instances liable to be shut up in prison because a regard for their lives forbade their going to sea in unseaworthy ships, that the inquiry should be searching and complete, and so long as it was a thorough and boân fide inquiry he himself cared very little as to the mode in which it should be conducted.
  Motion made and Question proposed
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of, and certain practices connected with, the Commercial Marine of the -United Kingdom."—(Mr. Plimsoll.)
  MR. CLAYtrusted the House would place upon the course he intended to pursue the same indulgent construction as had been placed upon it by his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington). Every hon. Member in that House believed the inquiry to be necessary, and he had no desire to delay the appointment of the Commission asked for; he was anxious only that its powers should be larger, and its actions more effective than could be the case if an ordinary Royal Commission were appointed, as proposed by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). A Royal Commission could not take evidence on oath; a Commission appointed by Act of Parliament and so empowered could; and when the importance of the issues involved were considered, he was sure the House would agree with him that the evidence tendered should be taken on oath. The principal point involved was the welfare of the merchant seamen; but associated with it as a collateral issue, was the fair fame of an honourable profession hitherto held in deservedly high esteem. The whole profession must suffer under the vague suspicions now floating about, and among the members of that profession were some having seats in the House. He knew it might be said that

  1335
  the chief if not the sole object of this inquiry was remedial, and that it might be narrowed to that; but in that case a Royal Commission and the Commission he proposed would stand on a perfectly equal footing. But he could not believe it possible to conduct an inquiry of this kind without producing evidence which might seriously inculpate individuals, and if so, evidence ought not to be taken, except upon oath. Although careful to abstain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the question, as it affected individuals, he felt bound to say a few words on a personal matter. It was of no use blinking the question. Everybody knew that some hon. Members of this House lay under serious accusations against their personal reputation, and among them was his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Norwood)—his hon. Friend, he wished to say, in a much broader sense than was usually attached to those words. It might have surprised many—it had surprised some—that his hon. Friend had remained entirely silent under these accusations; but the fact was his hon. Friend, first on his own impulse, and then by the advice of friends, determined on defending his character by applying for a criminal information in the Court of Queen's Bench, where, by one of those admirable contrivances by which the law prevents anything from being done in undue haste, he would be unable to be heard until April next. Under these circumstances, his hon. Friend had been urged in the strongest manner by high legal authority to keep his mouth closed here and elsewhere, for fear of putting in jeopardy the success of his application. The Court was very jealous of any interference, and if his hon. Friend had said anything in his own defence on the subject generally, he might be told—"You have invited other interference besides ours; don't come to us. You must find a remedy where you can." It was on that account his hon. Friend had kept and would continue to keep silence in the House, and he trusted that no one would imagine his hon. Friend to be indifferent to a matter which all his Friends knew him to have greatly at heart. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. SAMUDA,in seconding the Amendment, wished it to be distinctly
  1336
  understood that his object was to obtain the fullest investigation that could possibly be obtained and if the forms of the House, or difficulties attending the Commission, should be such that the Government, in taking the matter into their own hand, as he hoped they would, found that one mode of investigation was better than another, and equally capable of bringing out the facts with the view of building up legislation thereon, he, for one, was disposed to leave the details in the hands of the Government. With reference to the object of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), the time had arrived when it was no longer possible to leave matters in the state in which they were. There was one particular point connected with losses at sea to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) had not referred, and it was that whilst science in other Departments had succeeded in introducing improvements from year to year, and diminishing the number of casualties, the operations in the shipping trade had been attended with very different results. He would exemplify that with a few figures. It appeared from the records published by the Board of Trade that the losses for the consecutive periods of the five years ending in 1853, 1858, 1863, and 1868 were respectively 969 ships, 1,118 ships, 1,488 ships, and 1,744 ships—which showed that there was a continually increasing loss of ships. He had had an opportunity of taking the average up to 1871, and making a similar division for the averages for 15 years, ending at the respective periods of five years before 1871, it appeared that the losses were 1,045 ships, 1,320 ships, 1,611 ships, and 1,805 ships, from which the House would perceive, as he had remarked, that there was a continually augmenting loss of ships. But then it might be said that our trade was now considerably greater, and that the increase in the number of our vessels would account for the increased number of losses. He would, however, be able to show that the House could not rely on any such explanation; for in 1858 the number of ships of all sorts on the books belonging to the United Kingdom was within 100 of 27,000, while in 1868 they were only 29,000; so that while the increase in the number of ships during these 10 years

  1337
  was only 8 per cent, the increase in the number of losses was at the rate of 50 per cent. Now, the question arose why the increase in the number of ships was so small, and the answer was easy; we very nearly lost as many ships as we built, and the increased quantity of the work of the kingdom was done by ships built being of larger tonnage than those which were lost. The increase in the loss was something enormous. There was another fact which was very significant. It appeared that the most fatal of the voyages which were performed by vessels were those to the Baltic, and among other notes given in Lloyds' List of Wrecks and Casualties was one which showed that in 1870 no fewer than 21 steamers were lost during such voyages. But a more curious and important fact was that these 21 steamers had made only 2,100 voyages, and therefore the loss was 1 per 100 voyages; and taking the period each vessel required to perform its Baltic voyage at something like a month, the life of each of these steamers represented eight years, supposing it had been kept at constant work; in other words, we would be under the necessity of replacing our commercial fleet engaged in the Baltic trade every eight years. Such circumstances involved very serious questions relating to the morality and respectability of the nation, and though he was by no means sanguine of an easy remedy, yet he thought too much care could not be taken to discover the causes of this state of things. Again, in 1871, the 1,575 wrecks and casualties among vessels trading within the narrow seas represented 458,000 tons of shipping, or about £5,000,000 sterling a year. There were two or three more facts which he would mention merely with the view that the House should attach its due weight to the subject. He saw it stated in the official Report of the Board of Trade that the wrecks and casualties for the 10 years ending 1871 amounted to a grand total of 13,300, of which those resulting from stress of weather in a total loss numbered 7,300; those resulting in wreck from various other causes, or from causes unknown, numbered 2,500; while not less than 3,400 were set down as being lost from inattention, carelessness, neglect, and defective equipment; that, put in plain language, meant that nearly one-half of the losses arose from preventible causes, It was these pre-
  1338
  ventible causes the Commission would have to deal with. One of the most important suggestions the Commission would have to consider, with a view to a remedy, would be the question of insurance, and he had long held a strong opinion that it would be found beneficial to compel every owner of a ship to become to a very large extent his own underwriter. That was no new proposal. He believed such an arrangement was in force in Scandinavia and in some others of the northern countries of Europe. Even in our own country it existed in a very modified form; for in the case of slight accidents—that is, accidents short of total loss—the rule was that an owner had to bear one-third, and he received from the underwriters two-thirds only of the amount of the loss. That was precisely the remedy which he would carry out. Of course, to give effect to such a proposal it should be rendered illegal to value the ships for insurance beyond their actual value—either by subjecting them to be valued by a public officer, or by fixing a maximum value per ton for vessels, according to their different ages and descriptions. This would produce, to a large extent, the state of things which existed in some well-found, well-managed, and highly commended fleets. He had already shown the losses occurring in Baltic vessels, which, for the sake of comparison, would reduce the life of those ships to a period of eight years. They would require them to pay, roughly, an insurance of 12 per cent, and the smallest amount paid at Lloyd's in annual insurance of a steamer was something like 6 per cent. But if they took one of the best-known and best-founded services—that of Cunard's—it would be found that they did not insure. They had been at work more than 20 years; and, to the best of his knowledge, they had never lost a ship. [An Hon. MEMBER: One ship.] Well, one ship. Their line of navigation was one of the most dangerous during a large portion of the year, for they had to encounter formidable icebergs, and some of the densest fogs, yet he understood that there was scarcely a retardation of speed whilst the ships were in that region, so carefully was everything conducted, and so good was the look-out kept. The public had the utmost confidence in them. Then

