Commons Sitting of 24 April 1876

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (Aidborough, &c.)* [131].
Second Reading—Treasury Solicitor* [128]; House Occupiers Disqualification Removal [29], debate further adjourned.
Committee—Merchant Shipping [49]—R.P.; Offences against the Person [1]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [122]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [125].

THE ROYAL TITLES BILL—THE PROCLAMATION.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will afford any facilities for the discussion of the Motion of which Notice has already been given, for an Address to the Crown in reference to the Royal Titles Bill before the Proclamation is issued which will give effect to that Bill?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, there are five working Parliamentary days in the week, three of which belong to the House generally, and two to Her Majesty's Government. On these two days we have mainly to depend for carrying on the whole Business of the Session. The hon. Gentleman asks me to give up one of those two days in order to enable him to bring on a Motion with reference to the Royal Titles Bill. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that according to the spirit of our Rules and Orders that Motion could not be brought on, because it is really a repetition of a question which the House has already decided. I am

1575
aware that by some technical management the question might perhaps be again discussed; but the hon. Gentleman will remember that before the second reading of the Titles Bill was moved I informed the House of the title which Her Majesty's Government intended to advise Her Majesty to assume; and as all the discussions and divisions in this House were taken with a full knowledge of these details, I certainly should hesitate a great deal, under any circumstances, before I should feel myself bound or justified with due regard to the conduct of the Public Business to give any day to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman may, perhaps, justify the course he is taking, for the moment, by referring to what occurred before we adjourned for the holidays. It is very true, under the circumstances which then existed, I had wished to facilitate the discussion of his Motion. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman was a Motion of Censure. It was adopted by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and I therefore felt, whatever objections might be urged against the general expediency of further discussion, it was my duty to meet the Motion immediately; and I made arrangements, to the great inconvenience of the Government, to do so. That arrangement was perfectly satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, for he himself expressed his entire satisfaction. I remember he thanked me, and thanks from that quarter are so rare that I cannot but remember how the hon. Member acknowledged the promptitude with which I had met his wishes. There was a day allotted for the discussion; that day, however, for causes I am unacquainted with, was not eventually taken advantage of by the hon. Gentleman. I must say, therefore, looking to the present state of affairs, looking to the time which has elapsed, remembering that the question has been already decided, I should not feel justified in interfering with the progress of Public Business in allotting another day to the hon. Gentleman.
MR. FAWCETT: In consequence of the answer which I have received from the Prime Minister—an answer not saying anything as to the time fixed for the issuing of the Proclamation—I beg to say that, any day at my disposal not being in time before the Proclamation is
1576
issued, I shall alter the terms of my Motion so as to make it more distinctly a question affecting the conduct of the Government. I will move a Resolution to the following effect:—
"That this House disapproves the advice which, as announced by the Prime Minister, will he given to Her Majesty by Her Majesty's Ministers to assume the title of Empress of India;"
and I will ask the Prime Minister to-morrow, Whether he will give a day for the discussion of my Motion before the Proclamation is issued which will give effect to the Bill?

THE BRITISH MUSEUM—SALARIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps Her Majesty's Government proposes to take with respect to the observation in the Second Report of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission, that the salaries of the Staff appointments in the British Museum "appear to be small with reference to the nature and importance of the work to be discharged;" and with respect to the opinion expressed by the Commission that the Institution "should be organized in such a manner and with such a scale of remuneration as would attract to it men of high literary, artistic, and scientific culture?"
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that owing to the prolonged consideration of the First Report of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission the attention of the Government had not yet been given to the Second Report, nor had it yet been officially communicated to the Trustees of the British Museum. He was therefore unable to say at present what steps would be taken with reference to the subject mentioned in the Question of the hon. Gentleman, further than that the matter would be duly considered.

  CRIMINAL LAW—QUARTER SESSIONS —JURIES' SUMMONS—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NAGHTENasked Mr. Attorney General, If he can devise some means whereby, when there are no prisoners for trial at Quarter Sessions, as was the case at the City Sessions at Winchester this month, the mayor may counter-order the summonses to jurymen to prevent their being called away from their avocations for no purpose?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, the occurrence of the circumstance mentioned in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member was very rare, and he could not devise any means of accomplishing the object, except by resorting to legislation; and he did not think it was a matter on which it was necessary to legislate.

  INDIA—MALAY PENINSULA—THE STATE OF PERAK.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERNEST NOELasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Proclamation issued by Sir William Jervois last year ordering the affairs of the Independent Malay State of Perak to be administered by Commissioners in the Queen's name, has been approved by Her Majesty's Government; and, when the Papers on the subject of our dealings with the States of the Malay Peninsula, in continuation of the Correspondence presented to Parliament in July 1874, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that Papers on the subject would be laid on the Table in a few days by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and all the information the hon. Gentleman asked for would be found in them. It would be impossible within the limits of an Answer to a Question to give all the information he asked.

  OWNERS OFLAND (ENGLAND)—THE NEW "DOOMSDAY BOOK."—QUESTION.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the numerous errors and mistakes contained in the "Return of Owners of Land, England;" and, whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps with a view to make the necessary corrections in such Return?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH (for Mr. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, that since the Return in question had been presented, the attention of his Department had been called officially to some inaccuracies—not a great number—contained in it, and they had been carefully noted, in case it should hereafter seem expedient to issue a supplementary Return; but at present there was no such intention. It would be found, on refer-
  1578
  ence to the introductory remarks with which the Return was prefaced, that some such inaccuracies were anticipated as inevitable, regard being had to the state of the present valuation lists from which it was compiled.

  POLLUTION OF RIVERS—THAMES WATER.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, during the present Session of Parliament, any measure will be introduced which will prevent towns from pouring their sewage into the Thames above the point at which the supply of water to London for drinking purposes is drawn?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH (for Mr. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, there was no intention of bringing in any Bill having the special object indicated in the Question, but a Pollution of Rivers Bill was in preparation, as the hon. Baronet and the House were already aware. The Thames Conservancy Act, passed some years ago, provided for the purification of that river, so far as sewage was concerned, by the agency of the Conservators, whose jurisdiction extended up to Cricklade. They had exercised their powers and put pressure on the authorities with useful, though, necessarily, with slow, results, and the Local Government Board had sanctioned the expenditure of large sums of money by the local authorities for the construction of works having for their object the purification of the river. Out of a dozen or fifteen towns between Cricklade and Hampton, the following of the more important cases might be specified:—At Oxford, upwards of £100,000 was being expended; at Abingdon, £20,000; at Reading, £150,000; at Eton, where he believed the works were complete and in operation, £25,000; at Windsor, £30,000. Most of the works in these instances were in a forward state—some, he believed, completed, or approaching completion.

CONSOLIDATION OF CUSTOMS ACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to complaints from the mercantile community, as well as from

  1579
  Customs House officers, as to the difficulty of ascertaining the existing state of the Law as contained in the Customs Acts which had been passed since the Consolidation Act of 1853; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of introducing a Customs Acts Consolidation Bill during the present Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the difficulty in question, and he thought it could not be a matter of wonder that much inconvenience had been felt, because, since the passing of the Consolidation Act, there had been 50 Acts which directly or indirectly affected the Customs, some of which had since been either wholly or partially repealed. A Bill had been prepared for consolidating the Customs' laws, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to introduce it in the present Session. It would be a formidable Bill; and, considering the inconvenience of the present state of the law, he hoped the House might be disposed to pass it, as a Consolidation Bill, with reasonable despatch.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL TELEGRAPH WIRES.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to a letter in "The Times" lately, in which Sir John Hawkshaw, the President of the Society of Civil Engineers, stated that suspended telegraph wires were safe only for about twelve years; if he has heard that several fatal accidents have occurred from fractured wires falling in crowded streets; if he has observed, on the house at the south-west corner of Parliament Street, a large number of wires clustered on one support very much twisted, and evidently in an unsafe condition; if he has observed one on the west corner of Richmond Terrace that looks insufficient, as well as others in various parts of the City; and, if he will arrange gradually to alter all wires in cities and towns to underground ones, or have the suspended ones carried, where practicable, in such a way as to cross streets at right angles, or make the distance between the supports at least seven feet less than the elevation, or in some other way reduce the risk?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, he had read the statement of
  1580
  Sir John Hawkshaw, and in reference to the first part of the Question he might state that there had been only two fatal accidents during the 17 years that telegraph wires had been carried overhead, and one of these occurred 12 years ago. He had not personally noticed the wires at the south-west corner of Parliament Street and the west corner of Richmond Terrace, but he had been assured by the proper officers that both clusters were now perfectly secure. That at the corner of Richmond Terrace would shortly be removed, and all those wires and a portion of those at the corner of Parliament Street would be placed underground. It was intended gradually to substitute underground for overhead wires in London, and to carry those which must remain overhead at right angles across the streets wherever it was practicable to do so.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL— [Bill 49.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Edward Stanhope.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL— [Bill 49.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 14 (Stowage of cargo of grain, &c.)
  On the Motion of Mr. PLIMSOLL, Amendment made in page 8, line 25, by leaving out from "grain" to "kernels," in line 26, both inclusive, and inserting "grain cargo."
  MR. PLIMSOLL,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 27, after the word "by," to insert—
  "Shifting boards not less than two and a half inches in thickness, running from the keelson or screw tunnel, as the case may be, longitudinally throughout the part of the ship so loaded, and up to the underside of the planking of the deck next above the top of such grain cargo, and also by having not less than one-fourth of such grain cargo in sacks or bags laid upon the surface of the remaining three-fourths of such cargo loaded in bulk,"
  said, the Amendment, if adopted, would give legislative effect to the arrangements at present being made at the ports of the Black Sea. These clauses of the Bill were the same as those in the Bill of last year, and they were proved to be defective, because there were no defined limits as to the extent to which boards should be employed to prevent the shifting of grain cargoes. He found on visiting many of the Black Sea ports last

