Sitting of 19 March 1866

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Shannon River appointed, and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [March 16] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee [March 16] reported—Exchequer and Audit Departments [Salaries, &c.]
Ordered—Militia Pay*; Ecclesiastical Leases (Isle of Man).*
First Reading—Ecclesiastical leases (Isle of Man) [80].*
Second Reading—Court of Chancery (Ireland) [19:, Adjourned Debate resumed, and adjourned; East India Military, &c., Funds Transfer* [75]; Dockyard Extensions Act Amendment* [77.]
Committee—Consolidated Fund (£19,000,000)*; County Courts* [47]; Public Offices (Site) (re-comm.)* [62]; Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act (1860) Amendment* [56].
Report—Consolidated Fund (£19,000,000)*; County Courts* [47]; Public Offices (Site) (re-comm.)* [62]; Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act (1860) Amendment* [56].
Considered as amended—Exchequer Bills and Bonds* [46].

Third Reading—Parliamentary Oaths Amendment 113
, and passed.
MR. SPEAKER'S ILLNESS.
The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the continued illness and unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker:—Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker; and after prayers, counted the House, and Forty Members being present, took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 20th day of July 1855.
REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose answer many hon. Members awaited with intense anxiety—["Order, order!"]—Whether, in the event of the Bill for the Representation of the People passing into Law, it is his intention to bring forward a measure for the Redistribution of Seats and the settlement of Borough Boundaries early in the ensuing Session?
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that inquiry he wished also to put a Question to him on the same subject. ["Or-

  487
  der, order!"] His Question was, Whether, in the event of the Franchise Bill passing this House, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government immediately to issue a Royal Commission composed fairly of men of all political opinions to report on the Boundaries of Boroughs, and a fair Redistribution of Seats, so that Parliament may be able to legislate upon the subject early in the ensuing Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour) for putting his Question, because although the two questions are not identical, yet they are so far clearly of the same kind as to be more conveniently answered together. What I have to say is simply this: that we should certainly not hold that we had freed ourselves of the obligation which we undertook with regard to the representation of the people until we had brought under review the question of the present distribution of the seats. At the same time I must state, as I have stated before, that we must reserve our own freedom—to be exercised as our sense of duty may suggest—as to the choice of the opportunity. And, Sir, with respect to the question of boundaries, what I would say is this: that we can do nothing upon that subject or on any other until we can in some degree see our way with regard to the important proposals which we have submitted to the House. But, after a settlement of the question of the franchise has been attained, I certainly think it would perhaps be our first duty to issue a Commission for the purpose of examining whether in any cases the towns which are now in possession of the franchise are still of the same extent as they were when their boundaries were fixed, or whether in any instances they require revision.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH, who had also given notice of his intention to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the redistribution of seats, said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had given no definite answer to the inquiries which had just been put to him, it was quite unnecessary to trouble him with the further Question of which he had given notice.

ARMY AND NAVY—MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whe-
  488
  ther it is the intention of Government to carry out the recommendations, as regarded increased pay, &c., of the Committee which was appointed to inquire into and report upon the grievances of Medical Officers of the Army and Navy?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the Report of the Committee had only been received a very short time. He was not even aware of what view his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty took of the recommendations of that Committee, and it was impossible therefore to say at present to what extent the recommendations could be adopted either as respected the army or navy.

DRILLING OF TENANTS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement reported to have been made by a Mr. W. S. Gwynn at a meeting of members of the Established Church held at Antrim on the 12th, "that one of the principal landlords in that part of the country had embodied a large number of his own tenantry, whom he had supplied with arms; and the same gentleman had employed drill-sergeants to instruct these tenants;" whether such conduct is legal, or is contrary to the Illegal Drilling Act, and what steps, if any, the Government propose to take on the subject?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. LAWSON) said, he begged to state, in reply, that his attention had been called to the report in the newspapers of a speech purporting to have been delivered by Mr. Gwynn at a meeting of Protestants held at Antrim on the 12th instant, and certainly there were some extraordinary statements in that speech, Some expressions were there employed with reference to the Lord Lieutenant having stated that he expected an immediate invasion of the country, which he had his noble Friend's authority for stating were entirely destitute of foundation. With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question as to landlords proposing to enrol their tenantry, he had no hesitation in stating that such a proceeding would be illegal. The hon. and gallant Member asked what course it was proposed to take on the subject. Until the case arose the Government could not take any steps in the matter; but similar repre-

  489
  sentations and applications had been made by very loyal-gentlemen in that part of Ireland to the Irish Government, proposing and suggesting that they should enrol and drill their tenants and place them at the call of the Government; and they had all received the same answer—namely, that the Government were perfectly competent and ready to defend all Her Majesty's subjects; that they declined to give any sanction to such a proposition as that which had been made to them; and they warned the persons making them that they would incur a serious responsibility if they carried out their proposals.

  CLERKS OF ROADS.—QUESTION.
  MR. BIDDULPHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in pursuance of a recent letter addressed to the Clerks of Roads out of debt, or nearly so, the appointments held under such Trusts are to be abolished without any provision being made for compensation, or whether the same course will be pursued as was adopted in the case of the Metropolis Trusts, disturnpiked by the Act 26 & 27 Vict. c. 78?
  MR. BARINGsaid, in reply, that the case of the officers who received compensation under the Act relating to Metropolitan Turnpike Trusts was a special one, and that that Act had no effect upon the position of the clerks of turnpike trusts generally. The clerks of roads only held office under Continuation Acts, and he was not aware that any of them had ever received compensation.

  ARMY—ARTILLERY—RIFLED ORDNANCE.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the very unsatisfactory trials of the heavy guns rifled on the Woolwich and Whitworth systems, both in cast and in wrought-iron, he thinks it is desirable to proceed further with the manufacture of guns upon either of these systems; whether he is not in possession of full information, showing that by the use of the oval bore principle much greater endurance can be obtained; and, whether he will place upon the table that information, with the cost of the recent competitive trial between the Armstrong and Whitworth guns?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, that he was not
  490
  aware that the trial of the wrought-iron guns upon the Woolwich system had proved unsatisfactory; no trial had been made, that he was aware of, of heavy cast-iron guns, rifled either on the Woolwich or the Whitworth system. The oval bore system of rifling might possibly impart somewhat greater endurance to the guns than some of the proved systems, but he did not think it desirable to undergo the expense and delay that the trial would occasion. The Report of the Armstrong and Whitworth Committee had been laid on the table of the House; the cost of the competitive trial would be given.

NAVY—CAPTAINS' PENSIONS.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is intended that the Captains placed on the Reserved List (F.G.) by the Orders in Council of 1851, 1856, and 1860, who do not now acquire an increase of half-pay by seniority, and to some of whom only Commanders' General Hospital Pensions have been awarded, although they hold Captains' Commissions, shall benefit by the additional Pay or Pensions which the Admiralty will now have to bestow?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that the provisions of the Orders in Council only empowered the granting of a pension to officers of the rank which they held while in active service. The officers referred to were commanders on the active service list, and only commanders' pensions were applicable to them. There was no intention of altering their rate of pay.

NAVY—THE "BELLEROPHON."