  1339
  take Messrs. Wigwam's ships. Their vessels had been at work about the same time, they did not insure, but their vessels were so carefully managed and refitted, and stores of superior quality so extensively supplied, that during their whole career he believed they had only lost two ships. Then there was the line known as Green's line. Here operations were carried on upon a far larger scale, and they insured not at all, or but very little. The total number of ships which they had lost was four or five, that loss amounting to not 2 per cent per annum upon the insurance which they would have paid upon their ships. Then there was the Peninsular and Oriental Company; they were their own insurers, and they were continually paying very large bonuses to their shareholders out of the surplus profits of their own insurance fund. They assured him that their losses had not amounted to more than 2, or, at the most, 2¼ upon the amount of insurance. The result was, that whilst these most perfectly found fleets, were worked at not more than 2 per cent loss, Lloyd's were obliged to charge 6 per cent to insure; and yet very few of the underwriters accumulated any very large amount of money. [An hon. MEMBER: Take Thornton.] Mr. Richard Thornton was a man who speculated in everything, and probably it would be found that his insurance profits did go far to make up the £3,000,000 he left behind him; and besides, his insurances were of a gambling nature. He would insure vessels supposed to be lost at 60 or 80 per cent, and he was often very fortunate. Mr. Thornton's was a most exceptional case, and not one that in the smallest degree affected the comparison he had laid before the House. The competition with Lloyd's was very severe, and yet they could not charge less than 6 per cent for insurance, and the reason was that they insured all the ill-found and unseaworthy ships. No doubt, overloading was the cause of the largest proportion of losses paid by underwriters, and it was easy to understand why it should be so. Competition drove everything to the extremest limit, and, indeed, he believed that it deteriorated the character of all kinds of work. It also reduced freights to the lowest. A scrupulous owner put into his ship only that amount of cargo that he thought she could carry safely, whilst the unscrupulous owner,
  1340
  having got an amount of insurance that would recoup him, put in 100 tons more, the whole freight on which was absolute profit if the ship floated, and if not, why then he put the insurance money into his pocket. He would give an illustration. He recollected that about the end of the Crimean War a shipowner applied to two builders to give him an estimate for the building of a vessel of 600 tons, which one of them offered to build for £14,000, and the other for £12,000. The work was given to the lowest. The Crimean War finished suddenly, and as he could not get a charter from the Government as he had expected, he was compelled to put his ship at a very low freight on service to a foreign port. The ship had not long left the shore when she went upon some sand and soon tumbled all to pieces, and was heard of no more. The other shipbuilder said to the owner—"You had better have had my ship." "Oh, no," was the reply—"If I had it would never have gone to pieces; as it is, I have the insurance on the ship and the insurance on my freight, and I am better off than I should have been with yours." This incident suggested the very point he wished the House to consider. They should deal with the matter in such a way as to make, if possible, the interest of the owner such that he should make the safety of his ship his first consideration, and profit upon it or the cargo the second. He was prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, and be satisfied with either Commission which they should think fit to issue.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into," in order to insert the words "it is desirable that a Bill be forthwith introduced into this House by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of constituting a Commission to inquire into upon oath and report upon,"—(Mr. Clay,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought it might be convenient that he should state, without further delay, the intention of the Government with respect to this Motion, and