  1581
  winter that the owners were going on practically as before; but a great number of captains adopted the recommendations which he made, and employed shifting boards. He believed it was owing to the adoption of these precautions that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had been enabled to state to the House that in the four months from November to February the loss of life in the Bay of Biscay in connection with ships coming from the Black Sea ports had been reduced from 175 to 20 or 30, and the loss of vessels from six to two. The Earl of Derby had instructed our Consuls in the Black Sea ports and the Mediterranean to see that grain cargoes were properly stowed and loaded, for which purpose they were authorized to expend a sum not exceeding £2 for each ship. All the Amendment sought to secure was, that the practice thus initiated, which had been attended with such remarkably beneficial results, should now be made permanent by Act of Parliament. It would involve an infinitesimally small cost to the shipowners; and, if it were adopted, they would hear no more of ships being lost in the Bay of Biscay from the shifting of grain cargo. The experience of Canada and the United States during the last two winters fully justified that conclusion, as not a single vessel sailing from a Canadian port with a cargo of grain properly loaded with shifting boards and bags had been lost. The carrying out of the Amendment would in no way interfere with the structure of any ship, and the outside estimate of the cost of the precaution was only 2d. a-quarter, for the boards and bags would have their value at the end of a voyage. The hon. Member concluded by moving the omission of the words quoted with the object of substituting the Amendment.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, he agreed with the object the hon. Member had in view, and would admit that the loss of life and property might be avoided by a careful adoption of the means indicated; but, at the same time, the Amendment seemed to have been drawn by somebody who did not particularly understand the circumstances of the trade with which he had to deal. He thought, in the first place, that the clause in the Act of last Session with respect to these cargoes had worked most satisfactorily; and, in the
  1582
  next, that it was not desirable to tie up the hands of shipowners to any particular mode of stowage and loading, and prevent them from making such improvements and modifications as might from time to time be suggested. He objected to the use of the words "shifting boards," for many vessels were about to be built with longitudinal iron bulk-heads, which would carry out the object his hon. Friend had in view better than shifting boards; yet if the Amendment were agreed to, shifting boards must still be used. For these reasons he must oppose the Amendment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not assent to it. He thought it preferable to adhere to the provisions of the Act of last year rather than to introduce injudicious and vexatious restrictions.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he was not surprised that no hon. Member had risen to support the Amendment, and he trusted that it would not be pressed. The object of the Government and of the hon. Member for Derby was the same—namely, to secure grain cargoes better than hitherto. The proposal of the hon. Member, however, would prevent any adaptations of grain ships to the various wants of the trade, and the use of longitudinal iron bulk-heads would be excluded if shifting boards were made universally compulsory. Whether grain vessels were destined for long or short voyages they would all be bound by the Procrustean rule of being compelled alike to have the cargo secured by 2½ inch shifting boards, and whatever changes might be recommended by experience could not be adopted if the Amendment were agreed to. There were many different modes of securing grain cargoes from different countries. In some of the American ports, for example, it was usual to mix cotton with the grain; while, in other ports, the cargo was prevented from shifting by placing grain in sacks upon the top. Cunard's grain ships were fitted in layers, and other lines used bins. All these arrangements, however completely they effected the purpose, would be prohibited if the Amendment were agreed to. It was true that measures were taken in Canada to guard against the shifting of grain cargoes, but that was done not by rigid rules, but at the discretion of the port officers. The

  1583
  precedent of Canada was that of a grain exporting, and not a grain importing country, and from a list which he held in his hand he observed that the Act which the hon. Gentleman quoted did not make the slightest difference in the number of grain ships which had been lost from Canada; and the grain ships from New York showed a larger number of casualties than those of any other country. The discretionary powers taken might not have increased the losses; but, on the other hand, they did not seem to have diminished them. He quite agreed that a grain cargo was dangerous, and the Board of Trade would wish to see shipowners at liberty to adopt every means of improving the mode of stowing grain cargoes to secure the cargoes as much as possible from shifting. The object, however, might be effected in many ways, and the hon. Member had not shown any argument or reason for supposing that one rigid rule ought to be adopted. The Bill took the right mode of dealing with grain cargoes. It re-enacted the section of the temporary Act of last year, under which instructions were given to Her Majesty's Consuls and vice Consuls at foreign ports and to the Custom House officers at out-ports to see whether the regulation was carried out, leaving on the owners the responsibility of making proper provision for the purpose; and allowing them to incur a certain expenditure for the inspection of British ships loading grain in foreign ports. That provision was adopted on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derby. It had been very useful and he gave him every credit for it. This precaution, coupled with the inspection on their arrival in this country of grain-carrying vessels, which showed any signs of their cargo having shifted, would effect the object in view better than the rigid rule now proposed, and for these reasons he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. D. JENKINSconcurred in the objections of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and expressed a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. Ships sailed under so many conditions and were of such different capacities that it would be difficult to observe a stringent rule such as the Amendment would lay down. Such a rule, if adopted,
  1584
  might produce greater evils than it was intended to prevent.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he disputed the accuracy of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in reference to the loss of grain-laden ships sailing from Canadian ports. It was certainly not in accordance with the official statistics which he had seen. He should feel it his duty to divide the Committee for this reason—he had visited in the course of the winter and spring nearly all the grain-loading ports, including Odessa, and his experience proved to him that nine-tenths of the grain imported was sent in wooden bottoms, and to say that a proved and efficacious mode of preventing cargoes from shifting was not desirable because of the possibility of improvements or modifications in a few iron ships, was the height of absurdity. The Canadian method of stowage and loading was in every respect well adapted for its object. Since its adoption there had been few, if any, losses of grain-laden ships; and he had been assured by many shipowners that the carrying of the planks right down to the bottom was the only way of attaining security. The fact stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last August to the effect that the adoption of the Canadian regulations had been followed by a reduction of insurance on grain cargoes of from five guineas to 45 s. ought to be sufficient to commend his Amendment to the Committee.
  MR. NORWOODpointed out that an important principle was involved in the proposal, antagonistic to the principle of the Government clause which was to throw all responsibility as to the loading of the vessel upon the shipowner. If, however, the Amendment were adopted, the owner by carrying out a specific plan in a perfunctory manner would escape all responsibility.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby was not agreed to, the clause as it stood in the Bill would be simply illusory. The official reports from Canada, as well as the returns at Lloyd's, proved that the system proposed by the hon. Member was thoroughly efficient in preventing the shifting of cargoes and consequent loss of vessels.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS,after the reasons stated by the President of the Board of Trade, hoped his hon.