  QUESTION
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that a temporary addition has been made to the length of the funnel of the Bellerophon or any other of Her Majesty's ships, with the object of forcing her to greater speed during her trial at the measured mile than she could attain under ordinary circumstances? He desired, he said, to make a few explanatory remarks. He would be extremely sorry to ask any question which implied a suspicion of anything like unfair conduct without good reason for so doing. Since he gave notice of this Question, however, he felt bound to state that he had

  491
  been satisfied that it was customary to make an addition to the length of the funnels of ships in order to ascertain at what speed they could be propelled. Under these circumstances, he should leave his noble Friend to give what explanation he desired.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that the lengthening of the funnels of vessels was a common practice while under trials, and that it had nothing whatever to do with their structure. Messrs. Penn, the makers of the engines of the Bellerophon, made the addition to her funnel without asking the permission of the Admiralty; and on being asked their reason for so doing they replied that they thought it would be interesting to know whether they could obtain a better draught by adding to the length of the funnel. He might tell his right hon. Friend that the Warrior, the right hon. Baronet's own ship, was treated in the same way.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—RATING OF TENEMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether in estimating for the purposes of the Reform Bill the clear annual value of tenements any deduction is to be made on account of Rates; and, if so, whether it is to be calculated on the rates paid to the Landlord or on the Rates which would be paid if there were no composition?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that he could only state what was the intention of the Bill, and not the particular legal effect of the wording of the clause. The clear annual value was governed by the same standard, whether the immediate subject of inquiry were compound houses or houses where the occupier paid the rates. The intention was that the real value should be judged by the same test in the case of compound householders and ratepaying householders, and that compound householders should neither inhabit better nor worse houses than ratepaying householders. That was the law at present, and it was not intended to introduce any alteration in it.

  FIRE INSURANCE.—QUESTION.
  In reply to a Question by Sir FitzRoy Kelly,
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that it
  492
  was his intention to postpone his Motion for the reduction of the duty on fire insurances until after Easter.

  THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he rose to move the adjournment of the House that he might have an opportunity of asking for an explanation in reference to an Order in Council made on Saturday last in regard to the cattle plague. The House would remember that all railway traffic in cattle was prohibited up to the 25th of March, and that all trucks that had been used for the conveyance of cattle were to be properly cleansed and disinfected before being again used. The Order to which he referred ran thus—
  "Every railway or other company or person carrying animals for hire within any part of Great Britain shall forthwith thoroughly cleanse and disinfect all pens, carriages, trucks, and boats used by such company or person for holding or carrying animals by a washing of lime water, or, with the approval of the Board of Trade, by some other process, and until such pen, carriage, truck, or boat has been thoroughly cleansed and disinfected as aforesaid, no animal nor any article shall be placed or carried in any such pen, carriage, truck, or boat; and when such pen, carriage, truck, or boat has been thoroughly cleansed and disinfected as aforesaid, such company or person, as aforesaid, using the same, on every occasion after any animal has been taken out of such pen, carriage, truck, or boat, and before any other animal or article is placed therein, shall thoroughly cleanse and disinfect every such pen, carriage, truck, or boat in such manner as the Board of Trade shall from time to time direct, and if any pen, carriage, truck, or boat shall at any time be used in contravention of this order, the company or person by whom it is so used shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 for every time that such pen, carriage, truck, or boat is so used."
  He wished to point out to the House that the various companies conveying cattle from place to place were by this order required to cleanse and disinfect the trucks and boats used in this service. When the Cattle Plague Bill was before the House it expressed an opinion that the process of disinfecting the trucks should be conducted under the superintendence of officers appointed by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, however, for a considerable time opposed this course; but, so strong was the opinion of the House on the subject, that he (Sir George Grey) brought up the following clause:—
  "Every railway company that carries animals for hire within any part of Great Britain shall, before the 25th day of March next, thoroughly cleanse and disinfect all cattle pens, trucks, and

  493
  boats belonging to such company, and used for holding or carrying animals in the manner which shall be directed by an order made by the Board of Trade, which order they are hereby empowered from time to time to make, vary, or revoke; or, in case of no such order being made or being in force, by a washing of lime water, or some other efficient means; and every such pen, truck, or boat shall, on or before the said 25th day of March, be inspected by an officer duly appointed in that behalf in writing, under the hand of the President or Vice President of the said Board of Trade, or by an inspector duly authorized in that behalf by the local authority having jurisdiction in the place where such pen, truck, or boat is; and such officer or inspector shall, if satisfied that such pen, truck, or boat has been properly cleansed and disinfected, certify to that effect in writing under his hand; and until such certificate has been given no animal shall be placed in any such pen, truck, or boat; and when such certificate has been given in respect of any pen, truck, or boat, such company, on every occasion after when any animals have been taken out of any such pen, truck, or boat, and before any other animals are placed therein, shall thoroughly cleanse and disinfect as aforesaid every such pen, truck, or boat; and if any pen, truck, or boat shall at any time be used in contravention of this Act, the company to which such pen, truck, or boat belongs, or by or on whose behalf it is so used, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every time which such pen, truck, or boat is so used,"
  That was the clause of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey), and he (Mr. Hunt) accepted it in lieu of his own; but, according to the Order in Council issued on Saturday, he understood that no provision would be made for official superintendence in the cleansing of trucks that had been used for the conveyance of cattle. He believed this to be a matter of vital importance. The railway companies, as admitted by one of their superintendents, employed the lowest class of the servants in their service to cleanse the trucks, which were shunted into a siding without any responsible person to look after them. There was, therefore, not the slightest security that when the trucks should be again used—as they could be by law on Sunday next—they would be properly cleansed and disinfected, When he undertook to withdraw his Bill on Wednesday last, it was on the assurance that the Government would accept the responsibility of the whole matter, and that the Orders in Council would be dictated very much in the spirit of that Bill. The first Order in Council, however, was a direct departure from its principle, and Government had attempted to throw off the responsibility which they had accepted and which had devolved upon them. Tie desired to know, Whether the Order he had read was an authentic Order, and why
  494
  the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the principles of his own clause?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could not tell whether the Order the hon. Gentleman had read was authentic or not, because he had only read a portion of it. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman imposed upon the Government the obligation of cleansing all railway trucks throughout the country, while the expense of the process was to fall upon the public. He, therefore, objected to the clause containing this provision, thinking that the responsibility of properly cleansing and disinfecting the trucks should rest with the railway companies, who ought also to bear the expense. He undertook to bring up a clause to that effect, and it was inserted. Another objection which he made to the clause of the hon. Member was this—that it would be of little use to secure cleansing the trucks before the 24th of March, if after that time no precautions were to be taken for the continued cleansing of trucks, and he, therefore, proposed that the obligation should be thrown on the companies of cleansing and disinfecting on every occasion on which they carried cattle. The obligation of disinfecting the trucks was now imposed upon the railway companies, who would have to pay the whole of the expense incurred by the proceeding, and the order of Saturday not only provided for the cleansing and disinfecting of cattle trucks during the present week, but that they should be thoroughly purified every time they were used. When the Bill came down from the House of Lords the Government had come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to provide the machinery by means of which the railway trucks throughout the country could be inspected by the officers of the Board of Trade before the 25th of March. It had been suggested that the only mode of inspecting those trucks would be to order them to be brought to some central station, but to take that course would, he thought, be to interfere materially with ordinary railway traffic. It had been thought right, under the circumstances, to place the immediate and the future cleansing of the trucks upon the same footing, giving powers of inspection so that it could be ascertained whether the Order had been carried out, the railway companies being rendered