  1341
  that intention was to accept in substance the proposal of the hon. Member for Derby, though they would not be able to accept the exact words, for reasons which he would give presently. In common with the Mover and Seconder of the Motion (Mr. Plimsoll and Sir John Pakington) he most earnestly desired that the measures now to be taken might—he would not say stop, but—largely diminish the disasters to life and property at sea that had been brought to their attention by the hon. Member for Derby. Being most anxious that the inquiry should lead to fruitful legislation, he was bound in the interests of truth, of the credit of the Mercantile Marine, and of the cause of rational legislation to comment upon some statements made by the hon. Member for Derby in his speech and also in his book. In his opinion some of them were exaggerated, and would lead to a false estimate both as to the amount of folly and criminality existing in the Mercantile Marine of this country, and also to an over-sanguine estimate of the extent of preventible loss and disaster, and of the amount of good which any legislation could possibly effect. The hon. Member for Derby began that remarkable book of his, which he (Mr. C. Fortescue) had read with the greatest care and interest, by saying that he was not capable of writing a book. He could assure him that he entirely differed from him. The hon. Member was very capable of writing a book, and he had, in fact, written a most interesting and remarkable book in the most simple, idiomatic, and racy English. With respect to the statistics of the book, however, he was not able to be so encomiastic, because many of those statistics were open to severe criticism and large reduction. Let not the House mistake his meaning; because, from the intention he had announced, it would be inferred that there was a large foundation of truth in the general statements of the book. The statements made in the official records, from which the most trustworthy parts of the case were derived, furnished a foundation of facts quite sufficient to justify and support further inquiry. Nevertheless, he thought the House would agree with him that things were not quite so bad in the Mercantile Marine as the hon. Member for Derby supposed; and that
  1342
  in the dreadful occurrences which all so much deplored, there was not so much due to causes which could be prevented by legislation as the hon. Member in his enthusiasm imagined. The most remarkable statement made was, that a large proportion of the wrecks at sea arose from causes which the hon. Member thought could be easily prevented—namely, overloading and unseaworthiness. In the beginning of the book, he estimated the proportion of the preventible losses at one-half, towards the end of the book he said two-thirds, and to-night he had got to four-fifths. The House must not run away with the supposition that anything like that proportion of the losses at sea was due to criminal conduct on the part of the Mercantile Marine of the country, or was preventible by any legislation. It was not always quite clear when the hon. Member spoke of losses at sea, whether he meant losses of lives or of ships. [Mr. PLIMSOLL: Lives, invariably.] But towards the end of the book he spoke of the possibility of legislation saving 1,000 lives by the end of 1873. He was informed on the best authority within his reach that the number of British seamen who lost their lives by drowning in 1871 was 1,500. He wished he could be sanguine enough to believe that any efforts of theirs could save 1,000 out of 1,500; but he feared it was too much to expect. The hon. Member said that the Returns of the Board of Trade attributed half the losses and wrecks on our coasts to colliers and coasting vessels, which contained, no doubt, a large proportion of unseaworthy members; and, considering that these losses were due to unseaworthiness, he estimated that all the vessels could be made seaworthy by Act of Parliament. The figures which the hon. Member took did not all represent total losses; but casualties of all kinds, from trifling accidents to total losses. Out of the total number of casualties, not above one-third could be said to be losses in the proper sense of the word; and therefore while the hon. Member, quoting a benevolent magazine, The Life Boat, put down the losses of ships in the last six years at 6,357, he had good reason for believing that the losses in that period did not much exceed 2,000. In the year 1871, off the coasts of the United Kingdom, there were 1,575 wrecks and casualties, excluding collisions, and of these

  1343
  1,224 were casualties only, and the number of total losses was only 398, while the number of casualties attended with any loss of life was only 135. The wrecks and casualties of the last 10 years numbered, as stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), 13,324. He (Mr. C. Fortescue), however, believed that he had much over calculated the number. So far as the Board of Trade was able to ascertain, 1,179 of these wore due to unseaworthiness and unsoundness of gear, the remainder having been due to other causes. Therefore it was impossible to assume that unseaworthiness had been the cause of so large a proportion of wrecks and casualties. Those who knew what happened on our coasts would remember that when a sudden gale sprang up hundreds of colliers and coasters were driven ashore, and that, independently of their unseaworthiness and their loading. They were affected by it no doubt; but not to take these cases into consideration gave a totally exaggerated view of the problem with which they had to deal. Any hon. Member might recollect the gales which had occurred during the last few years, and had sent vessels by the score on the coast. Some few years ago that happened in Torbay, where, in two hours, 60 or 70 vessels were driven on shore. Something of the same kind happened in the neighbourhood of the Tyne, when 96 vessels went ashore, and 77 lives were lost, Now, such casualties as those it was almost impossible to prevent, and he pointed these things out to show that it was not fair to exaggerate the amount of criminality which was said to exist in our Mercantile Marine, and that they ought not hastily to adopt extravagant expectations as to what they could accomplish. The hon. Member for Derby had complained of the Returns of the Board of Trade. Now, those Returns as to wrecks were, he thought, most elaborate and careful. Certainly, great pains were taken to inform the public and bring all the facts home to the minds of those interested in shipping—a service not to be despised. But if the hon. Member was not satisfied with those Returns, and would move for others that he thought more useful, he could only say it would give him the greatest pleasure to consider his wishes and endeavour to meet them. The hon. Gentleman also complained in his book
  1344
  of the inquiries of the Board of Trade, which he said were much too limited and confined absolutely to the case of passenger ships. There the hon. Member was entirely mistaken; and the House ought to know what the Board of Trade did and had done for some years past. In every case where evidence could be procured in respect to the loss of a ship, an inquiry was held as promptly as possible into all the circumstances by the Receiver of Wrecks, assisted by the officers of the Coastguard, under most careful instructions from the Board of Trade. When the circumstances disclosed any reason for further formal inquiry, that formal public inquiry was instituted. During the year 1871 there were 132 public legal inquiries—he was not now speaking of the ordinary preliminary inquiries—into wrecks and casualties, and out of the whole 132 only 16 related to passenger ships. Then the hon. Member treated with great contempt some of their late legislation with a view to the safety of life at sea; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington), referring to the provisions of the Bill which he had been able to carry the, Session before last, and which contained all the clauses of the huge Merchant Shipping Act relating to the saving of life, spoke of them at first as effecting nothing, but afterwards said they were insufficient. Well, he did not himself pretend that they were sufficient; but he denied that they were worthless, and he should have been happy at the time, as he would be now, to have done more. The hon. Member for Derby complained over and over again in his book that a sailor could be sent to goal whenever for any cause he refused to proceed on his voyage. That never literally was the case, because whenever there was a lawful cause the sailor could refuse to go to sea; but he had great difficulty in proving a lawful cause, such as the unseaworthiness of the ship, great discomfort, the want of proper provisions and the like. But what the Act that he carried had done was this—and it made all the difference in the world. It had given the sailor, on refusing to go to sea a right to demand a Government survey of the ship. [An hon. MEMBER: At whose expense?] If the sailor was right in his allegation, at the expense of the owner; if the sailor was wrong, he himself had the expense to pay, if he