  1585
  Friend would not press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. MAC IVERalso expressed a desire that the hon. Member would not persist in his Amendment. Grain vessels often carried their cargoes under totally different conditions. The Cunard vessels, with which he had now nothing to do, did not carry grain cargoes in the sense meant by the hon. Member; but had they done so, he should not have objected to regulations more stringent than those now suggested. Whilst, however, there was a necessity for dealing with grain cargoes, there was also great difficulty in dealing with the question, and upon the whole he thought that the proposition of the Government was more satisfactory than that of the hon. Member.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONhoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, because it would hardly be proper to legislate upon matters which must involve so many details. He preferred the clause as it stood to the Amendment.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he had found by experience that it was most beneficial that the division of the grain cargoes into two portions should be compulsory; and he was strongly of opinion that some such provision was necessary to the safety of life.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby a question. He had just told the Committee that the Canadian system of loading was the most complete, but that at the same time it was the most expensive, and he now wished to know whether its adoption might not be entirely prevented by the Amendment. He thought his hon. Friend ought to consider the question and bring it up again on the Report.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid he would act on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PLIMSOLLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 28, before "master," to insert "managing owner or," with the object of making not only the master of a ship, as proposed by the clause as it stood, but also the managing owner, liable for improper loading.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that as the majority of managing owners
  1586
  would be resident in the United Kingdom, it would not be possible to fix them with responsibility for what was done by the masters of their ships in foreign ports in loading their vessels.
  MR. HERSCHELLsuggested that as the penalty was to be inflicted on those who "knowingly" committed the offence under the clause, there could be no harm in adopting the Amendment. He did not see why the liability should not be cast upon the managing owner as well as upon the master.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that the fact of the managing owner being resident in this country ought not to acquit him, if he was aware that the ship was to be loaded at a foreign port to the danger of life.
  MR. GORSTsupported the Amendment. It was not unknown that grain ships should load in this country.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYconsidered that it was sufficient to make the master liable, he being the owner's agent.
  SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that the penalty for infringing the clause as it stood was a fine of £100 on summary conviction, or of £500 on conviction after indictment. These were penalties which very few masters of ships would be able to pay, and the Bill provided no alternative punishment. He would also suggest whether, by throwing the liability on the agent, the principle would not be introduced of exempting the owner. In many cases the managing owner did reside abroad, and yet even in these cases as the clause stood he would be exempted, although he might be the most guilty person.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was a provision in the Bill that the managing owner should reside in the United Kingdom, and it would be the fault of the agent that the cargo was improperly shipped. He thought the clause as it stood would meet the case, as the thing to be done was to punish the man by whose actual default the Act was infringed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsupported the Amendment, remarking that it would fix the responsibility of contravening the provisions of the Bill upon the managing owners of ships who gave orders to their employés dated from distant places, as well as upon the masters who carried such orders into effect.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the proposition of the Government was that the managing owner should be resident in the United Kingdom, and that a managing owner so resident would write to an agent and tell him to act in contravention of the Act of Parliament, was a ridiculous supposition. Even supposing that occurred, would not the master, being liable, refuse to violate the Act? He considered the Amendment quite unnecessary.
  MR. T. E. SMITHconsidered that if a managing owner allowed his ship to be loaded in a manner dangerous to life he should be made liable; and he therefore thought it desirable that the Amendment should be adopted, though he considered the matter one of but little importance.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, on the contrary, he thought the subject one of great importance, and that it raised the whole principle of the Bill. He supported the Amendment, believing that it was most desirable that managing owners should be held responsible for things that they could fairly control.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought that there was some ground for holding a managing owner responsible for what he knowingly did, but that the Amendment should be in this form, "managing owner, agent, or." If so altered, he would accept it.
  Amendment to said proposed Amendment, agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment (Mr. Plimsoll), page 8, line 29, to leave out "knowingly," negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. PLIMSOLL, Amendments made in lines 29 and 30, by leaving out "cargo," and inserting "grain cargo."
  MR. PLIMSOLL,in moving as an Amendment in page 8, line 31, after "section," to insert—
  "Or if the master of any ship carries into or loads in any port of the United Kingdom any grain cargo contrary to the provisions of this section,"
  said, that some such provision was necessary in the interest of British owners and seamen.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment. It was impossible in the present state of our muni-
  1588
  cipal law to enforce the penalty. A ship might, before commencing her voyage from a foreign port, have been loaded in such a manner as ignored the provision contained in the clause, but if she arrived safely in a British port there was no power to punish her master, there having been no offence.
  MR. MAC IVERsupported the Amendment, remarking that in the port of Liverpool the practice which the right hon. Gentleman had described as impossible was invariably followed in the case of vessels carrying gunpowder or petroleum. Penalties were enforced without distinction of nationality against all shipmasters who brought such things into dock contrary to the regulations.
  SIR HENRY JAMEShoped the hon. Member for Derby would withdraw his Amendment. They could have no jurisdiction in this country over foreign ships coming for shelter or convenience into British ports, especially when they had their cargoes from other quarters. It was, however, a fair question for consideration how far they could regulate such vessels. In doing so, it should be treated as a whole, and not in part, and on the responsibility of the Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the exceeding difficulty of dealing with the question of foreign ships rendered it desirable to leave it for consideration on the Report of the Bill. They had been considering the question, and had communicated with the Foreign Office upon it. He hoped the hon. Member for Derby would not attempt to deal with this question in a fragmentary manner.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked whether it was not possible to get over the difficulty by imposing a small penalty such as 1s. or 6d. a bushel, on foreign vessels attempting to discharge in our ports cargoes that had been improperly loaded.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid he would withdraw the Amendment, as the Government had the matter under consideration, and renew it on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY JAMESobserved that the clause made the amount of the penalty depend on the tribunal and not on the nature of the offence. He wished to ask the Attorney General whether, supposing an indictment were preferred against a person for this very grave

  1589
  offence, the penalty for the commission of which might, on conviction, be £500, the effect of the indictment could not be got rid of through the same person having been already ordered by a magistrate to pay a fine of £100. He moved the omission in page 8, line 32, of the words "on summary conviction."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALadmitted that there was great force in the objection made by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James), but the object was to avoid as little delay as possible in cases of this description. He thought that as the Bill did not propose to punish the offender by imprisonment, it was not necessary to have any proceeding by indictment at all, and that the justice of the case might be met by providing that the offender, on summary conviction, should have inflicted on him a penalty of £100.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDthought £100 was too small as a maximum penalty for so serious an offence. If, however, the penalty were raised to £500, the case ought to be decided by a jury. That course would allow an appeal to be made. He would suggest that the maximum penalty should be £500, and that the Board of Trade should have power to mitigate the penalty according to the nature of the offence.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the objection that £100 was too large a penalty to impose summarily was met by the Act of 1854, which provided that in all cases of summary conviction where the sum adjudged exceeded £5, anyone who thought himself aggrieved might appeal to the quarter sessions. As the Committee were dealing with a maximum, he wished to ask the Attorney General whether it ought not to be higher than £100?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALcould not accept the Amendment, because he thought that summary conviction, under which the accused would have the power of appealing, would be the best mode of proceeding. He would, however, consent that the maximum should be £300 instead of £100.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he did not think the clause was worth the time the Committee had expended upon it, as no shipowner in his senses would render himself liable to it, because the pecuniary penalty would not be nearly so great as the civil responsibility which he
  1590
  would incur at common law. He would suggest that no prosecution of the kind should be allowed to be commenced without the sanction of the Board of Trade.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYpointed out that the civil liability would only be incurred in the event of the total loss of the ship, whereas the criminal liability would be incurred whether the ship was lost or not. He approved the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and would remind the Committee that no prosecution could be instituted without the consent of the Board of Trade, and in every case where the law was violated that would be granted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Sir Henry James,
  Amendment made, by leaving out from the word "if," page 8, line 32, to "pounds," in line 33, both inclusive, and inserting "three hundred pounds to be recovered on summary conviction."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Deck Cargoes.
  Clause 15 (Space occupied by certain deck cargo to be liable to dues.)
  MR. PLIMSOLLasked the Chairman whether on a verbal Amendment, of which he had given Notice, the question of deck loading could not be fairly raised?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question might be discussed on the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. PLIMSOLL,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 36, to leave out "If any ship, British or foreign," and insert "No British ship," said, it was pretty generally known that the carrying of deck cargoes across the Atlantic in winter was a fruitful cause of loss of life at sea, besides inflicting dreadful suffering on those sailors whose lives were not lost. In 1839 an inquiry, instituted by the House of Commons, elicited such a shocking state of things as the result of deck loading that a Bill was passed prohibiting deck loading for a year, which was repeated twice by Liberal, twice by Conservative Governments, until Lord Aberdeen's Government made it perpetual. In 1862 this Act was repealed without a word of explanation, by the insertion of certain

  1591
  figures in a Schedule of a Bill of repeal. The loss of life subsequently was so alarming that, at the request of the Board of Trade, Lloyds' appointed two of their members, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Wakefield, to inquire into the subject, and, after examining 8,342 voyages in the 10 years before and after 1862, getting all the particulars of each voyage in every case but two, they reported that since 1862, the loss of life from deck loading was four times as great as in the previous 10 years when the practice was prohibited, notwithstanding that three times the number of ships were now taking the route followed by timber ships compared with former times. These gentlemen also reported that the practice of deck loading was highly dangerous and ought immediately to be prohibited, and they recommended that Parliament should reinstate in the Statute Book that enactment which had reduced the loss of life so enormously between the years 1839 and 1862. It was not necessary to make a long speech to prove the necessity of reverting to their former practice, and he should therefore content himself with moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 36, to leave out the words "If any ship, British or foreign," in order to insert the words "No British ship,"—(Mr. Plimsoll,)—instead thereof.
  COLONEL CHAPLINopposed the Amendment, pointing out that if it were carried it would seriously cripple, if not eventually ruin, the trade between this country and ports in the North and Baltic Seas in steam engines and threshing machines, which were always carried on deck. Many of the vessels were absolutely not large enough to take them below deck, and if carrying them on deck Were prohibited, manufacturers would be compelled to take them to pieces and have them packed, which would involve an additional outlay of 5 per cent upon the cost—a serious addition to contend against in a trade already exposed to keen competition. The traffic for the most part was carried on during the spring and summer months, and he had received several letters stating that thousands of them had been sent without any loss, and in one instance one firm had sent to the Continent no fewer than 866 engines and 634 threshing ma-
  1592
  chines without incurring any casualty. The Amendment could only be carried by benefiting the foreign manufacturer.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he believed that shipowners generally would not object if deck cargoes of timber in the winter season were prohibited in all ships; and there could be no doubt that the adoption of such a course would save many lives. But to limit the prohibition simply to British vessels would have the effect of transferring the timber-carrying trade to foreign flags, subject to no regulations, and the consequence would probably be an increase in the loss of life. He hoped the Government would consider whether they could not adopt some clause similar to that which the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had placed on the Paper, subjecting such cargoes to a heavy duty; if they would do so, the practical effect would be to put a stop to the practice without injuring anybody, or exciting bad feelings on the part of foreign countries.
  MR. MAC IVERhoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby, because it would not work fairly. There were such cargoes as agricultural machinery, which might, in moderation, very properly be carried on deck; indeed, no safer place could be found for a boiler or a threshing machine. It would only increase the risk if hatchways required to be made big enough to get such things below. He quite concurred, however, with the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last in the opinion that the carrying of deck cargoes of heavy timber across the Atlantic in the winter months ought to be prevented; but that object could not be attained either by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby or by the Government clause as it stood. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ashley) came much nearer the mark.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYagreed that the clause went partly, though very little, towards the object which the Committee desired, by increasing the tonnage dues; but the danger was that it held out an inducement to the shipowner to pile up his timber cargo on deck excessively, and thus increase the risk of sinking the vessel and of the seamen being washed overboard in boisterous weather. He had himself given Notice of a clause for