  495
  liable to prosecution unless they complied with the regulations which had been laid down. The hon. Gentleman, however, complained that the duty of cleansing the trucks was to be left to the lowest class of officers in the employment of these companies, when it should rather have been committed to the station-master and others holding more responsible positions, through whom he contended it would be more effectually discharged. The Government, however, had nothing to do with the railway officers, and thought it better to impose the responsibility on the companies themselves, who, if they should practically neglect their duty in the matter, by appointing subordinate and inefficient officers for this purpose, would run the risk of rendering themselves liable to a penalty of £5 for every truck not properly disinfected.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken the view he had as to the inspection of the railway trucks. When the subject was lately before the House the almost universal opinion appeared to be that, in order that those trucks should be thoroughly and effectually cleansed, it was necessary that the work should be done under the superintendence of some authority external to the railway companies themselves. We had already some experience as to what Orders in Council could do in the proposed direction. An Order had been issued last autumn for the purpose of enforcing the disinfection of their trucks on those companies, but that Order had been disobeyed. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman might be induced to reconsider his determination in the matter, and that we should have no more of that laissez-faire system with respect to the cattle plague, of which we had already so much. To the neglect of their duty on the part of the Government, and to the delegation of important functions to be performed by persons over whom they had no control, it was that the continuance of that frightful disaster, and the consequent loss which so many counties had sustained, was to be attributed. Unless, therefore, the Government were content to pay nothing more than a mere perfunctory attention to the question, and to forego the supervision of the precautions necessary to prevent the further progress, and, perhaps, absolute naturalization of the disease in this country, they must undertake themselves, or else give the local authorities full power to see that the
  496
  railway trucks were properly inspected. Some agency was required in the matter on which greater dependence could be placed than on the conscience and care of the lowest class of officers in the service of railway companies. He trusted as it was only issued on Saturday the Order-was not to be regarded as the final decision of the Government in the matter, and that before long a most essential precaution would be carried out under a satisfactory system of inspection.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he concurred with his noble Friend in thinking that the country had had enough, and more than enough, of the trifling and temporizing of the Government on the question of the cattle plague. On a former occasion, when his hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) withdrew his Bill, a promise was made by the Under Secretary for the Home Department that a Bill would be brought in by the Government on the subject, and he should like to know whether they proposed to act upon that promise.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no promise had been given that a Bill would be introduced. It was stated that, if the powers conferred on the Privy Council under the existing law were not found to be sufficient, the Government would deem it to be their duty to ask Parliament for further powers. It might be necessary to do so, and the question was now under the consideration of the Government.
  MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he wished to know if it were the intention of the Government to continue the prohibitions with reference to the railway traffic after the 25th instant. As far as he understood, the Order by the Privy Council gave power to the local authorities to fine a railway company £5 if their trucks were not disinfected; but would that answer the purpose they had in view without adopting means to obtain the necessary information? [SIR GEORGE GREY: Anybody might inform against the infraction of the Order.] He had no great faith in Government inspectors being sent over the country; and besides, that would be almost an impossibility. Hitherto, the difficulty which they had laboured under was, that when the local inspectors complained of the condition of the trucks they had no power to inflict a fine; but now that under the Order in Council a fine could be imposed and levied, it would answer all purposes.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he thought it would be more likely that all the railway trucks throughout the country would be disinfected if the task of disinfection were committed to the railway companies themselves under a penalty, and with a power to anybody to inform against them if they did not discharge their duty properly, than if reliance were to be placed on the certificates of a staff of inspectors who must, under all the circumstances of the ease, be quite unable within the given time to do that which would be required of them. It would be quite impossible to collect all those trucks together and have them in spected within a few days, so as to have reliable certificates that every railway truck in the kingdom had been disinfected. The Board of Trade could not undertake such a duty unless they had a perfect army of inspectors; and before the necessary appointments were made and the inspectors received their instructions the time would have arrived when the trucks might come into use.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that it was a very old saying that that which was everybody's business was nobody's business. To whom was the information to be given in the event of anybody informing against the railway companies for neglect of the duty imposed on them, and to whom was the authority to levy the fine invested?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished the Government was as ingenious in finding out means to do their duty as in finding out reasons for not doing it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) said it would be impossible to find an army of persons to carry out this duty; but he (Mr. Hunt) would say it was perfectly possible if the Government would only nominate the chief local inspectors in the different counties for that purpose. It was easy to say that it was sufficient to lay on a penalty, but how were they to obtain the proof whether a truck were disinfected or not unless it was done by official authority?
  SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, he wished to ask, whether the traffic of live cattle by rail would be resumed after the 25th of March?
  COLONEL DOUGLAS PENNANTsaid, he wished to know, whether the inspectors of the local authorities had the power of entering into railway stations to ascertain whether the trucks were disinfected or not? There was considerable difficulty, as he knew from his own experience during
  498
  the winter, in laying informations and in finding the parties. The magistrates were now to have the power of fining; but he believed there was no power which enabled the local inspectors to go into the railway stations in order to obtain information.
  MR. READsaid, he wished to know when the new Orders in Council permanently regulating the cattle traffic would be issued?
  MR. BARINGsaid, that the substance of the proposed Orders had been agreed to on Saturday last, but that it would take some little time to place them in proper shape. As to the other point, it was a question as to what could be done and what could not be done. It would be impossible to organize before the 25th of March a system under which all the railway trucks throughout the country should be inspected by Government officers. The only practical way of proceeding in the matter was to impose the duty of cleansing on the railway companies, rendering them liable to a heavy penalty if they failed to do so. That penalty would come under the operation of the 11 & 12 Vict., and might be recovered by summary process, half to go to the informer. In respect to the question as to the continuation of railway cattle traffic, the House must recollect that the prohibition extended only to the 25th of March, unless continued by any Order of the Privy Council, and the Government were not prepared at the present moment to say that it was their intention to continue that prohibition.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that as regarded inspection they should throw the onus of proof upon the railway companies, and make it compulsory upon them, when informed against, to prove that they had disinfected and cleansed their trucks.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he wished an answer to be given to the question, whether the local authorities had power to inspect trucks in railway stations?
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn

  DAY OF HUMILIATION.—COMMITTEES.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved "that no Select Committee do meet to-morrow before one o'clock."
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the proposal now made established altogether a new precedent, and he trusted the House would