  1345
  could. He knew the hon. Member for Derby held that to be ridiculous, and throughout his book he treated all those difficult matters—for difficult they were—as if they could be settled by a word. The expense, if his allegation was wrong, could only be deducted out of the sailor's wages. And here he could not help saying that the hon. Member for Derby did not assist him in carrying the Act of 1871, although he had some difficulty in carrying it, and it came out of Committee not quite so good as it went in. But the fact was, sailors were not always the most perfect characters; and as they obtained a month's advance of wages in many cases before they started from home, they were under a great temptation to make use of any pretence to escape from their engagement, and it was not always possible to believe the tale of a sailor when he came ashore with money in his pocket, and said he would not go on his voyage. Those facts had to be considered if they were to have practical and rational legislation. Cases, were now, however, multiplying every day at our seaports in which sailors bonâ fide refused to go on their voyages on account of the unseaworthiness of their ships, and in which the magistrates called on the Board of Trade to survey the ships; and the result was that the sailors were discharged and the ship left without a crew, when the owners were compelled either to give up the voyage or to repair the vessels. At all events, the sailors were saved, in these cases, from dangerous voyages and from the hardship—which certainly had often happened—of being committed to gaol for causes of a most innocent kind. The hon. Member said it was very wrong to allow the re-christening of ships, by which great frauds were committed, many bad ships passing under new names. Well, by the Act of the Session before last that very thing was forbidden, no ship being now permitted to change her name without the consent of the Board of Trade, which was never given without very careful inquiry, and which was constantly refused. A remarkable instance of that occurred within the last few days. He had seen in a Dublin newspaper a statement that there must be some waggish person at the Board of Trade who had insisted on a ship that rejoiced in the name of "The Devil" changing her name into that of "The Printer's Boy."
  1346
  He inquired into the facts, and found that a ship rejoicing in the name of "The Devil," which had gone about the world for some time, had applied to the Board of Trade—he did not know whether from some compunction on the part of the owner—to change her name to "The Printer's Boy;" but before that process could be effected a careful inquiry was held, and it was only on "The Devil" proving to be of unimpeachable character that it was allowed to become "The Printer's Boy." Another provision of the Act of 1871 to which the hon. Member paid no attention, but which he was assured was already producing good effects, was that under which the officers of the Board of Trade were required to take the depth of water of a ship leaving port. The great difficulty there, was that that Board did not possess officers enough for the purpose, and he found that if they were to carry out that provision of the Act of 1871, it would be necessary very considerably to increase their staff. He was told that to do it effectually they must employ 10 additional surveyors in the Tyne alone. With regard to deck-loading, especially in timber-laden ships, he had seen statements of the most startling kind as to the loss of life from that cause during the past season. The real figures were quite startling and melancholy enough. He found that, in 1872, 148 lives had been lost in timber-laden ships, 106 of them from deck-loading. Deck-loading was illegal until a few years ago, when the Act against it was deliberately repealed, having proved a dead letter. It could only be effectually prevented with vessels coming from Canada and the United States on the other side of the Atlantic, and he had asked Lord Granville and Lord Kimberley to come to an agreement with those Governments to take precautions against it, for restrictions at the port of loading would do more to prevent this serious evil than any action at the port of arrival. The hon. Member for Derby had spoken of the British sailor as the most neglected being in the United Kingdom; but the truth, on the contrary, was, that he had been the object of much care and thought on the part of Parliament. Going back to 1850, the examination of masters and mates for the Mercantile Marine was established, which, with the withdrawal of certificates for

  1347
  misconduct, had led to a great improvement. In 1851 the winding-up of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, formed by subscriptions, was undertaken, this having already cost the Government £1,000, 000, and leaving a further expense to be incurred. Means were also provided for recovering the wages and effects of deceased seamen abroad, whereby £543,000 had been distributed among the families of 81,000 seamen, a task troublesome to the Board of Trade, but of the greatest advantage to the persons interested. The survey of passenger steamers was next introduced, and in 1854 his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) carried the Merchant Shipping Act, which, improving on previous legislation, elaborately provided for the food, medicines, accommodation, and wages of seamen. Inquiries into wrecks were also strengthened by the establishment of naval courts at every important port, and salvage, before confined to property, was extended to life. In 1855 the relief of seamen was undertaken, at a cost of £40,000 a-year, and a money-order system for sailors was established, while in 1856 sailors' savings banks were established, probably the model, and certainly the predecessor, of the Post Office savings banks. In 1859 the Naval Reserve was originated, which, though designed for a public object, had been very advantageous to seamen. In 1862 the examination system was extended to engineers, and the lights of ships and the rule of the road at sea were provided for. In 1867, at the instance of the Duke of Richmond, the supply of antiscorbutics was dealt with, which had been most successful in diminishing scurvy. In 1871 he carried an Act which, though treated with contempt by the hon. Member, had been beneficial. It required the name and draught of water to be legibly marked, prohibited change of name, entitled seamen charged with desertion to a public survey of the ship, and made the sending an unseaworthy ship to sea a misdemeanour. He admitted that, owing to the absence of a public prosecutor, no one had yet taken the trouble of prosecuting under the last provision, and regretted that the hon. Member himself had not done so. While all this had been done for the British sailor, he hoped further measures would prove practicable. He would not underrate the importance of
  1348
  the hon. Member's proposals for a general survey of ships and for a load-line for every ship, but they were beset with considerable difficulty, and a commission of competent men would have to., inquire whether and how they could be effected. This, though not mentioned in the Motion, would be one of the main functions of the Commission. The insurance system would be another proper subject for inquiry, for though beneficial when properly conducted, there were abuses and dangers incident to it. The dark colours in which the hon. Gentleman had painted the system might be relieved by his mentioning that insurance, as he was informed, was falling more and more into the hands of powerful companies, very different from the feeble underwriters with trifling interests who no doubt existed—companies with capital, able to hold their own against fraud and criminality. Lloyd's Salvage Association, moreover, conferred great benefit on the underwriting and shipping community by its searching investigation into suspicious cases. Turning to the Motion, while agreeing to it in substance on the part of the Government, he thought its terms were too vague. It prayed Her Majesty to issue a Commission to inquire into the "condition of, and certain practices connected with, the Commercial Marine of the United Kingdom." He would suggest the alteration of the Motion, so that it should run in something like the following form:—"That a Royal Commission be issued to inquire into the condition of the Mercantile Marine, so far as regards the overloading of vessels; the unseaworthiness of vessels, whether owing to defective construction, condition, and equipment, or stowage, deck loading, under-manning; and the present system of marine insurance; and to report, if any, and what measures can be adopted to remedy the evils which may be found to exist." Without binding himself to the words of the Reference, that was the kind of inquiry which the Government would advise. Not being able to assent to the words of the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby, he hoped the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) would not press his Amendment to that Motion. He put it to his hon. Friend, whose intentions and motives he understood and honoured, whether it was on public grounds expedient that the Com-