  1593
  the very purpose in view; but as it imposed taxation he could not move it, but would only now call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to it, with a view to its being brought in as a new clause after Clause 15, making the duty cumulative as regarded timber.
  LORD ESLINGTONhad always thought that the clause was singularly weak and inefficient. It was idle to suppose that merely charging dues would prohibit the carrying of deck cargoes. This was a Bill for saving life, but the clause tended to encourage rather than discourage deck cargoes, by legalizing them upon payment of dues, and they were fraught with danger in the stormy season of the year.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, there were several trades that could not be carried on unless deck cargoes were permitted. The fruit trade was one. The Board of Trade were in this clause endeavouring to carry out their views on the question, raised some time ago, of covered-in spaces on deck. This provision would operate unfairly, because if a single package, say of matches, were covered in, the whole of that covered-in space would be liable to tonnage dues; whereas if the same case of goods were put in an exposed part of the ship it would not bear duty on the measurement of the case. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, on consideration, think it better to postpone this clause and bring up a new clause, dealing with deck cargoes, on the Report.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he could not agree that this was a weak clause. He believed that at present there was no way of generally prohibiting deck cargoes. The Amendment which had been put down in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) proposed to deal with the question by means of a prohibitory duty, for the amount of the duty would prohibit deck cargoes absolutely. Therefore that proposal might be considered to suppress deck cargoes generally. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby dealt with dangerous deck cargoes. The present law absolutely gave a premium or inducement to stow cargoes in the most dangerous way, because it relieved deck cargo from port and light dues. The clause in the Bill took away that inducement.
  1594
  It did not, as had been said, impose any new tax, but it took away an objectionable exemption which acted as a premium upon this most dangerous stowage of cargo. It was not, as was represented, an ingenious mode of dealing with the Tonnage Laws. The principle of tonnage measurement was that all cargo-carrying space should be included in it, and the only reason why deck cargo had not been hitherto included was that no one had devised a mode of measuring it. In his opinion, the proposal of this clause of a way to bring deck cargoes within tonnage measurement was a happy thought. There were only three kinds of deck cargo in their minds—namely, imported timber and cotton and exported large machinery, chiefly from the East Coast to the Baltic. Of the timber, not only that brought from the Baltic, but half that which came from Canada, was imported in foreign ships; indeed, the Norwegians were importers from all parts of the world into England; and the import of deck cargoes of timber from Europe in British ships was so slight that they were dealing almost entirely with foreign ships, which was an argument, not against the clause, but for the careful consideration of the Amendments. There might be some British merchants who, unconsciously to themselves, would be glad to propose a strong measure, not so much in the purpose of this Bill to save life from dangerous enterprize, but by way of checking this foreign trade and getting it into British hands; but he conceived the great shipowners would take a larger view and would bear in mind, not exclusively the interests of the English trade, but the interests of trade generally, and the duty of restricting it only from a reckless hazard of life. For a long time we prohibited deck cargoes of timber from Canada, but it was under the Navigation Laws, and when they were repealed, it was impossible in open competition to maintain the prohibition. to prohibit the discharge of such cargoes on arrival here was still more difficult. If ships arrived here safely, it was impossible to reject them on the ground that they ought to have gone to the bottom. The prohibitive penalties were also easily evaded by covering the cargoes with awning decks, which increased the danger the prohibition was intended to avert. The proposition

  1595
  of the clause was simply to bring these deck cargoes within the obligations of all cargo-carrying space, and this would fall equally upon British and foreign ships, without giving offence to foreigners. There were several cargoes which must be carried on deck; the cattle imported from Spain could not be carried below, and petroleum would be dangerous in the hold; and yet the proposition of the hon. Member for Derby was that no British ships should carry any deck cargo of any sort or kind under a penalty.
  MR. PLIMSOLLbegged pardon; there were many proposed exceptions, and he must object to having his meaning so persistently distorted.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that in the hon. Member's present Amendment there was a general prohibition, but he found afterwards that cattle and other things were excepted. He intended to accept the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington), and to except from the operation of the clause, not only the coasting trade, but the home trade as defined by the Act of 1854. Norwegian timber was generally carried on deck, and that trade was stated before the Royal Commission to be one of the most safely conducted in the world. Yet it would be entirely done away with by the hon. Member's proposition. Direct prohibition in these cases was impossible, and indirect prohibition by heavy fiscal charges, he thought, was in more than one respect objectionable. In the export trade, deck loads of large agricultural machinery had occasioned, so far as he was aware, no casualties, and if an attempt were made to prohibit them the trade would be annihilated. It would be impossible to put all such machinery below deck. If it were taken to pieces the profits would be absorbed in the extra labour. It would, he thought, be impossible to prevent altogether the deck loads of timber, but they might be checked by not allowing any longer the existing any premium on them. If any better mode of checking it could be devised it would be probably by penalty. Shipowners might be made liable to a fine, or a higher duty might be imposed. If they resorted to extreme legislation, awnings would be put over the timber, and the ships made only so much the
  1596
  more top-heavy and unmanageable. On the whole, it seemed to him advisable, at all events, to pass this clause, which would be an important declaration by Parliament against the carrying of deck cargoes, and which would, no doubt, have a beneficial effect.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had described the clause as a happy thought, but every one except the right hon. Gentleman had read it with contempt and amusement, and no one objected to it more strongly than the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington). The right hon. Gentleman stated that the clause would be an announcement that the Legislature disapproved of deck cargoes, and he hoped that it would put an end to a trade which was dangerous to life. Still he said it was impossible to do away with deck cargoes, though no argument had been advanced to that effect. He (Sir William Harcourt) believed prohibition to be perfectly practicable. There might be objections to particular methods of attaining the end they had in view, but it was no more impossible to prohibit deck loading than it was to regulate grain cargoes. It was said that trade would be driven into the hands of foreigners; but if they were going to deal with foreign vessels as well as British, that objection would not exist. to his mind it would be perfectly fair to to levy dues upon deck laden vessels arriving at certain seasons of the year; and for the President of the Board of Trade to say that such a proposal was impracticable was to declare that his Department was incapable of performing its duties. No Department was entitled to say that it was impossible to deal with deck cargoes, and if the Board of Trade took up that position some other Department would have to be found to undertake its work. The question was, whether the Board of Trade wanted to accomplish this object? If not, it would be easy to evade the Act. What had been said about deck cargoes applied to the Norwegian trade, and yet that was the safest trade in the world. What they wanted was a discriminating clause, which would show that the Board of Trade knew what they were dealing with. A sensible Department, which did not deal in happy thoughts, would legislate upon the ques-

  1597
  tion, and then impose penalties when evasions took place. What was required was, that they should deal with timber cargoes coming across the Atlantic and from the Baltic. As a practical matter, let the Committee reject that worthless clause, and wait till the President of the Board of Trade, on the Report, had a happier thought, and brought forward a clause dealing in an effective manner with deck cargoes of timber in the dangerous season of the year—a subject to which the public mind was alive, and one with which it would require them to grapple.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), who had been very hard on the President of the Board of Trade, had shown clearly by his speech that he really did not understand the question, and did not see where the real difficulty lay. He had told them that the Government said they desired to prohibit the carriage of these dangerous deck loads, but that they found it impossible to do so, and then he asked, How could it be impossible? No doubt, in a certain sense, nothing was impossible to an Act of Parliament; but the question was whether, if they dealt with it in an Act of Parliament, they could enforce it, and whether any plan they could devise would not carry with it many more evils than it pretended to avert. If they felt certain that the latter result would arise, then it was quite reasonable to say it was an impossible proposition. One great objection was that they would have to apply this clause to foreign ships, and what the Government had promised to consider on the Report was, how they could deal with foreign ships going out of the country, not with those coming in. That was not, he thought, ever intended. [Mr. PLIMSOLL: Oh, yes it is.] They might frame a proposal of the kind; but he thought that the great body of the Committee would feel that it would be an impossibility practically to deal with foreign ships coming into port. But it might be a question whether in a case where they proposed to stop a British ship going out of our ports under certain conditions, they ought not also to stop a foreign ship going out under the same conditions. But that did not touch the matter of deck loads of timber, because we did not send out those deck loads
  1598
  from this country. They came to us from the Baltic and across the Atlantic and the place where they should be dealt with must be the place of export. Canada, for example, had passed a very useful and effective law which had greatly reduced the danger of bringing cargoes of timber to this country; and when a Canadian ship laden with timber under the law arrived safely in our ports, were we to say, because she did not comply with certain conditions which we might lay down, that she was to be sent back or be subjected to a prohibitory duty? He could hardly imagine such an offence as that being deliberately given to Canada, and he could scarcely suppose that anybody would argue in favour of such a proposition. Again, if they attempted to enforce such a law, they would find that they would be defeated by the ingenuity of those who had an interest in evading it. Assuming, for instance, that they prohibited deck loading, the shipowner might construct an awning deck by which means the ship would not be made more safe, but less safe. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: They might prohibit that too—in fact, everything that was dangerous.] If they undertook by the letter of the law to prohibit everything that was dangerous, they would find themselves embarking on a course of legislation that would be endless, embarrassing, and also ineffectual for its object. And they should remember that they were asked to apply that chiefly to foreign ships. The Committee would do an unwise thing if it allowed itself to be led into that kind of legislation. On the other hand, the object of the clause of the Government was to withdraw an illegitimate advantage given to the carriage of cargoes of that description in a particular way. That was a step in the right direction, because it would deprive the shipowner who was going to send such a cargo of an exemption from dock dues which he ought not to have. They must all regret that it was so difficult to deal with that source of danger; but he believed the Government were doing the best they could to meet it by their proposals.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the object of the clause was to put a limitatation on deck cargoes by altering the tonnage laws; but he feared the attempt would prove delusive, and that so far as the safety of life was concerned it would