  499
  consider before adopting it. It was contrary to the constitutional and to the ancient practice of the House. It was imposing a heavy tax upon parties who were interested in the cases before the Committee, by robbing them of an hour or two hours of their time. But that was not so material as the principle of the thing. The ancient practice of the House on occasions of public fast formally proclaimed by the public and civil authorities was to meet at eleven o'clock in the morning, go to St. Margaret's Church with the Speaker, hear a sermon delivered by a rev. gentleman appointed by the House, and if the House was gratified by the discourse it expressed its thanks to the preacher, and then in some cases adjourned, and in others proceeded with its ordinary business. A practice had grown up for Committees not to sit on Ascension Day until one o'clock, and now the House was called upon to take another step in the same direction. Tomorrow was to be a Day of Fast and Humiliation for the Cattle Plague. On the propriety of that arrangement he would express no opinion; that was not the proper place to express one; but this Day of Humiliation having been announced by the Bishop of London for his diocese, to his surprise, the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) a few nights ago proposed to the leader of the House (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that Committees should not sit until one o'clock to-morrow; and the leader of the House incautiously and without reflection assented as he (Mr. Bouverie) understood him to say in conformity with the practice of the House. The practice of the House did not justify such a proceeding. The House knew nothing of the proclamations of the Bishop of London. Of a fast proclaimed by the civil authorities—by the Queen in virtue of her Supremacy, the House had some knowledge; but of this fast the House had no knowledge whatever. There was a minor objection to the present Motion on a point of form; but often substance was involved in form. How was this Motion to be entered on the Journals of the House? On Ascension Day the form was "That on such a day, being Ascension Day, Committees shall not have leave to sit until one of the clock." Were they to say that "the Bishop of London having issued notice of a fast in his diocese, the Committees shall not have leave to sit until one of the clock?" And upon all future occasions on which
  500
  the Bishop invited his congregations to join in humiliation and fasting, was the House to prohibit the sittings of Committees? When he was sworn on the Totnes Election Committee, instead of being asked as usual at what hour they would sit, he was told the Committee was not to sit to-morrow until one o'clock. He objected, on the ground that the parties concerned had, at great expense, engaged counsel and brought up their witnesses, and because by Act of Parliament the Committee was bound to meet as early as possible. Justice ought to be attended to before fasting. The Speaker had no authority to fix the hour of the meeting of the Committee; it was the House which had to order it. By Act of Parliament it was settled that Election Committees should meet within twenty-four hours after being sworn, unless Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday intervened, so that the intention of the Legislature that the business of Election Committees might be despatched as speedily as possible was clearly expressed, no exception being made with respect to fast days or holidays, except such as he had already mentioned. He thought it the duty of the Totnes Election Committee to meet to-morrow at eleven o'clock, and when the present Motion was disposed of he should feel bound to move that the Totnes Election Committee meet at that hour, for this was a question of expense to the parties, on whom a heavy fine would be imposed by delay. If the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that the House of Commons as such ought to observe the Day of Fast and Humiliation, the proper course would have been, not to move that Select Committees should not meet before one o'clock, but to move that the House should meet at eleven o'clock, and proceed in a body to St. Margaret's Church to hear an appropriate sermon. He would divide against the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In the first place, allow me to say, with regard to Election Committees, that when this matter was mentioned on a former day I stated that it remained for consideration whether Election Committees ought to be included in the Motion. The case of Election Committees is altogether a peculiar case. I was not aware that more than one Election Committee had been appointed, nor did I suppose that any question would arise with respect to Election

  501
  Committees. As, however, such a question has arisen, I am quite willing, in conformity with what I intimated on a former day, to propose that no Select Committee other than Election Committees should meet before one o'clock. I am merely stating the view of the Government, If Gentlemen object to that Amendment, of course it is in their power to enforce their objection. I do not think my right lion. Friend was entirely accurate when he said that it was only within a very few years that a practice had arisen within this House of ordering that Committees should not meet until one o'clock on a single day in the year. Now, I believe that there are two days in the year upon which this House has regularly for a great many years—certainly for ten or twenty years—made that order, and not for one but for two o'clock. Then the question comes whether it is right that in a case where the authority of the Crown has not been put into exercise that this House should take any notice of an act done by the Bishop of London, But though the authority of the Crown is not put in exercise the practice has grown up in the House of directing its Committees on Ascension Day and Ash Wednesday not to meet till two o'clock. I remembered very well the practice originated during the first Ministry of Lord Russell. A discussion took place, and an objection having been taken then as now by my right hon. Friend, an appeal was made to the feelings of the House with regard to the coercion by Parliamentary attendance on Committees on those whose desire it was to make use of those occasions for the purpose of attending public worship. I quite agree that this is a case distinguishable from those, and I wish the House to notice what has taken place. There is a strong feeling in the country that there ought to be a Day of Humiliation appointed by the authority of the Crown with reference to the ravages of the cattle plague. Application was made in the usual course by the Archbishop of Canterbury to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in order that effect might be given in the usual manner to that desire. The Government considered that application, and they came to the conclusion that taking into view the extreme inequality of the cattle plague—taking into view that if one day were appointed it must be appointed for the whole country, whereas the degree in
  502
  which the cattle plague was felt in many parts of the country was infinitely various—and taking into view that the day, if appointed by the authority of the Crown, would become a day of universal cessation from labour, they did think it their duty to reject the recommendation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But when the question was raised in this House, and my right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) was interrogated on the subject, he did reply that, in the opinion of the Government, the proper course to be followed was the course actually being followed in different dioceses—namely, that the bishops, after communicating with their clergy and the principal persons for the purpose of ascertaining the state of public feeling, should not enjoin—for they had no power to enjoin—but invite the community to enter into these special services. Undoubtedly it is not a matter of coercion at all. It is altogether a matter of goodwill and right feeling on the part of those who think proper to respond to the Episcopal invitation; and I must say that in my opinion those who do respond are quite right in so doing. It is under these circumstances that the Bishop of London issued the invitation which he has issued to the people of his diocese. I had had no opportunity of thinking over the matter before the suggestion was made from the Opposition side of the House, but when it was made, and we considered the purport of it, we did believe the House would be anxious, without giving any specific recognition to the act as an act of authority, to enable those of their Members who were desirous of availing themselves of it the opportunity of attending public worship upon a very sad and solemn occasion. That is the simple nature of the proceedings so far as I am concerned. I am extremely sorry—I cannot say how sorry I am—that a matter of this kind should become a subject of contention in the House. It is eminently desirable that whatever we do should be done with general goodwill; but, always excepting that peculiar case of Election Committees as to which I must say that I am not at all convinced, and which the House will dispose of as it thinks fit, I cannot think that we are wrong in the course we have taken.
  MR. BRIGHT: From what the right hon. Gentleman has said it is quite clear that Government did not think it desirable to advise the Queen to order a general fast

  503
  throughout the country. He says that the calamity is partial; that it is not known in many counties, and that it is barely known in others; and I think the view of the Government was probably the right one. But then comes the question whether the House of Commons, which does not represent half-a-dozen distressed counties, but represents the whole of the United Kingdom, or professes to do so—whether it should, except on action of the Crown, under the advice of the responsible Ministers of the Crown, depart from its ancient practice and establish a new precedent, because the Bishop of London has thought proper to advise a fast in his diocese on a particular day. The fast was ordered for a day last week, I believe, but for some reason or other it was changed. Well, one bishop is ordering the fast for one day and another bishop for another day. Now, only look at the difficulty in which the House will find itself placed if it adopts the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. It will be a precedent for all time—at least until it be reversed by some direct vote of the House—that if the bishop of this diocese shall, under a strong feeling of the weight of any local or general calamity—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: And on the indication of the Government.] I presume the Bishop of London may order a fast in his diocese without any indication on the part of the Government. If the Government thought it essential to indicate to the Bishop of London that he should order a fast, surely they might have ordered the fast for the whole country through the direct action of the Crown, and then it would have been perfectly reasonable to ask Parliament to take the course that is now proposed. I say the House of Commons will be doing that which is not consistent with its position and its dignity if it take this course merely because a single bishop—the bishop of this diocese—has fixed upon a particular day for a fast. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to Ash "Wednesday and Ascension Day. Well, there was a good deal of difference of opinion about these days, or one of them at least, when it was discussed. I find that Members are generally rather in favour of having a holiday, as they are, for example, when the adjournment for the Derby Day is proposed. The House is so hard worked that there is no objection to a holiday on any particular day that anybody will name, but this is not a question of the House
  504
  having a holiday to-morrow. It is a question whether certain persons whose interests are greatly concerned in the Committee business of the House, shall upon the fiat, not of the Queen, but of the Bishop of London, have their expenses largely increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great deal more regard, I have no doubt, for Church regulations than I have, but I ask him on this occasion to regard himself as a Member of the House, and not only as a Member, but at this moment as its most important Member, who by the weight of his influence may make law hereafter for the guidance of the affairs of this House. If he will look into Mr. May's book, which I have been studying since the House met this evening, he will find that there is nothing whatsoever in it of the kind he is now proposing; and I should be very sorry indeed if, when there is another edition of the work published, there should be a paragraph in it to say the House felt itself bound to take the same course at the intimation of the Bishop of London which it finds it decorous and proper to take on the action of the Crown and its responsible advisers. I think the right hon. Gentleman hastily, and without due consideration, accepted the proposal of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners). I am not without hopes that the noble Lord himself, after the discussion that has taken place, may think it not necessary to press this matter, and will allow the subject to pass over by general consent.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he did not think it necessary to argue the general question whether the arrangement was good or bad, but he thought it desirable that the Government should explain the distinction they took between Election Committees and Committees sitting on Private Bills. In both cases counsel attended; in both cases parties were put to considerable expense; and in both cases the inconvenience of an adjournment was very and equally great.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not see why any exception should be made in favour of Election Committees. The hon. Member (Mr. Bright) entirely overlooked what was at the bottom of a proposition of this kind. It was a Motion to permit a limited number of Members, for a limited period during the day, to perform what they believed to be their religious duties. It was, in fact, a case of the rights of conscience. [A laugh from the Benches below the gangway.] Notwithstanding