  1349
  mission should be turned into the form which his Amendment would give it? It was not, in his opinion, desirable to have a semi-judicial, inquisitorial investigation into the conduct or misconduct of individuals. Indeed, the hon. Member for Derby, in his book, said he did not want an inquiry into the actions of individuals, his object being the amendment of a bad system, and in that object he heartily concurred. The hon. Member for Hull would, however, turn the inquiry into the extremely exceptional one of an Act of Parliament Commission, with powers to administer an oath, and that, he thought, would be to turn it into a wrong direction. There was no precedent for such a Commission, except where individual misconduct was directly at issue; as for instance, where bribery was charged, or in such eases as the rattening at Sheffield. But individual conduct was not here the subject of inquiry, the object in view being the searching out of general existing evils and the suggestion of remedies. The facts of the case were broad and patent as alleged—there was such a number of unseaworthy ships, such an amount of overloading; and these facts demanded inquiry, with a view to discover their extent, and the means of prevention. It would be unwise to divert the Commission from its real object. He earnestly hoped the inquiry would be fruitful of good. If it should tend to render ships more safe, and life at sea more secure, nowhere would greater happiness be felt at such a result than at the Board of Trade, and no one would more rejoice at it than he should himself.
  Sin JOHN PAKINGTONexplained that the 13,000 casualties to which he had referred occurred not during 10 years, but in the year 1871. They were recorded at Lloyd's and included foreign as well as English ships.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he hoped the House would not be disposed to take the view of the right hon. Gentleman on that most important question; but that they would adopt the view of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), that the Commission should have power to examine on oath. If the Commissioners had not power to administer an oath, the inquiry would prove to be a dead letter. He had been a Member of many public Committees, and about
  1350
  20 years ago he was a Member of a Committee relative to an Inquiry affecting a question of Privilege. Upwards of 200 witnesses were examined, not upon oath, one half of whom said black and the other half said white; and yet most of them were considered to be gentlemen of the highest respectability. It would be useless to have a Royal Commission to take evidence on which the House would not be able to rely. And assuming that the character of individuals might be implicated in the forthcoming inquiry, it would be unfair to them that this question should be brought before any tribunal, unless under the responsibility of an oath. He cordially concurred in the object the hon. Member for Derby had in view, and in the opinion that had been expressed that Ire was entitled to the gratitude of the House and of the country for having brought forward this subject; but he warned the hon. Gentleman that he was likely to find obstacles placed in his way which it might be very difficult to surmount. In numerous cases as strong as that which the hon. Member had brought under the notice of the House, the most he (Mr. Bentinck) could ever arrive at was a bare recognition of the facts of the case, and an expression of regret at their existence. The hon. Member must therefore be extremely careful how he proceeded, and he advised him to have a voice in the composition of the Royal Commission; otherwise it would be so overloaded with the official and ex-official element, that the result would be that the mode of proceeding would be such that the facts the hon. Member wanted to bring to light would never be disclosed. He would further suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should himself draw up the Order of Reference. If he did not, he might look forward to being met over and over again with the objection—"You cannot go into that; it is not within the Order of Reference;" and the whole inquiry would be a mockery. He quite agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that the sailor was a very fine fellow, and he, for one, wished him well; but the sailor had his faults as well as other people, and there should be stringent penalties for misconduct on Ids part as well as on the part of the shipowner. All parties should be fairly dealt with, and while he readily admitted that the sailor was often aggrieved, he

  1351
  was prepared also to assert that the shipowner frequently had cause of complaint. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that under the present law a ship's company, believing the vessel they had engaged to embark in was unseaworthy, were entitled to demand a Government survey. He next said that when the ship had been condemned by the Government surveyor the probable result would be either that she could not be manned, or that she must be repaired. But that was only a probability, and there it was that legislation was wanted. It ought not to be in the power of any man to send a ship out to sea in the condition in which she had been condemned by a Government Inspector. That the chief of a great Department should indicate that such a thing was possible showed how completely hopeless it was to deal with questions of this kind. Difficulty arose from the composition of the Board of Trade, in which there ought to be a naval department with a naval man at the head of it. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: We have one.] Yes; but there should be a man responsible for the conduct of the Board of Trade with respect to the Mercantile Marine. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible, but he was not a naval man, and he could not be expected to understand details which ought to come before him. A large proportion of the loss of life at sea was due to collisions, and many of them were due to causes under the control of the Government. No penalty visited the loss of life when a steamer ran down a vessel in a fog. The Mercantile Marine by-laws required a good look-out to be kept at night, but they allowed a custom to continue under which a look-out was of no use at all. Vessels steamed 10 or 11 knots at night in thick weather when a look-out was useless, and the whole thing was "happy-go-lucky." Unless there was to be legislation on this point the subject would be trifled with. If the Government were allowed to deal with this question in the way in which Governments usually dealt with them, we should not arrive at a satisfactory result.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he concurred in the opinion that the evidence given before the Commission should be on oath, but he did not entertain the suspicion of the last speaker—that the Board of Trade would not effectually carry out
  1352
  the inquiry, especially after its President had declared how thoroughly he concurred in the policy of the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby. He doubted the soundness of the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), that no one should be allowed to insure more than a certain proportion of a sea risk, because, although there might be cases in which the loss of a ship would be a benefit, yet it so happened that the shipping trade, like other trades, was carried on with borrowed money, and if a shipowner borrowed two-thirds of his capital, and could insure that proportion only, his own share of the risk might be uncovered. Such a limitation would prejudice the public, and deprive them of the benefits of competition and of the low freights that were due to it. Underwriting was not done, as had been suggested, upon the principle of average premiums. Every risk was considered by itself, with reference to the character of the ship and the value of the risk. Two ships might be going upon the same voyage, and yet one might be of a better class than the other, and also better owned, which was a most important particular. One might have a rather hazardous and unwieldy cargo, and the underwriters taking all these matters into consideration, would charge, perhaps, 5 per cent in one case and 7 per cent in the other. There was nothing like a general average of risk; all risks were incurred upon particular voyages, or for a particular time, or to certain ports and places. The large companies which were their own insurers, and whose ships were well built and well manned, in many cases received large amounts of public money for the performance of mail contracts, and were to that extent placed in a better position than other shipowners. It had been said that iron was a dangerous cargo. So it might be at the bottom of a ship, but when it was properly adjusted there was not a better cargo than railway iron. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: So long as you do not carry too much of it.] Of course, one might take too much of anything, or might carry it in the wrong place, but except on these conditions iron was not an objectionable cargo. In regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), he was inclined to think that it ought to be adopted. It would be difficult to exclude from the view of