  1599
  be totally inoperative. In 1871 he suggested a very similar clause, which he considered as merely one bearing on tonnage dues. But there were then such objections to the clause, on the ground that it would legalize deck loading, that he dropped it in his Tonnage Bill. The question now was, whether on the whole it would not be wiser to omit this clause so far as it dealt with tonnage, and relegate the whole question of tonnage to some future Session. There remained the question whether the Committee could do anything with respect to deck cargoes. No one denied that there was danger in carrying such cargoes across the Atlantic, but there was a difficulty in legislating on that point until it was known how the Government proposed to deal with foreign shipping. He did not himself see how they could impose prohibition on foreign vessels entering our ports. The question was, whether they should not at present omit the clause and then make an attempt to prevent deck cargoes on ships coming across the Atlantic by simple prohibition. If that were done, he should feel inclined to assent to the proposition.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had fairly stated the object of the clause, which was, in fact, a clause for the alteration of the tonnage dues. It would be much better to withdraw the clause, or let the matter be discussed as a question of tonnage apart from any question of saving life at sea. But he would point out how impossible it was to make real progress with the Bill until Her Majesty's Government had made up their minds whether they would or would not deal with foreign ships. That was a question which would meet them at every clause. Having made a Convention with Austria, Hungary, Denmark, France, Italy, and the United States, by which we were bound to accept their measurement of tonnage for the purposes of our light and port dues, it was proposed in this clause to depart from that arrangement, and to have the ships of those countries, if laden in a particular manner, measured over again by Custom House officers. He feared that was a thing which would lead to serious complications.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had found a re-
  1600
  markable mare's nest, for he must deny that this was a proposal to alter our tonnage laws as established by the Act of 1854, but, on the contrary, an attempt to carry them out. There was no increase of dues proposed, but what was intended was that the law should be carried out more effectually than it had been hitherto, by bringing within the measure of tonnage spaces available for cargo, such as deck cargoes, which had escaped both unjustly and mischievously hitherto. What the Government had said with regard to foreign ships was, that they would consider what could be done with respect to those ships loading in our ports, not merely arriving in our ports, which was a very different thing. It was for the Committee to consider whether or not it was wise to keep up an exemption from measurement, which was practically a premium on deck loading. This clause proposed to take away that premium, and he maintained that it was most wise and prudent to do so. Nothing had prevented it hitherto but the failure of devising a method of measurement.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that after what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman he should feel it necessary to vote with the hon. Member for Derby, and very much because of what had been stated from the Treasury Bench. It was admitted that deck cargoes were one of the greatest possible dangers to life, but this clause, it was acknowledged, would have very little effect. It merely took away a small premium on deck loading. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the Canadian Government had adopted a plan which answered; why did the Board of Trade not adopt that plan?
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, the danger of deck cargoes varied according to the description of goods carried. He had seen on the 9th of December a deck cargo of cotton from Smyrna to Barcelona carried without the slightest danger, and agricultural machinery could also be safely carried almost at any time; but as regarded the carriage of timber on deck the Royal Commission of which he was a Member arrived at the unanimous conclusion that at least in the winter months, it was a most dangerous proceeding, and should be absolutely prohibited. There might be difficulties in carrying out that recommendation,

  1601
  but, after all he had heard, he maintained there was no impossibility in prohibiting what was generally admitted to be a most dangerous practice. Mr. Rankin, one of the largest merchants at Liverpool in the timber trade, told the Commission that his firm had resolved never again to carry across the North Atlantic in the winter months deck cargoes of timber. He therefore hoped the Government would withdraw the clause, and on the Report bring up some proposal which would be more effectual for the purpose they all had in view.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought that the scope of the clause was misapprehended. It did not deal with deck cargoes in the way of prohibition; but whatever its effects might be, it was simply a tonnage clause. Nobody could say that it was unfair to reckon goods carried on deck as part of the tonnage of the ship. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham had spoken of Conventions with other countries, and held, while he was speaking, a most portentous volume in his hand, but he did not read a line from it to the Committee or produce anything to show that the Conventions he mentioned touched the question at issue. The clause was not intended directly to prevent deck loading, provided no disadvantage would accrue. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had talked of the capacity of the Board of Trade, and no doubt if his hon. and learned Friend had the control himself of all the Departments of the State there would be no difficulties at all in any of them under his enlightened management. It was said they ought to have a clause to prevent the carrying of deck cargoes of a certain description; but we must be careful lest by unwise restrictions we transferred to foreigners the carrying trade of the country, and we must also beware of imposing such restrictions on foreigners as would provoke retaliation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was glad to have heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, for with that admirable innocence which distinguished him he had directly contradicted the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The cat was now out of the bag, for the clause although ostensibly one to pre-
  1602
  vent deck cargoes; yet it appeared that it did nothing to effect that object, and that they were going under a sham clause to carry out a tonnage policy. Let the country clearly understand that by this clause the Board of Trade did not pretend to discourage deck cargoes, or to do anything to save life. Let it be clearly understood that the Government were not prepared to devise any measure to prevent the dangers of deck cargoes. He would recommend that after what the Attorney General had said the hon. Member for Derby(Mr. Plimsoll) had better treat the clause as a mere tonnage clause, and that the Government should, on the Report, bring up some other clause to protect life at sea, embodying the system adopted by Canada, the greatest exporting country of timber in the world.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the attempts of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir William Harcourt) to mystify the Committee were futile, because the matter was as plain as plain could be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressly said that the Government did not see its way to prohibit deck cargoes arriving in this country; but he did think that by doing away with what was practically a bonus on deck cargoes, and bringing them within measurement according to the tonnage laws, much good might be anticipated. The clause did not alter the tonnage laws, it merely brought deck cargoes into tonnage measurement in common with other cargo. This portion of the burden of the ship which had hitherto escaped, more than any other portion of the cargo ought to be included. This device for measuring in deck cargo he had described as a "happy thought," and he believed that it met the difficulty. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) admitted that the clause, so far as it went, was good. Then why did he not support it?
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had left the House, but he must protest against the hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members on the front bench opposite speaking as though they alone were the House of Commons. If the front Opposition bench carried the least weight on the benches behind them on such questions as that now before the House, it would be a bad thing for

  1603
  the country. What was the use of talking so learnedly about stopping deck cargoes? If hon. Members would go down to the docks, they would find that the timber trade, which had principally to do with deck cargoes, was now almost altogether in the hands of foreigners. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was going in the right way, but he did not propose to go far enough. If they were to have tonnage dues, they ought, to be effective, to be three or four times heavier than would be chargeable under the clause. What he would suggest was the substitution for the proposed dues an ad valorem duty of 5, 10, 15, or even 20 per cent—according to the nature of the cargo—on all deck cargo, of whatever kind, whether going out of port or coming in, irrespective of the consideration whether the ships were foreign or British. That was the only solution of the question which he saw. They were all agreed as to the evil of such cargoes, and such a duty as he suggested would, he thought, put a stop to—at least it would greatly limit—the evil. He would support the right hon. Gentleman as far as he could, but he confessed that the clause as it stood in the Bill did not go far enough.
  MR. CLAREREADsaid, they had now been two hours and a-half discussing what he might almost say was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby, in relation to deck loading; and he was bound to say that nothing could prove more injurious to British mercantile and commercial interests than the Amendment now under consideration. Therefore, if the Committee were compelled to divide, he should feel it his duty to vote against the Amendment, because it would prohibit the carrying of any kind of cargo on deck. Some deck cargoes were dangerous and ought to be prohibited. Some were not, and others only became so at certain seasons of the year, and ought to be simply regulated. They were bound to respect the laws of foreigners in their own country; why should they not make laws in reference to foreigners which they would be bound to respect in this country? The hon. Member for Derby made an exception in favour of cattle being carried on deck, and in that he was right, for they were better on deck than packed together in pestiferous holds; but in
  1604
  regard to deck cargoes that were really dangerous, he (Mr. Read) concurred in the opinion expressed that a mere tonnage duty would do but little to prevent their being so carried, and that they should be altogether prohibited in winter and regulated in summer.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, they had a right to make and to enforce the conditions on which they would receive the produce of other countries; and if they did so, he believed that foreign merchants would fall in with, and conform to, our laws. It had been asked, What would Canada say? but the fact was that we were endeavouring more to assimilate our legislation to the laws of Canada than otherwise. He concurred in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee (Mr. Read), and in his (Mr. Mundella's) opinion, the best course the Government could pursue would be to withdraw the clause and substitute another well-considered one. If the clause were not withdrawn, he should certainly vote against it. It was admitted that the shipping interests of foreign nations were well aware that they could not compete with British shipping; but it was for the interest of both the British and the foreign shipowners that life and property on board their vessels should be protected, and his belief was, that if the question at issue were grappled with courageously, not only would the sympathy of foreign countries be obtained, but an important step would be taken towards the saving of life at sea.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was acquainted with the trade of Mr. Rankin, to which reference had been made in the discussion. The late Mr. Rankin was his (Mr. Mac Iver's) father-in-law, and the present firm of Rankin, Gilmour, and Co. continued to import timber largely. Their experience all pointed in the direction in which he (Mr. Mac Iver) had already endeavoured to argue. The danger was not in deck cargoes generally, but in their excess; and even of square timber a moderate quantity might be carried on deck with perfect safety, provided it was properly secured. The same was true of cotton, and other things; but he (Mr. Mac Iver) could imagine no more dangerous form of deck cargo than an excessive load of deals, owing to the difficulty of making them fast. It came to this, that certain forms