  505
  the apparent incredulity of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there was a large number of Gentlemen in that House who believed it to be their duty to attend Divine service in the various churches in the metropolis on this solemn occasion; and if his Motion were not carried, it would compel hon. Gentlemen to be in their places in the Committee-rooms when they felt they ought to be elsewhere. It was really, therefore, a Motion in favour of the rights of conscience.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had correctly stated the purport of the letter which he addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Government adhered to the opinion therein expressed; but, a day having been set apart in many dioceses where the plague had been severely felt for special services, in order to implore the Divine blessing on the means that were adopted to arrest its ravages, and the Bishop of London having appointed to-morrow for the same purpose in his diocese, he (Sir George Grey) thought it was only right that Members of the House who desired to do so should have the opportunity of attending morning service to-morrow. Election Committees, however, were regulated by statute, and the House had only power on their being sworn to fix the hour at which they should meet on the first day of the inquiry. If, therefore, these Committees had been appointed a day earlier and were actually sitting, the House would have no power to interfere with the ordinary course of procedure.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, that the Committee of which he was Chairman, had agreed, in deference to the notice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to meet to-morrow till one o'clock, though they felt that many witnesses would be detained who had probably humiliated themselves in their own dioceses, whose expenses would have to be borne by sonic-body or other. He was afraid, too, that the arrangement proposed would be of very little avail for the object in view, for it being his duty to attend his Committee at one o'clock, he could not possibly attend church, as sermons were unfortunately nowadays of such great length.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that referring to the question of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) in the case of Election Committees every Member was bound to attend within one hour of the meeting of the Committee, and if then absent the Chairman was
  506
  bound to report the fact to the House; and unless the House should be satisfied with the excuse, it had the power to commit the absentee to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. Members of an Election Committee, therefore, had not the same facility for being absent as Members of other Committees.
  MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask the leave of the House to make a short explanation in reference to the direction given from this Chair at the time the Election Committees were being sworn. T believe that it is the usual practice that such a direction is given to Election Committees as to the hour at which they shall sit on the first day. Seeing the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the paper, as to all Committees not meeting until one o'clock, and not conceiving that any objection was about to be raised to it, I thought it my duty to inform the Committees that they should meet at the hour about to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I never conceived in doing so that I had myself the authority to direct the hour. I merely thought that I was calling attention to what I believed would become an order of the House, and any intimation which I have given must of course be, as I always supposed it would be, subject to, and conditional upon, the order of the House.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that if, after what had taken place, it was considered advisable to except Election Committees, there could be very few Committees, indeed, on which the Motion could take effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged the desirability of unanimity in such a matter, and, after the feeling which had been expressed in opposition to the Motion, he thought it was hardly worth while to persevere with it.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, that nearly two hours had elapsed since the Committee, of which he was a Member, had received the direction to meet at one, and some of his colleagues had left the House under the impression that it was a definite arrangement. It was not unlikely, therefore, if they met at eleven that some would be absent, and would have to be reported to the House. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the arrangement would be adhered to in the case of those Committees to whom the instructions had been given.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, he concurred with the hon, Member for St. Andrew's

  507
  (Mr. Ellice), adding that in several cases intimation had been given to counsel, witnesses, &c, to meet at one, and if the Committees assembled at eleven, they would simply lose the opportunity of the sermons and waste two hours in doing nothing.
  MR. ADAIRsaid, that until there was an actual vote of the House no one was in a position to desire a Committee to meet at one o'clock. What was suggested was a most unusual course. He accordingly proposed that the Nottingham Committee should meet at half past eleven. If all the Members were not present within an hour of that time, it would be his duty to report the circumstance to the House, which would, he was sure, show its accustomed consideration in such a case.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that as the only Chairman of a Committee to sit to-morrow who had not yet spoken, he might observe that he acquiesced at the time of being sworn in the Chairman's suggestion; but he looked on that direction as conditional on the decision of the House on the present Motion, and he did not think with the hon. Members for Macclesfield and St. Andrew's that any one would be misled by what had taken place. It was still perfectly competent for the Election Committees to meet at eleven, and if the House so decided, he would follow their instructions. It should be remembered, he would remark, with reference to the Question of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), that there was a difference between these and other Committees, for Election Committees were bound to sit through the Easter holydays if their labours were not previously concluded, and it was therefore desirable that their proceedings should commence as early as possible.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That no Select Committees do meet To-morrow before One of the clock."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 112: Majority 147.

DAY OF HUMILIATION.