  1353
  the Commission evidence that might affect some persons criminally; and it ought to be in the power of the Commission to take evidence from witnesses, and to give them the assurance that they would not be liable to proceedings in a Court of Justice for anything that they might depose.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that, although he regretted the publication of some of those pages of the hon. Member's (Mr. Plimsoll's) book which cast personal reflections, he thought that the Mercantile Marine and the seagoing population could not fail to be greatly benefited. With regard to the Amendment, it was desirable if evidence were taken that it should be upon oath. He did not see how evidence of a satisfactory character could be given before such a tribunal without the advantage which would thus be derived by the persons accused. Still he trusted that the hon. Member for Hull would not press his Amendment to a division, but that the Government would take the proper means by a Bill to give the necessary powers to the Commissioners. He regretted that the President of the Board of Trade had shown some disposition to limit the inquiry, but he hoped that it would be as comprehensive as possible. With respect to overloading of vessels, there ought to be no difficulty in marking a ship by a maximum load-line, which would show to the surveyor at a glance whether the vessel was fit to go to sea. He should be sorry if collisions were excluded from the purview of the Royal Commission. The President of the Board of Trade himself did not seem to know whether the loss of life from missing ships was included in the Return that had been quoted. The loss of life at sea was put down at 2,000 a-year, and if it did include the missing ships it was not less than 4,000. Even the smaller number was, however, frightful to contemplate. One-third of the loss of life was due to the want of harbours of refuge on the coast, a considerable portion to collisions, and fully one-half to overladen ships. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would enlarge the scope of the inquiry, so that the fullest information might be obtained as to all the causes that led to the loss of life upon our coasts, and that he would also take measures for obtaining the evidence on oath.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that it might be doubted whether this inquiry should be instituted by a Royal Commission or by a Parliamentary Commission with power to administer an oath and to compel witnesses to attend. The great object of the inquiry was not to pursue individuals or to establish or refute particular charges, but to investigate the magnitude of the evil and the possible remedies. It would be unfortunate if the inquiry were allowed to trail off into a mere question of personal character. The question was, whether the Commission could attain the objects desired unless the Commissioners were armed with powers to take evidence on oath and compel attendance. He spoke somewhat feelingly on this subject, because he had the honour to preside over a Royal Commission on Friendly Societies, and in that capacity he asked the House to confer on it the powers of administering oaths to witnesses. The House had shown itself disinclined to do so; and he was bound to say that, in consequence, the investigation of the Commission was not nearly so complete as it would otherwise have been. Many cases would be brought forward before the proposed Commission, some of them involving questions of a personal character, and the powers in question would be absolutely necessary. He rose, not so much for the purpose of giving his own opinion definitively in favour of the Amendment, as to say that unless the arguments urged in its support did not meet with a more serious answer than had yet been given to them, the House ought to pause before committing this inquiry to a Commission which would not have sufficient powers to enable them to get at the truth. Therefore, he trusted that before the debate closed the Government would either express some further opinion on the subject, or else promise to re-consider it before a final step was taken.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked that, in appointing this Royal Commission, the House was dealing with a subject which admitted of no delay. Hon. Members knew what delays might attend the passing of a Bill for the appointment of a Royal Commission, and they should bear in mind that if the Commission after its appointment felt that they had not sufficient powers, no doubt, if they asked the House, those

  1355
  additional powers would be granted to them. This, he thought, was an answer to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hull. The points to be submitted to the Commission appeared to be very clear and distinct. There was almost overwhelming evidence that a very large amount of loss of life and casualties at sea around our coasts arose from the overloading of ships and the unseaworthy state in which many of them were sent to sea. Suggestions had been made that by establishing a certain fixed load-line a solution of the difficulty might be easily arrived at. Besides, it had been suggested by the hon. Member for Derby that the question of insurance entered very largely into the consideration of this subject. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) was, in his judgment, too much led away by considerations of commercial interests, and had forgotten that we had also to consider the prevention of loss of life. In the old days, when insurance was unknown, owners took care that their ships were in a proper condition when they were sent to sea; but the practice of marine insurance had, as was alleged, produced a change in this respect. These three points, simple enough in themselves, would at once come under the notice of the Royal Commission, and if the evidence supported the allegations the House would be greatly assisted in accomplishing the object it had in view. If the Commissioners should require additional powers they might make application to Parliament, but he hoped they would be appointed without delay, and enter upon their labours as speedily as possible.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, it was not only undesirable, but practically impossible, to limit the insurance, and pointed out that it was the practice of underwriters at present to make a deduction of one-third for the amount which the shipowner would have to pay for repairs. Take, however, the question of total loss. The insurers could not know within 10 or 20 per cent the amount a ship would fetch, and, therefore, the owner might considerably overstate its value. In his opinion, it would be unwise to impose penalties which would produce only an apparent security. The House was generally agreed that a large proportion of losses at sea resulted from preventible causes, but he maintained that previous
  1356
  legislation, if properly carried into effect, would suffice to prevent them, more especially the law of last year, making it a misdemeanour to send a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the case cited by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) of the Royal Commission on Friendly Societies proved the importance of giving the Commission now proposed, power to administer oaths and to compel the attendance of witnesses. A roving Commission, such as had been moved for, could only take volunteered evidence, and it was obvivious that this would not be sufficient in the present instance. He would suggest that the Government should consider the propriety of appointing a Commission at once, and bringing in a Bill analogous to that introduced with reference to Trades' Unions a few years ago, giving the Commissioners the power of administering an oath and compelling the attendance of witnesses. If the House divided he should support the Amendment; but he thought a division would be unnecessary, if the Government would give the House some further assurance on this point.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he hoped the House would not divide, as most hon. Members appeared to wish for a thorough and complete investigation of this question. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade had expressed himself to that effect, and proposed that instead of carrying any Motion to-night he should bring forward on a future day one of his own, so framed as to meet with the approval of the House. That meant that the Government would take the whole conduct of the question into their own hands—[Mr. C. FORTESCUE said, that would be so]—and consider it in such a manner as to arrive at the whole truth. There were questions of the deepest moment to be dealt with; and, first in importance, was that of insurance—and as it affected the character of individuals, the evidence respecting it ought to be given on oath. There were questions of ownership—and as to change of the names of ships, which would have to be inquired into. There must be a full investigation to show how these dread disasters had happened, and whether we could devise for them a sufficient remedy. His right hon. Friend near him (Sir Stafford