  1605
  of deck loading might reasonably be permitted, while others should be discouraged. Legislation was he (Mr. Mac Iver) thought only required to meet the case of dangerous timber deck loads coming across the Atlantic in winter time; and the Board of Trade clause was entirely useless for this purpose, although in other respects an interference with legitimate trade. The clause, no doubt, imposed a tax upon deck cargo in general, but not enough to seriously affect any dangerous form of deck loading. It had been really framed to meet the case of the Bear, which was the subject of litigation between his (Mr. Mac Iver's) late firm and the Board of Trade in relation to tonnage measurement. The effect of the clause would not be to discourage deck loading at all, but only to discourage awning decks; and the very best and safest coasting steamers were those which, like the Bear, carried their deck cargoes under awning decks. The Bear's awning deck was a mere shelter which increased the safety of the vessel and her comfort for passengers and cattle, but without adding anything to her carrying capacity; and the practical incidence of the clause would be to place that type of vessel at a special disadvantage in competing with open deck ships, as the open deck ship was only to be taxed for space when actually occupied by deck cargo, while vessels of the Bear construction were to be subjected to a permanent penalty by having their entire awning deck space always measured in the tonnage. He (Mr. Mac Iver) was greatly disappointed with some of the proposals of the Government. There was much in their Bill which was admirable, but the country expected something better than clauses like this. They afforded no settlement of shipping questions which required settlement, and it was surprising that Her Majesty's Ministers should ask hon. Members to go through the solemn and tiresome farce of debating clauses which everybody knew could not answer their intended purpose. The Government had already got the public opinion of the seaports against them in regard to Clause 3, and it would be the same in regard to other clauses, including the one now under discussion. There was not a word of approval from Liverpool, or any of the great sea-ports, for the Bill in its present form, and he
  1606
  asked them to take it back again and re-cast it.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSthought the hon. Member who had just down (Mr. Mac Iver) was hard upon the Government, and as Member for a constituency in close proximity to that represented by the hon. Member, he could not confirm the condemnation in which the hon. Member had indulged. He could not agree with him that the conduct of the Government had not been approved by any of the great maritime ports of the Kingdom. On the contrary, he was bound to say that the efforts of the Government in this matter had been highly appreciated everywhere. From information which he had obtained in the neigbourhood of Liverpool and Birkenhead, he must say, if there was one thing in which there was unanimity, it was this—that the Government had shown an honest determination to deal with this exceedingly difficult subject properly and thoroughly. ["No, no!"] Well, he occupied, with reference to this Bill, as independent a position as the hon. Member, and he was as anxious as any hon. Member could be to make the Bill such as would secure the objects in view. With respect to this particular clause, the difficulty arose from the fact that they had to deal with foreign as well as British ships. He did not see why they should exclude foreign ships from the operation of the Bill. The main object of the Bill was the protection of life, and he did not see why suitable regulations and restrictions adopted for that purpose should not be applicable to all ships either coming into or going out of British ports. They had already agreed to certain clauses which prohibited certain practices. Why should they not make it compulsory on foreign vessels to abstain from deck loading, and say to them—"If you come here, we shall insist upon placing upon you the same restrictions as we impose upon our own vessels, and thereby not only protect the lives of seamen, but also at the same time prevent the ruinous competition with them which the neglect of these regulations enables you to carry on?" He respectfully asked the Government what objection there could be to that course, and whether, either by heavy penalties, or the imposition of duties which would practically be prohibitive, they might not include foreign as well

  1607
  as British ships within the operation of the Bill? He thought that foreign Governments, instead of complaining of our putting foreign ships that entered our ports substantially on the same footing as our own, not for paltry profit or trade, but for the grandest consideration—namely, the safety of life—would applaud our action. He wished to know whether it was not possible to deal with this question in a bolder style; and with regard to the Amendment he did not desire to vote against the Government, but he thought the suggestion he had made deserved consideration, and if adopted, unless there were some insuperable objections, might clear away a great difficulty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSAID,the Committee had now come to a point with regard to the Bill at which it was necessary for them to consider very carefully both what they were about to do immediately, and what they looked forward to do with regard to the measure generally. He thought the discussion of that evening had thrown a good deal of light upon difficulties some of which, perhaps, even the more sanguine promoters of this reform had not been quite ready to perceive, but which were now beginning to make themselves felt. With regard to the particular question now before the Committee, he could not think there was likely to be any very great difference of opinion among them. The hon. Member for Derby had made a proposal which, from his point of view, was, of course, one which they accepted with respect, but which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought the great majority of the Committee would feel themselves unable to agree to, because that proposal was one which the Government thought impossible to work out, and which he was quite satisfied, would lead to most inconvenient consequences. The Committee had been carried into a general discussion of the clause on which the Amendment was founded, and, further, as to the principle on which they could deal with foreign ships, and then came the real difficulty. The Government, by the measure, were endeavouring to prevent as well as they could some of the great dangers to which the lives of our seamen were exposed. They had passed a clause by which they had thrown on shipowners a
  1608
  great responsibility in case of their sending ships to sea in a dangerous state. They had given to a Department of the Government the power to stop ships laden in a dangerous manner, and they had made certain regulations as to the carriage of particular cargoes. And now they had come to another question which had been very much before the country—the question of deck loads. The Bill of the Government did not propose to deal with the question of deck loads in the stringent manner in which the hon. Member for Derby and those who were his particular supporters would have them deal, and they said frankly that they were unable to do so. They thought it would be impossible to work out any such system as the hon. Member for Derby proposed; but, although they were unable to adopt his proposals, they thought they had done something in the Bill they had proposed; and, in the first place, by giving power to surveyors of the Board of Trade to detain ships improperly loaded. That, however, applied to British ships only. With regard to foreign ships, the question involved great difficulties; but, as he had already said, the Government were considering it, and hoped to be able by-and-bye to make some proposal on the subject which would be accepted as satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby proposed that they should deal with the question of deck loads in a manner which would apply not only to cargoes going outwards, but to those coming inwards also. With regard to cargoes going outwards, there was, comparatively speaking, no difficulty, because the matter was left to the discretion of the officers of the Board of Trade, giving the shipowner the right of appeal; but with respect to cargoes coming inwards, they must lay down an arbitrary rule and say that any ship which came from a foreign port violating the arbitrary rule should be subjected to a penalty. That raised a question of very great difficulty. The hon. Member for Derby considered the clause as it stood a very bad one, but thought that he could improve it, as if it were a wild orange tree, on which he could graft a cultivated orange, and he proposed to do so by an Amendment the effect of which would be to prohibit foreign vessels coming into or going out of our ports from carrying deck loads, while British vessels engaged

  1609
  in the coasting trade would be exempted from the operation of the clause. This would really amount to a Protectionist measure, ensuring to British ships in the coasting trade an immunity denied to foreign ships, and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was disposed to adopt that principle of Protection, he would be acting diametrically opposite to the doctrine of the political school in which he had been educated. That was a principle which the Committee could not sanction; but independently of that objection, it was impossible to apply arbitrary rules, as to deck loading, to foreign ships. Canada, which was one of the most important maritime countries in the world, and peculiarly interested in the question, had already dealt with it by an excellent code of laws, the efficiency of which was admitted by the hon. Member for Derby. was Canada now to be told that her ships would not be admitted to our ports, because they were not loaded according to an arbitrary rule laid down by the British Parliament? Even if the legislation of Canada on this point were adopted by the Committee, how were they to deal with the ships of other countries, which might have adopted different regulations? Suppose a vessel laden with timber from Norway arrived safely in a British port; were the Norwegians to be told that because their regulations as to deck loading differed from those of the Dominion of Canada, their ship was not to be permitted to enter save under a penalty? We should certainly pile up difficulties in the discussion into which we should have to enter with foreign Governments. The further we went into the question the more we should be involved in increasing difficulties. It was easy enough to put these provisions in an Act of Parliament; but he ventured to predict that if an Act were passed without due consideration on the points he had mentioned the country would be involved in difficulties of a most serious kind which would lead to the breaking down of a good deal of intended legislation. Hon. Members were all agreed as to the desirability of checking dangerous modes of loading. We could not prevent all danger, but he maintained that by the legislation proposed this year, in the present measure and the Maritime Contracts Bill, Her Majesty's Government were making
  1610
  a very earnest, and, he hoped an effective move in the right direction of limiting those dangers to which the hon-Member for Derby had called the attention of the country—namely, the dangers to which our seamen were exposed. If the Committee rejected the Amendment and proceeded to discuss whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, hon. Members would be able to ask whether the Government in proposing the clause were doing anything or nothing. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would reserve that question till it came on for discussion at the proper time. The question raised by the Amendment which the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had placed on the Paper had also been discussed in the course of the present debate. When the hon. Member's proposal was brought forward, the Government would be quite prepared to discuss it on its merits, but it had nothing to do with the question which the Committee had immediately to decide.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his ingenious speech had placed the Committee in a very awkward position. The Government should have told them frankly what they intended to do in reference to different portions of the Bill. By their not doing so, the Committee had been debating with great difficulty, because they did not know what line the Government meant to take with respect to foreign ships, and it was impossible to prevent that question from being introduced into the discussion of almost every clause. He had expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have proposed to withdraw the clause, until the Government had made up their mind as to how they would deal with foreign ships. He still thought it would be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt that course and to bring up the clause at the end. They were asked to vote for the clause and against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby without any explanation of the intention of the Government with reference to foreign vessels.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he was afraid he was endeavouring in vain to make the clause consistent with common sense. Its first section was really nonsense, and would not confer the immunity that was contended for in respect of coasting