  TOTNES ELECTION COMMITTEE.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he had intended to move that this Committee, which was appointed to sit to-morrow, should meet at eleven o'clock; but after the decision at which the House had just arrived, he felt it to be his duty to move that it be ordered to meet at one o'clock. He found, on referring to the Act regulat-
  508
  ing these matters, that Election Committees were included under the head of Select Committees, and as the House had just determined that Select Committees should not sit until one o'clock, he could not now ask them to appoint that the Totnes Election Committee should sit at eleven o'clock in contradiction to that decision. He therefore moved that the Totnes Election Committee be appointed to meet at one o'clock to-morrow, although he was sorry to be compelled to do so on account of the expense which the parties interested would be put to by the alteration.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, he had already informed the Totnes Election Committee that it should meet at the same hour as the other Select Committees.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the Speaker had no power to direct when an Election Committee was to meet—the Act of Parliament required the House to appoint the hour, and when a Committee was sworn it was usual for the Speaker to ask the Chairman when the Committee would meet; the Chairman named an hour, and then the Speaker put the Question to the House that the Committee should meet at the hour named by the Chairman. The hour of meeting, therefore, was fixed by Resolution of the House. His Motion was therefore necessary.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERput the Question, that the Totnes Election Committee should meet at one o'clock.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Committee do meet To-morrow, in one of the Committee Rooms of the House, at One of the clock.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, he moved that the Boston Election Committee should meet at one o'clock. He agreed with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) as to the practice of the House. On the appointment of an Election Committee the Speaker invariably asked the Chairman of the Committee at what hour the Committee should meet, and on ascertaining the time put the Question to the House, by whom the Motion was decided. After the first day the Committee always commenced their proceedings at eleven.
  Ordered, That the Committee do meet To-morrow, in one of the Committee Rooms of the House, at One of the clock.
  Same Orders with respect to the Great Yarmouth, Nottingham, and Bridgnorth Election Committees.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Sir G. Grey, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  [BILL 13.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir George Grey.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I feel, Sir, that I ought to crave the indulgence of the House, and to make every apology for again alluding to this subject. But I am anxious to point out that the question now stands in a very different position from that in which it stood on the second reading of the Bill. Had I had the opportunity afforded me, I should have been glad to have submitted the Notice which appears in my name upon the paper to the Committee on the Bill, or else for consideration upon the Report. These opportunities, however, not having been, available to me, I therefore propose to take the following course. Unless I find that hon. Members are inclined to support the re-committal of the Bill with a view to the re-consideration of the oath as it non-stands in the Bill, I shall not make the Motion of which I have given notice-But I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this very important Bill, abrogating the oath of supremacy, has been passed without anything like a general discussion. In the course of my experience as a Member of Parliament I have known the question of the oath of supremacy raised more than once in this House; but I have always heard it gravel) and fully discussed, as a question which touches not only the supremacy of the Crown but the supremacy of the law—a supremacy in which this House shares by its legislative capacity as one element of the Imperial Parliament. I wish now particularly to call attention to what occurred in the debate of the 22nd March 1858, when this subject was before the House, On that occasion doubts were ex pressed by some hon. Members of this House, and amongst them by Mr. Stewart, then Member for Cambridge, and by the hon. Member for Sheffield, whether the terms of the oath of supremacy, as taken by the Protestant Members of the House, who form the vast majority of the House, affirming the ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy of the Crown were truthful; and whether the words contained in the
  510
  oath taken by Roman Catholic Members, in which they affirm that the temporal and civil authority of Her Majesty shall be maintained as supreme, not only as being supreme, but that this authority should be continued as supreme, might not be so modified as to meet the objections which were at that time stated to the House by some hon. Members On that occasion, Sir, Mr. Stewart, then Member for Cambridge, moved the insertion of the word "rightfully" in the oath, implying that no foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate rightfully hath or ought to have any jurisdiction within this realm. And I beg to read the words which were used by Lord John Russell on that occasion. Lord John Russell said that—
  "He thought the word 'lawfully' might be intelligible, because it would refer to the state of the law here; but 'rightfully' was a vague word which every one might construe according to his own ideas"
  Well, the discussion continued, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded to express his opinion in the following words:—
  "They (the House) were certainly in a great difficulty, because the hon. Member who proposed the word 'rightfully' gave it one meaning, while his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) gave to the word 'lawfully,' which he seemed disposed to accept, another meaning. He (Mr. Gladstone) confessed he greatly preferred the meaning which he supposed was to be attached to the word 'rightfully,' as proposed by the Mover of the Amendment. But he did strongly feel that it was hardly consistent with the respect in which they held the very nature of an oath, and the fair claims of individuals, to allow the matter to rest without bringing it to some authoritative solution. It was not a matter for private discussion or opinion, but one upon which the views of Parliament ought to be clearly and unmistakably expressed. For his own part, he hoped the House would be disposed to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend."
  it is scarcely possible to convey in words a stronger opinion than this, which was expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I may say that on another occasion Lord John Russell, who is now Prime Minister, expressed his opinion in favour of the word "lawfully." In the suggestion which I have ventured to make, the House will observe that I have thus placed the words—
  "And I do declare that no Foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath by law, or ought to have, any rightful jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority within this realm."
  The only words I have added to those of the present oath are the words "by law"

  511
  and the word "rightful." As these words stand, the words "by law" govern the word "rightful." Perhaps the House will allow me to mention the interpretation of the word "rightful" given in Dr. Johnson's Dictionary. I find that in Committee on the Oaths Bill of 1858, the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted that which Dr. Johnson considered to be the secondary meaning of the word "rightful," that is, "just." Dr. Johnson defines the word "rightful" to mean "having a right, haying a just claim," and, by way of illustration, he gives this passage from Shakespeare—
  "As in this haughty great attempt,
  They laboured to supplant the rightful heir,
  I lost my liberty, and they their lives."
  In referring to this subject, I wish to show the House that I do not presume to act upon my own conceits, but that, in favour of the additions, which I suggest in the existing words of the oath, I have, as nearly as may be, borrowed the suggestions first of Earl Russell, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may be fairly asked why were those suggestions not adopted when made in 1858? My answer is the answer which was given by Lord Westbury. The words were not in 1858 adopted, because, as Lord Westbury, who was then a Member of this House, explained, so long as the oaths stood in the form given them by the 1st of Elizabeth and by the Relief Act of 1829, the construction of them was perfectly clear; in other words, taking the preamble and the context of the Act of Elizabeth in which the supremacy was first declared, and taking the circumstances under which the Relief Act of 1829 was passed, and considering the fact that the supremacy is affirmed under the provisions of that Act by Roman Catholics so far only as the temporal and civil supremacy of the law is concerned, it is evident that the interpretation was clear in the sense of my notice; therefore, there was at that time no need for any additional words. This question as to the propriety of inserting either the words "by law" or "of right," or the word "rightfully," before the words jurisdiction, pre-eminence, power, or authority, in denial of the claim by any foreign Prince, Prelate, &c., arose in the House of Lords on the 27th of April, 1858, subsequently to the debate, and in which they were suggested in this House. On that occasion the Earl of Wicklow
  512
  moved that, because these words had not been inserted with reference to the supremacy, the existing oath taken by Protestants, which stands—
  "And I do declare that no Foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to hare any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm,"
  should be abrogated. Lord Lyndhurst spoke upon this Motion for the last time on the subject of the oaths. I will not quote his speech. It is such a condensed argument in favour of the view held by Lord Westbury, that I should only waste the time of the House and impair the force of the argument by reading only part of it. But I wish particularly to call the attention of the House to this fact, that Lord Lyndhurst was supported in the view which he took by the late Lord Campbell, who urged that as the law stood the meaning of the oaths was perfectly clear, and that he was also supported by Earl Granville; and such was the effect produced, that the Motion for expunging this declaration of the supremacy from the oath was negatived by the House of Lords without a division. But now the circumstances are changed, and so far as the decision of this House, the oath of supremacy, under the Act of Elizabeth, which is still taken by the Protestant Members of the House, modified as it stands by the exclusion of the affirmation of the supremacy, but retaining the negative portion of that oath against any foreign usurpation, has been condemned and expunged, whilst the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members under the Act of 1829, which excludes the words "ecclesiastical or spiritual," and yet affirms the temporal and civil supremacy, has also been condemned. So that the present position of the Bill is this—that the House of Commons has condemned the assertion of the supremacy in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual as it stands in the oath taken by Protestant Members, and has likewise condemned the recognition of the supremacy of the Crown in matters temporal and civil as it stands in the Roman Catholic oath. This completely changes the circumstances; they are, so far as this Bill evinces the decision of this House, no longer those under which Lord Westbury, Lord Lyndhurst, and the late Lord Campbell besought Parliament not to interfere with the oath of supremacy; and it seems to me that the occasion has now arisen when it will be well that the House should