  1357
  Northcote) had told him that in another inquiry, which concerned matters of the same kind and involved questions of personal character, they had summoned witnesses who did not come, and that they were not in a position to report to this House a full and true account of that which they had been appointed to examine, and it became this House to consider whether it was doing its duty in passing a Resolution which did not tend to a full and complete inquiry. A Royal Commission had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses; and when they were inquiring into matters so grave as those which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), which involved the character of many persons—for they could not get at the facts which it sought to ascertain without involving the characters of individuals—they should consider carefully what the nature of that inquiry should be. It was impossible, for example, to say that a number of ships had been refused insurance at Lloyd's without inquiring whose ships they were. It was due to the shipowners of this country that it should be known whether there was a general or a particular charge. He did not care whether it was A or B, but he wanted to know that it was not every member of the alphabet. He wanted to know whether the Mercantile Marine of this country was conducted with honour and integrity, as he believed the commercial affairs of this country generally were. When they were going to investigate what was, in fact, a charge of an organized system of manslaughter—when they were going to bring charges which involved such an awful contingency—he thought the Government ought to give their assurance that they would take into their serious consideration whether this Commission should not examine upon oath.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the House seemed generally agreed that there should be an inquiry into this subject. Statements had been scattered broadcast throughout the land, without any power on the part of those interested to answer them; and these statements were founded—in the beginning, middle, and end—on a very sensational paragraph copied from one of the Wreck Returns of the Board of Trade for 1869. He would not say that the paragraph was inaccurate, because they had lately had to pay £3,000,000
  1358
  for language which was only less accurate; but he ventured to say that it could not be drawn with any truth from the tables contained in the same Return. The paragraph was a strong one. Speaking of the number of wrecks, it said that if the number was subdivided, it would be found that about a half was represented by unseaworthy, overladen, and ill-found vessels, chiefly employed in the coal trade. That might mean that all that class of vessels were of this description, or that many, or that some were, and he ventured to say that when the tables were consulted, it would be found that not 10 per cent came under the description. The hon. Member who had scattered this information throughout the land was quite candid, because he printed upon the same page, figures that would show something of the truth. His main object in addressing the House was to urge upon the Government that in constituting this Commission they should put upon it some persons conversant with the coasting trade, for the question was one with which naval officers could not be supposed to be well acquainted. It must not be forgotten that on the coasting trade of this country two matters of national importance depended. The one was, that if they got rid of the coasting trade their supply of fuel would be a monopoly in the hands of coal-owners and railway companies; the other was, that the coasting trade was the great nursery of their seamen. The dangers and difficulties which the small vessels engaged in the trade constantly encountered ought, therefore, to be well considered, and it was impossible that its peculiarities could be duly weighed, except by persons possessing adequate knowledge of its position. He did not attach much importance to the question whether this Commission was to be armed with the power of examining on oath. It was natural that the persons who had been attacked should desire to have the evidence taken in the strictest possible way; but when they considered how much the whole matter would turn upon opinion and not upon facts, then the examination upon oath did not seem to him of such great importance. One question which they would have to consider was, whether vessels ever ought to be lost in the storms that took place on this coast, and that surely must be a matter of opinion.

  1359
  The question of sufficient manning, the effect of the alteration in the build of ships, and the dangers of certain cargoes, were all matters more or less of opinion. He trusted that the Government would be careful of the parties they appointed to serve on the Commission.
  MR. PEELsaid, that he would be able to satisfy the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Hay) that collisions at sea ought to be excluded from this Commission. There were in existence very minute regulations issued by the Board of Trade, with a view of avoiding collisions, and those regulations had been accepted to a great extent by foreign nations. It would therefore be a very serious thing that a Commission should be issued, without any concert with these nations, on a matter which affected not only our own ships but the ships of other countries. He might add that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had under his consideration the question whether in cases of collision the captain of the offending vessel should not be held guilty of a misdemeanour where there was culpable negligence on his part. With reference to the other point, the whole aim and endeavour of the Government would be to establish a full and searching inquiry into the question with which they had to deal. It must, however, be observed that this inquiry was not to be extended to the conduct of particular individuals, and he could not help remarking that the hon. Member for Derby had somewhat hindered the success of his Motion by making personal charges in the book he had published on the subject. The Royal Commission would not go into charges of that kind—its inquiry would have a wider range. He saw no reason why the Royal Commission should be empowered to examine upon oath. Its members would have to visit the various ports of the kingdom in order to ascertain the real state of facts for themselves, which as men of intelligence and observation they would have no difficulty in collecting, and the scope of their investigations would be limited, rather than extended, were they to have to examine all witnesses upon oath. Should it subsequently be found desirable that they should have that power, in order to prevent their inquiries from being eluded, there would be no difficulty about the House granting it, and he was authorized
  1360
  to say that in such a case the Government would be perfectly willing to support such a demand in case of necessity. He trusted that the House would accede to the proposition of the Government, and would not insist upon the inquiry assuming in the first instance the appearance of a criminal investigation into the conduct of any individual shipowner, but would, in the interests of the great mercantile community, of that House, and of the public, rather adopt a course that would enable this important question to be most rigidly inquired into.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he hoped that the investigation would be as searching as possible. The speed at which steam vessels propelled at any great power made their way in the dark and in foggy weather was the cause of many of the disasters which occurred, and the vessels coming in collision seldom thought of stopping to ascertain the damage which they had occasioned. There was no man in whom he had greater confidence than the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley); but he could not agree with the proposition which he had laid before the House, because the result of this investigation would be to put an end to many of the obsolete ships which the country was now navigating, but which were only fit for firewood. Look at the great loss which was suffered by the timber trade with Canada. Ships which had lost their name and their character were engaged for the purpose of importing timber into this country. They were loaded at a bad period of the year, and were started home from America in the most tempestuous weather. Then decks were only prevented from blowing up by their deck loads, and the sailors employed to navigate them often suffered the most horrible tortures during the voyage. The whole matter was a scandal upon the British nation. He was most happy to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull, for he thought the circumstances should be investigated in every possible way.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the Royal Commission which the Government was about to issue was expected throughout the country. But that Commission would probably not report until next year, and as no legislation founded on the Report could come into effect before the 1st of January, 1875,