  1611
  traders. Reference had been made to Canada, but he could wish that our legislation was as creditable to this country as Canadian legislation in this matter was creditable to Canada. He would be content with legislation as to deck loads similar to that which had been carried in Canada. With regard to the carrying of reaping machines on deck, he did not say that it might not be safe to so carry one or two such machines, which might be done according to proper regulations; but there was a great difference between having such regulations and leaving them entirely outside. It was asked—could they enforce legislation against foreign ships?—but nothing could be easier, for the Government of India enforced similar legislation at Bombay in reference to the carrying of pilgrims. The moment they made these regulations, every shipowner in the world would become acquainted with them, and take care when loading a vessel for these ports to keep within the law. According to a Return from Lloyd's in the 10 years from 1852 to 1862, when the prohibitions were in force, the loss of life had been only one-fourth of what it had been since the removal of those prohibitions, although the chances of escape were infinitely greater now than they were then. He had tried to amend the clause, but after consideration he believed it was impossible to resist the impression that it was impossible to amend it, inasmuch as it was an imposture from the outset. Whatever became of it, even if it were carried, he should treat it as a mere tonnage clause, and bring up another one on the Report to deal with deck cargoes.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that the Return which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Derby applied only to the Quebec trade, and not to that of the other Canadian ports. The Return quoted was correct enough as far as it went; but the real truth was that since the repeal of the legislation as to deck loads the casualties in the whole Canadian trade had decreased 21 per cent, and the total losses had decreased 15 per cent. Statistics would prove anything if they were only selected according to a particular fashion. The effect of the Amendment would be that British ships carrying deck loads would be affected whilst in the foreign trade, and foreign ships would be affected whilst em-
  1612
  ployed in the coasting trade as well. He had been alarmed by the prognostications of hon. and learned Gentlemen on both sides of the House about the consequences of dealing with foreign ships, but the principle was a sound one, and he was re-assured by recollecting that at that moment it was acted upon in the port of New York, in respect to the emigrant vessels, which had to carry the passengers not according to the law of the country to which they belonged, but according to the law of the State of New York. He could not see any difficulty in the matter. If the law was laid down, foreign ships would comply with it. His objections to the clause had been considerably modified by the concessions made by the Government, and he approved of its principle, though he could not agree to the way in which it was attempted to be carried out.
  MR. D. JENKINSfeared that the clause would tend to increase deck loading, as the penalty for deck loading would be only 20 s. or 30 s. per ship. He hoped the Government would withdraw the clause, or do that which would check the evil of over deck-loading ships.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he had great objection to deck loading in general; but he would mention one case which had occurred within his own knowledge where he thought it was very proper. He had seen the loading of a vessel by which he intended to go as a passenger. He saw certain packages placed in the hold, and planks above them; but he found that those packages contained lucifer matches, and he insisted that they should be placed on deck. He did not think they could be safely taken in the hold, and certainly they were much safer on deck. The vessel arrived safely at her journey's end.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished the Committee clearly to understand what they were about to vote for. Two ways had been proposed of meeting the difficulty. One, by the Government, was the imposition of a very small fine, which would go a very little way in prohibiting deck loading; the other by the hon. Member for Derby, the principle of which was that there ought to be a prohibition of some—not of all deck cargoes—the exceptions to be afterwards introduced.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he understood that the Government would be prepared

  1613
  further to consider the question, if they were supported on the clause, with a view of more effectually remedying the evil.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, he should vote against the Amendment, because it went too far; and he should vote against the Government clause, because it did not go far enough.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he could not, as a private Member, move a clause imposing taxation. The Committee should support the hon. Member ber for Derby.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that in voting for the Amendment, he did not pledge himself to the exact words, but as a protest that something further was required than that proposed by the Gevernment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government had made certain proposals which were contained in the Bill. What was the counter proposition? Hon. Gentlemen opposite had nothing to propose. They only intended to vote against the clause with a view of getting something or other. Whatever that other might be, the Government could not accept the impracticable Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby.
  Question put, "That the words 'If any ship, British or foreign,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 75: Majority 33.
  On the Motion of Lord ESLINGTON, Amendment made in page 8, line 36, by leaving out from "trading" to "man," in line 37, both inclusive, and inserting "other than home trade ships as defined by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854."
  MR. T. E. SMITH MR. T. E. SMITH moved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 37, to leave out "as deck cargo," and insert "on deck."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, because its effect would be to nullify the clause altogether.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in moving as an Amendment, in page 8, line 40, to leave out "timber, "said, the result of the division had been to place them in the unsatisfactory position that timber cargoes, the cause of nine-tenths of the
  1614
  evils of overloading, were dealt with simply by a clause, enabling the Board of Trade to measure, for tonnage dues, certain parts of vessels hitherto exempted. His object was to propose on a subsesequent occasion a prohibitory duty on timber carried on deck in all ships, be they British or foreign, coming to any port in the United Kingdom during the winter months. He admitted that he was satisfied with the Canadian law on the subject; and anyone who read the evidence given before various Committees and a Royal Commission on the fearful loss of life which occurred in ships crossing the Atlantic, especially in winter, laden with timber, must come to the conclusion that some stringent law was necessary. He should press his Amendment to a division, unless the Government told them what they meant to do in regard to preventing deck loads.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 40, to leave out the word "timber."—(Mr. Ashley.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought it very hard that that clause should not be dealt with on its own merits, but should be argued in reference to something else with which it had nothing to do. If that something else was proposed to be done by a separate clause, he would be quite ready to discuss it. But the clause now before the Committee had for its sole object the removal of a premium on deck loading in the shape of an improper and mischievous exemption from tonnage dues which now existed, and it did not pretend to be a tax upon, or a prohibition of, deck cargoes. As it proposed to bring deck cargo generally into the space measured for tonnage, it would be extraordinary specially to exempt timber; and, therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. RATHBONEurged the Government either to accept that Amendment or to state that they were prepared to deal in an effective manner with the question of deck cargoes in the winter months.
  MR. MAC IVERdeprecated opposition to the clause.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked, that if cargo on deck was to pay tonnage dues, it would be impossible to exempt timber; but if the clause were agreed to, it would still be practicable to deal ex-

  1615
  ceptionally with deck cargoes of timber during a particular season of the year.
  MR. T. BRASSEYasked the Government to promise on the Report to bring up a new clause to prevent the carrying of timber on deck across the Atlantic in the winter—a practice which all practical men admitted to be dangerous to life. They might at least go as far in that direction as the Canadian Legislature had done; but as it was, they had made no proposal on the subject.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had voted with the Government in the last division, and would do so again, because that clause ought to be treated as a mere tonnage clause; but, at the same time, he reserved to himself the right of hereafter supporting the prohibition of deck cargoes under certain limitations.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, there was no other clause in the Bill referring to deck loading, and therefore the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) would not find another opportunity of carrying out his object. Timber ought to be dealt with in a separate clause; and there could be no difficulty in providing that timber carried on deck should pay tonnage dues in the summer months, and Customs duties plus the tonnage dues in the winter months.
  Question put, "That the word 'timber' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 91: Majority 10.
  LORD ESLINGTON LORD ESLINGTON moved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 40, the omission of the word "stores," as dues had never been imposed upon the stores of ships.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he could not accept the proposal, for the carrying of stores as deck cargo was specially prohibited.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. T. E. Smith, Amendment made in page 8, line 40, by leaving out "(not being exempted goods hereinafter mentioned.)"
  LORD ESLINGTON LORD ESLINGTON moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 2, after "payable," to insert "in respect of the period in which such goods are on board," and said, that the object of the Amendment was to provide that goods should only be liable to tonnage dues during the period within which they were actually in the ship.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he could see no necessity for the proposed change, and, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR ANDREW LUSK SIR ANDREW LUSK moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 3, after the first "tonnage," to insert "double," on the ground that single tonnage dues were too small, but that to double or treble the amount would do something to discourage deck loading, though but little.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the object of the clause was to take away an exemption which was now given to deck loading, and the Amendment would introduce something beyond in the nature of a fine, which was not intended by the clause. He must therefore oppose it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought it most desirable that that declaration should be distinctly understood. It appeared from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the clause was not to check deck loading, and as there was nothing in the Bill which would have that effect, he hoped before the measure left the House either the Government would propose such a clause, or that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would propose one which would receive the assent of the Committee. The Government had not been able to discover a method of checking deck loading. What the country desired was to have a clause which would ensure the main object of the Bill, and not simply a tonnage clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcontended that the hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely in error in supposing that the Bill did not deal with the great evils arising from deck loading, for its whole spirit and scope was to prevent improper loading, and to throw on the owner and manager of a ship responsibility in that respect. Beyond that, it empowered the officers of the Government to stop ships which were improperly loaded. Whether any other provision could be devised for carrying out the principle was another question.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that the clause was a direct discouragement to the best class of steamers. It was a tonnage clause, and a thoroughly bad tonnage clause, and nothing else.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that as the Amendment failed to meet with any