  513
  consider whether the alteration suggested by Earl Russell when he was a Member of this House, and the alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may not enable the House to adopt a uniform oath, which shall include some declaration of supremacy, that may be acceptable by all the Members of the House. I admit that I may be told my Amendment does not meet the real difficulty, because the real difficulty is that the existing terms of the oath of supremacy, which I suggest that you should retain, imply the ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy that the Roman Catholics will not admit, and which in the year 1820 led to the adoption of a different oath for the Roman Catholics from that which the Members of the House had uniformly, for 300 years, up to that period accepted. Yet if it should be the pleasure of the House to adopt the purport of the notice which I have given, so far as re-committing the Bill, I think that in Committee terms might be devised for a uniform oath, by which the supremacy of the law might still be recognized. I cannot help feeling that the position is a very serious one. For the first time for more than 300 years the Legislature, so far as the decision of this House is concerned, is about to abandon the recognition of the fact that the Crown, as the exponent of the law, is and ought to be supreme, and solely supreme, within this realm, and this not in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual only, but also in matters temporal and civil. I must say, Sir, that it appears to me that we are in a fair way to renew the old strife, which was the result of the existence of two supremacies, and to verify the old adage as to two kings of Brentford, and that the county- is not likely to escape the confusion, which such a state of things has heretofore occasioned and proverbially creates, because the present state of things is not as though there were no assertion of another supremacy than that of the Crown in this country. Why, only last year, at, thirteen different meetings of Roman Catholics, at which Dr. Manning or some other distinguished Roman Catholic ecclesiastic either presided or were present, the recognition of Her Majesty, the recognition of the Crown, the recognition of the authority of the Crown was postponed to that of His Holiness the Pope, or else the Pope was recognized as the ruler of the Roman Catholics alone, and no mention whatever was made of the Crown or of
  514
  its authority. I may be told that this is a mere matter of courtesy; but, at the same time, it is an indication of a feeling which is known to exist among these Roman Catholic ecclesiastics; and I cannot think it prudent that the House should leave the existence of that feeling uncontrolled by any declaration in the oaths, taken by Members of Parliament, as is now proposed by the Government, and that Members of the Legislature known to entertain a difference of opinion as to the supremacy should take an oath in common, from which all declaration of the supremacy is omitted. I beg the House to consider that the effect of that omission and of the abrogation of the terms of the oaths, recognizing the supremacy of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual, and even in matters temporal and civil, comes to this; that Parliament will no longer declare collectively that it will resist any attempt to intercept or usurp the supremacy of the Crown and of the law in this country; and further, that it will become competent to any Member of the House to propose in this House to discuss and to debate measures impugning the authority of the; Crown and the law; and this, not in respect of one particular only, but in every matter, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, to which the authority of the Crown and the law extends. I know it will be said that the object of the adoption of this uniform oath is to get rid of invidious religious distinctions, and put an end to the expression of religious differences; but I ask the House and the Government whether, by opening for the first time after 300 years, to debate these questions of ecclesiastical and temporal supremacy, and inviting discussions upon them in Parliament, knowing the feelings which exist upon this subject out of doors, feelings which have been expressed by Roman Catholic ecclesiastics on the part of the Papal See and their Church on the one side, and the feelings, which have found expression in the numerous petitions which have been presented against this Bill in behalf of Protestants on the other side—I ask whether there is any prospect of future peace from thus opening the door to the discussion of those elements of controversy which in years now long past have torn this country, and which have been quieted only by the decision of the Legislature that there shall be but one authority supreme in this country, and that shall be

  515
  the authority of the law, the authority of the Crown, the authority of the decrees of Parliament in its legislative capacity, the authority of the Crown in its Executive capacity as the fountain and exponent of justice and of the law? It is evident to me that we are opening the door for a renewal of those discussions which formerly led to divisions and strifes which have been witnessed in later times on very rare occasions, and then in a very mitigated form. It is for these reasons that I venture to suggest to the House, as a means of obviating the difficulty that seems to interpose in the construction of an oath of supremacy which may be accepted by all the Members of the House, that this is an occasion on which the House has a right to the advice and assistance of the Law Officers and Ministers of the Crown, and we independent Members of the House may fairly expect that the ominous silence which has hitherto been observed by the leading Members of the Opposition will be broken. It is not fair or right that we should be required to abandon this important declaration without some further effort being made to arrive at a solution of the difficulty in this House. I do not wish to intrude for any length of time on the attention of the House, and I shall not speak one word that is calculated to cause irritation, which it is my object, both now and for the future, to avoid. I have stated fairly the object with which I have made this suggestion; and if it is deemed worthy the consideration of the House, and hon. Members think fit to support it, I will move as I have given notice. But in deference to the House, I at present content myself with pointing to the suggestion I have made. If that suggestion is refused, I can only regret that my objections on principle to this Bill will remain unabated, although I am still actuated by the hope that, as the House has thought fit to listen to the prayers of the petitioners, so far as continuing in our future oaths to recognize the succession to the Throne, it may yet be thought fit to consider whether the supremacy of the Crown and of the law is not a matter so important that an effort should be made to retain the declaration of Parliament in favour of its existence and continuance. I trust, Sir, that this subject may not be allowed to pass from the House without some practical solution being given to it; because I am certain of this, that if you wish to promote discord
  516
  upon this subject in this country, with the existing agencies that are engaged in promoting hostile feelings upon it amongst Roman Catholics, aye, and even forcing many Roman Catholics, that the House cannot do worse than to leave questions touching the supremacy to be fought out, first in public meetings, and then in the Courts of Law; and to the encouragement of such mischievous proceedings the House is at present committed, nor can they be avoided, unless we continue in this House to declare, as the representatives of the people of this country, that it is their will that in all matters the law as it exists in principle—the law as it shall hereafter be framed by Parliament—the law as it is intrusted for execution to the servants of the Crown, shall be supreme universally, and solely supreme within this realm.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Out of respect to the hon. Member I propose to offer a few words on the notice of Motion placed on the Paper, although the hon. Member has not moved it. The speech of the hon. Member involves the old fallacy that the supremacy of the Crown depends on the oath taken. I think the more the hon. Member's propositions are considered the more entirely the House will be confirmed in the opinion that we had much better get rid of the form which he supports altogether. The hon. Member seems to desire that we should at this table swear obedience to one particular law, but we are not required to swear that we will obey any other, though equally binding. The forms which are superseded by this Bill, as the hon. Member says, merely go to establish the supremacy of the law. But the law rests upon its own authority, not upon the oath taken here. With reference to the Amendment the hon. Member has upon the Paper, I think it is the worst of all suggestions that have been made in reference to the matter under discussion. In truth, it would be going back to the old form before the time of Roman Catholic Emancipation. As far as the proposed wording of the oath declares that no foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath by law any rightful jurisdiction or authority in this realm—it affirms a mere truism which nobody would seek to deny; but it goes on further to affirm that no such Prince or Prelate ought to have any jurisdiction or authority within this realm, whereas Roman Catholics, in a certain sense, think such jurisdiction ought to exist. By putting such words into the