  1361
  he suggested that in the meantime a short Bill should be passed giving power to the Board of Trade to ensure the effectual carrying out of the Act of 1871 relating to the condemnation of unseaworthy vessels.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he would thankfully accept the Commission offered by the Government. He trusted that the Government, while undertaking the responsibility of appointing the Commission, would take care that it had all the necessary powers conferred upon it. He intended to introduce a Bill dealing with over-loading, deck-loading, and other similar matters. He would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. CLAYsaid, if the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby were withdrawn, his own proposition that the evidence should be taken on oath would fall to the ground. He therefore objected to the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. Member. If the Government would undertake that the evidence should be taken on oath, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he believed there was a misunderstanding on the subject, and thought it would be a pity that the House should divide, when a slight explanation would render a division unnecessary. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), should not be under any misapprehension with regard to the intention of the Government. That right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the President of the Board of Trade intended to move for an Address for a Royal Commission. There would be no objection, but, on the contrary, every desire to give the House the fullest information of its intentions in such a manner that, if desirable, they might be qualified; but it was not usual for the Executive Government, when intending to advise the exercise of the power of the Crown, to come to Parliament in order to relieve itself from responsibility. With respect to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hull, it did not give to the Commission the power of compelling witnesses to appear before them, nor did it give to them an ulterior power of great importance—namely, that of indemnifying witnesses who might appear before them against the consequences of their evidence. Therefore, the object of those
  1362
  hon. Members who thought the Commission should be invested with those powers would not be gained by supporting the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The most prudent course, if he might be permitted to say so, was that which had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet the Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). The Government thought that without the smallest delay the Commission should be set to work. When the Commission was properly constituted, it would feel its own ground. The object of all of them was to have a very searching inquiry, and the Government would be most ready to ask either that witnesses should be examined on oath, or, if necessary, to go further. But it certainly would not be desirable that at the commencement the Commission, which would inquire into matters affecting the whole maritime population of the country, should be vested with powers such as were given to the Commission which inquired into the outrages at Sheffield. Such powers would impart to this inquiry a criminal character. No one was desirous of casting such an imputation upon the shipowners. On these grounds, he hoped his hon. Friend would be disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (OPPOSED BUSINESS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BOUVERIEmoved the following Resolution:—
  "That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion, a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when the Notice is called."
  He explained that he brought forward this Resolution now, because last Session it had been adopted and had been found to work well, for it enabled the bulk of the House to know what was coming on at a late period of the night, and prevented the unseemly exhibitions which occurred when constant Motions were made for the Adjournment of the House and the Debate. Towards 1 o'clock in

  1363
  the morning, the House was not in a condition to discuss details of important measures, and this Resolution was necessary to prevent debates upon the merits of a Bill being continued on a Motion for Adjournment. He therefore hoped the House would be disposed to affirm it again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion, a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when the Notice is called."—(Mr. Bouverie.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould not oppose the proposition, but hoped the House would not consent to its being made more than a Sessional Order, because, as was the case on Wednesday, it led to Orders of the Day being talked out. The tendency of a hard-and fast-line like that was to convert every night's debate into a Wednesday afternoon discussion, and such a limitation might be carried too far.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDopposed the adoption of the rule which caused hon. Members to talk against time, and led to serious hindrance of Business.
  MR. CHARLEYalso opposed the rule, because it tended to give a further monopoly of Business to the Government. He moved an Amendment the effect of which was to restrict the operation of the proposed rule to the second reading of Bills.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "Day," in line 2, to insert the words "for the Second Reading of a Bill."—(Mr. Charley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. FOWLERcomplained that the rule prevented private Members from carrying through any legislation. He thought that if the House meant to stop all legislation by private Members it would be far better to have a standing rule to that effect than in this indirect and underhand way to put an end to their labours.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that this was a question in which it behoved the Government to consult the general feel-
  1364
  ings of the House rather than its own. After having watched the operation of the Resolution last Session, he was proud to say that, upon the whole, and in spite of certain disadvantages, it had worked to the comfort and relief of a really over-tasked House.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENagreed with his right hon. Friend in approving the rule, though there were instances in which independent Members had suffered inconvenience. But on the whole, the conduct of Public Business last Session was greatly improved by the adoption of the rule.
  MR. DILLWYNadmitted that the comfort of hon. Members might be increased by the rule; but it must be borne in mind that hon. Members were not sitting there for their own comfort, but for the interest of the nation, and the question was, whether the rule had conduced to the public interest.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 37: Majority 154.
  Resolved, That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion, a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when the Notice is called.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1870) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
(Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Goldney.)
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1870) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL 24.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLrose to move that the House go into Committee on this Bill; but
  MR. MELLYasked Mr. Speaker, if it was consistent with the Resolution just adopted by the House to proceed with this Bill, on which various Amendments were to be proposed?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Resolution ought not to apply to Orders of this Day standing on the Paper before the Resolution was adopted by the House. The House ought to have full knowledge of the passing of the Resolution before it was enforced.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (Mr. Staveley Hill.)
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, that this Bill had by accident got precedence over a more comprehensive Bill of his own with a similar title, and as the hon. and learned Member would not postpone his Order, as he had previously understood he intended to do, he should move that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Hinde Palmer,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL BARTTELOTmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday 22nd April.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CAWLEY, Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the use of Locomotives on Turnpike and other Roads, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAWLEY, Mr. WYKEHAM MARTIN, Mr. FREDERICK STANLEY, Mr. HICK, and Mr. PENDER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 88.]

  CHILDREN'S PROTECTION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Bill for the protection of Children, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, Mr. JOHN GILBERT TALBOT, and Mr. RAIKES. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 89.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.