  1617
  support, he would, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRIEVE MR. GRIEVE moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 3, the insertion of the following Proviso, after the word "goods:"—
  "Provided always, That it shall not be lawful for a vessel leaving North America between the first day of September and fifteenth day of April, nor from the North of Europe between the first day of October and the fifteenth day of April to carry deck cargo."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYhoped the discussion would be reserved till some future proposition was made for the prohibition of deck cargoes.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsuggested that the last words of the Amendment should be "to carry timber as deck cargo."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if this Amendment were to be considered a practical one, it would require still more important alterations. It proposed to make it unlawful for vessels leaving North America to carry deck cargo, but where were the vessels supposed to go? Could the Committee say what should be lawful or unlawful for a ship sailing from New York to Havre? There was a legitimate desire on the part of the hon. Member to do something to prevent deck loading; but it was a specimen of the vague character of many of the proposals to carry out that desire.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Grieve) was proposing to do what the House found out 100 years ago that it could not do—namely, legislate for North America. How could any Act that they might pass be enforced on vessels starting from foreign ports? He suggested that his hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. E. SMITH,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 4, to leave out from "deemed," to "to," in line 7, both exclusive, said, it would place cargoes upon awning decks on the same footing as those upon open decks. He agreed with the principle that deck cargoes should be included in the tonnage measurement; but if this clause were passed as it stood, the whole space under awning would be measured, whether occupied or not. Thus, a ship from the
  1618
  Baltic often brought a few cattle, and if they were on an open deck, exposed to the inclemency of the weather, the charge would be only on the number of stock; but if they were under an awning, the shipowner would have to pay, for all the awning would protect was possibly 100 or 150.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment.
  MR. HERSCHELLsupported the Amendment as being in the direction which he understood the Bill of the Government pointed to—namely, of discouraging any extreme use of the awning space for cargo.
  MR. W. STANHOPEalso supported the Amendment, and expressed a hope that the Government would at all events make some regulation to meet the object in view with regard to the home trade.
  MR. RATHBONEalso appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to accept the proposed alteration.
  MR. GORSTcontended that the clause was really one for the suppression of awning decks, which decks conduced to the safety and comfort of passengers, and the conveyance of animals.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYexplained that the sole object of the Government in this particular had been to prevent awnings being put over cargo decks for the purpose of avoiding the dues. But as the feeling of the Committee was evidently in favour of the Amendment, he would accept it.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, that the clause as it stood provided simply that if the goods were carried on board, the space in which they were so carried was to be added to the registered tonnage, and the dues to be payable. In order to remove all ambiguity, he proposed to add the following Proviso to the clause:—
  "Provided that, The said dues payable with respect to such added spaces shall be payable only for and during the time such cargo is on deck."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that if the matter were not pressed then he would consider it with a view to bring up on the Report an Amendment similar to that proposed by the hon. and learned Member.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he could not let the clause pass without expressing his disapproval of it. He thought it a very weak and inefficient clause. There was no power taken to ensure the levying of the dues by the port authorities. It appeared to him that as a clause relating to the tonnage of ships, it was not in the right place. The Bill was a Bill the object of which was to save life at sea, and he thought it a provision, as far as deck loading was concerned, altogether insufficient for its professed purpose.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, they had been now occupied several hours in discussing the Bill, and he begged leave to move—"That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might cry "Oh," but he would adhere to his Motion. The truth was, that the House was getting into a fog. To-morrow they might see the whole subject in quite a different light, so might the Government. They sometimes changed their opinions as much as four times in a night. On a former occasion, when a clause of this kind was discussed and under consideration, the right hon. Gentleman the Premier came down and struck it out altogether. He thought the House ought to consent to the Chairman reporting Progress, and that the House ought to go home at an hour in accordance with the habits of the respectable portion of the community. He could not see how they could shut up places for drinking and places for business at certain hours while they kept their own House open and their bar open. If the House rose at 12 o'clock it would prevent many a muddle in their Acts. It was notorious that many of the Members of that House could not now fairly consider any question. That was so every evening when they reached this time. If they would do it on no other grounds, they should do it for the purpose of teaching parties going to rest at a proper time, and also the virtue of early rising, and he thought the time had come when the sittings of the House should close not later than midnight.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macdonald.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 157: Majority 149.
  Question again proposed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he, in common with many other hon. Members, was under the impression that the clause was intended to insure the safe loading of grain cargoes, and also to prevent timber deck loading, especially in winter. Both of these objects were admitted to be of great importance, and the neglect of proper precautions led to great loss of life and property. It had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the clause did not deal effectually with either of these dangers. He should like to have a definite pledge from the Government that, before they passed the clause, they would introduce a clause which would effectively secure objects which they themselves admitted were important, and at the same time admitted the clause did not provide for. If they had been able to deal with grain cargoes irrespective of foreign ships, why, he would ask, could they not in the same way deal with timber cargoes, especially as the danger was greater during the winter months, instead of relying on the general clauses of the Bill? Before the Committee was asked to agree to the clause he wished to know from the Government whether they intended to propose some more definite proposal against deck loading with timber during the winter months, especially as they were now told that the clause was not intended as a check upon it, but rather to remove an encouragement.
  MR. PLIMSOLLwished to add to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, his (Mr. Plimsoll's) regret that the whole evening should have been spent in discussing, not a provision for saving life at sea, but a mere tonnage clause, and a clause which if it had not been amended by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) would absolutely have added very considerably to the peril of life. He could not conceive grosser mismanagement on the part of the Government than to have introduced such a clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there were many evils connected with the subject which they could not deal with, but the object of the clause was to increase the care taken in loading ships. The Government had

  1621
  made their proposals after serious consideration; but if other proposals should come before them they also would be considered candidly and fully. They, however, did not see their way to any further proposals at present; but they were considering the question how far they could deal with foreign ships. They were considering also some representations which had come from Canada in reference to our shipping relations with that country; and they would soon have the opportunity of seeing a gentleman who would probably throw light upon the question; and if they should see their way to do so they would make further proposals. It would, however, be wrong for him to say at present that the Government had any scheme which they would bring forward upon the subject other than those contained in the Bill, and he would frankly say they had none.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that after that admission the Committee ought to ask the Government to take back the clause, in order that they might further consider the subject.
  MR. RATHBONE,on the other hand, hoped that the clause would be passed, and added that he could not agree that there was no probability of the Government dealing further with the question.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had asked the question of the Government for the purpose of obtaining information on the important subject of "deck cargoes;" and as the answer he received was not satisfactory, he would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby to bring in a clause himself on the subject. It was not desirable, under the circumstances, to go to a division upon the clause, because it would prove worthless to provide against loss of life at sea. The question of deck cargoes had not been advanced that night one inch, and therefore it would be better to reserve it for future consideration, unless the Government were prepared to deal with it by an effective clause. England, as the first maritime nation of the world, ought not to shrink from laying down a rule upon this question that should set an example to the whole world.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, it would be far better to reject the clause altogether.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 58: Majority 37.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
[Bill 1.]
(Mr. Charley, Mr. Whitwell.)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th April]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair, for it was a pity time should be wasted in discussing a Bill which possessed no merit, and which had no friends.
  MR. CHARLEYopposed the Motion, on the ground that it was a most unfair method of attempting to destroy the Bill, when a substantial majority of the House had decided to go into Committee upon it. The Bill was a most salutary measure, and rested on the unanimous recommendations of most distinguished men on both sides of the House.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 62: Majority 19.
  MR. DODDSsaid, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), who had given Notice of important Amendments, he would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the subject was a most important one, dealing as it did with an important alteration of the criminal law, and ought to be taken up by the Attorney General, on the responsibility of the Government itself, instead of being left to the chance of being smuggled through the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was not likely, according to all appearance, that the Bill would be smuggled through the House. An admitted defect existed in the law relating to infanticide which would be remedied by the Bill if it were passed with certain Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper, and he did not think it was of much importance whether it was introduced by himself or by the hon. and learned Member for Salford. He thought the House would do well to entertain it.
  MR. CHARLEYdefended the Bill, ridiculing the Amendments of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin), which proposed to deal with the bastardy law, the law of husband and wife, the Poor Law, and the law of seduction.
  MR. MONKadvised that the Bill should be accepted, together with Amendments to be introduced by the Government.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsupported the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. DODDSthought it his duty to persist in his Motion in the absence of many hon. Gentlemen who had given Notice of Amendments.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, that the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General showed that the Bill ought not to be allowed to pass, as the point he referred to was not in the Bill at all.
  MR. CHARLEYshowed that the words in the Bill—"during its birth"—dealt with the point.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL— [Bill 29.]
(Sir Henry Wolff, Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Onslow, Mr. Ryder.)
HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL— [Bill 29.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time" [22nd March].—(Sir. Drummond Wolff.)
  MR. WADDY MR. WADDY moved that the Order be discharged, complaining that it was kept on the Paper night after night.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that it would be wanting in courtesy to the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill to pass such a Motion in his absence.
  MR. DODDSpointed out that hon. Members were brought down night after night to watch this Bill, and though it might not be quite right to discharge the order on that occasion, if the same course were persisted in, he should certainly resort to such a Motion on a future occasion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday.

  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ALDBOROUGH, &C.) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861,"relating to Aldborough, Cattewater, Gardenstown, and Llandudno.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY and Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 131.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.