  517
  oath you would, therefore, be making them deliberately, and according to their convictions falsely, 6ay that this jurisdiction was not a rightful one and ought not to exist. Or, on the other hand, this consequence would follow—that the meaning of the words was not to be taken according to their true and natural interpretation, but merely as relating to the legal, external, and temporal jurisdiction. Questions such as these and the possibility of suspicions being cast upon the honour and honesty of a respectable body of Members of this House were the very things we desired to avoid when devising a liberal form of oath for Roman Catholics, obliging them only to disclaim the temporal jurisdiction. If the words proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member are adopted, the whole force and efficacy of that concession will be lost. It is our desire to abandon idle and useless, and worse than idle and useless, declarations. The law is able to vindicate itself. I hope, therefore, the Bill will pass this House and become law in the course of the present Session. If it does, I venture to say we shall never again hear of those painful discussions in which Members of one religious persuasion threw out taunts against the Members of another persuasion, the sole foundation for these taunts being the oath which it is now sought, to abolish, and about which, when once it is abolished, I believe we shall never hear anything again.
  MR. LONGsaid, he must protest against the obvious fallacy involved in attributing to his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) the opinion that the supremacy depended upon the oath. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know well that it was the recognition of the supremacy, and not the supremacy itself, which depended upon the oath. This his hon. Friend sought, and rightly sought, to keep upon the statute-book as a protest against assumptions made in times long gone by, and never yet openly abandoned. He (Mr. Long) most unwillingly accepted the conclusion to which the House had arrived, and thought the oath should stand so long as the pretensions of Rome remained.
  MR. KERsaid, that unless the oath of supremacy as well as that of allegiance were retained there might at some future period be a difficulty in defining the meaning of the words "being Protestant," by which the succession to the Crown was limited. If, therefore, the hon. Member
  518
  (Mr. Newdegate) had moved his Amendment, he should have supported him.
  Motion put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ARMY—INDIAN RELIEFS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR O'REILLYsaid, he rose to call attention to the present mode of conducting the relief of Troops stationed in India. Formerly, when the two armies were distinct, twenty years was fixed as the limit of service for the Indian army, and was afterwards adopted in the case of Her Majesty's troops serving in India, When the Indian army was abolished, and an increased number of Her Majesty's troops serving in India were substituted, it became necessary to make a change; for, twenty years being the full period of a soldier's life, regiments which remained out there for that length of time would be entirely cut off from the rest of the army. It was therefore arranged that ten years abroad and rive years at home should be the rotation, and that the period of ten years' foreign service might be completed either in India or any of the colonies. This decision halted between the two systems. Notoriously, when regiments either went to India or were on the point of returning home a very great change took place in their internal constitution, and it required a full year after the journey was completed to enable them to settle down again. Regiments which remained abroad for twenty years had at least eighteen years' steady work in them. But under the ten years' limit the evils were as great, and the compensating advantages much smaller. The memorandum of the Commander-in-Chief with regard to the Enniskillen Dragoons expressly stated that before their embarkation for India the regiment was all that could be desired in esprit de corps and unanimity among the officers, and drill and discipline among the men; but that great changes had taken place when the regiment was about to leave England. It was easy to send draughts to regiments stationed in any part of the United Kingdom, because draughts reached those regi-

  519
  ments after a short journey; but sending draughts to India was quite a different matter, for at present their journey occupied six months, and even after the contemplated improvements in the overland route were carried out it would still occupy a very considerable time. On the passage to India the draughts were mixed up, and consequently discipline could not be maintained as well as it was in a regiment under the command and supervision of its own officers. He now came to another important inquiry—namely, what was the length of time during which Europeans served with the greatest immunity from disease, in hot climates such as India. It had often been asserted that men improved in such climates as they became "seasoned or acclimatized;" but it had been successfully pointed out that such was not the case. On the contrary, fresh men escaped better. He did not mean men who had just landed, because great care was necessary immediately after the arrival of men to prevent them from catching disease. What he meant by fresh men was men doing the first few years of service in India. That these were more healthy and possessed more of native vigour than men who had spent many years in that country, was shown by the Returns which appeared in the Report of the Sanitary Commissioners. The average continuance service was not much more than five years. During the first five years' service the casualties were 8·60, or about 8½ per cent of Europeans in India. After five years they began to increase. Between five and ten years they were nearly 10 per cent, and between ten and fifteen they increased to very nearly 14 per cent, showing conclusively that the first five years of a soldier's life in India were much more healthy than those which followed. He ventured to recommend the reduction of the length of service in India to a period of five years. The proposition was a startling one, and involved a financial question, but with this he would endeavour to deal. The Transport Committee, over which the late Sir James Graham presided, called the attention of Parliament to the fact that it had been proposed to substitute for the system existing at the time they took evidence one of reliefs by battalion every five years. The Committee reported that they were not prepared to pass an opinion as to the practicability of the proposed change, but it was clear that they thought it desirable. Sir James Graham expressed his
  520
  own opinion, which was entitled to great weight, that as regarded the morale and efficiency of the British army it was most desirable the reliefs should be frequent. The long service of our army in such climates had a very unfavourable influence as regarded recruiting. Much of the popular prejudice against joining the army arose from the impression that soldiers were expatriated for a great portion of their lives. The number of battalions at present maintained for India was fifty-five. The number was to be reduced. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON: To fifty-two.] His calculations were based upon fifty-five being the number, but the results would only change pari passu with the change from fifty-five to fifty-two. Fifty-five battalions of 960 men gave a total of 48,000 men, the average strength in India being 45,000 men. The present system of relieving the whole in ten years gave a relief of five battalions each year, certain contingencies being provided for. To reduce the length of service to five years would involve the sending out of eleven battalions each year, if the men were sent out in accordance with the existing system. He proposed to send out the battalions much stronger, and not send out draughts. He would have the battalions consist of 1,100, instead of 960 men; and taking the casualties from all causes to be, as at present, 10 per cent per annum, there would be ready for embarkation at the end of the fifth year 650 men. The average strength of fifty-five battalions would be 48,752, and the total effective strength at any one time 48,125. To this number, which was exclusive of any draughts, must be added volunteers from eleven regiments under orders for home, and men would naturally be more ready to volunteer for five years than for ten. This would diminish the expense. Experience proved that the proportion of volunteers would be at least 10 per cent, so that, putting together the five-year volunteers, and making deductions for casualties, there would be 53,000 men. The total strength in India, therefore, without draughts, would be 51,000 men. Again, under the new system the number of women and children would be considerably diminished. Many of them might be left in England with advantage, which would be an additional saving of expense. The number of women and children, instead of being 10 per cent, as at present, would not be more than 5 per cent. Under the scheme it would, however, be necessary to provide for 2,567 additional passages,

  521
  which would involve an outlay of £41,000, the cost of transport being £16 per head. The most economical Member of the House would not shrink from so small an increase of expense in order to obtain such advantages as he had pointed out. The heaviest mortality in India and the greatest amount of suffering always tell upon the women and children. In case of any real service they must be separated from their husbands and collected in one place, and the Sanitary Commission slated that the annual rates of mortality among the women was 276 per 1,000, and among children 516 per 1,000. Many soldiers who had a large number of young children would prefer to leave them behind rather than expose them to the effects of so dangerous a climate. But, another question arose. What would become of the women and children who were left behind? There was a ready solution of this difficulty, for at the present moment there was an Indian allowance for the wives and children of non-commissioned officers and privates. Eight rupees, or 16 s. was allowed to every woman per month, and four rupees, or 8s. to every child. The lowest class of private soldiers in India had more than 1s. a day after paying for their rations, and, therefore, no soldier in that country could have any difficulty in putting aside 6d. a day, or 15 s. a month, for his wife and children. At present women and children left at home could not claim the Indian allowance; but there was no reason why the arrangements should not be altered in this respect. He had now gone through all he had to say upon this subject, which he would leave to the attention of the House and the country. Great advantages would be gained by a reduction of the term of service, and there was a strong opinion in the army upon this point. There were, however, two or three objections which might be urged, and he would briefly allude to them. The first was, that we could not always supply the number of battalions required for the five years' relief. He admitted there might in some instances be a difficulty in obtaining the requisite number; but then the troops would make fewer complaints at being kept an additional year in India if the ordinary tour of service was five years instead of ten. Military men might also ask what was to be done in case of unprecedented casualties. In reply to that he might express his opinion that if a battalion in India were so reduced, either by
  522
  the effects of climate, or by service in the field, as to be quite ineffective, nothing could be better than to send out a fresh battalion from home to replace it. It might also be objected that we might experience great difficulty in constantly changing troops, in consequence of the great distance between India and England; but our transport service was much more systematically conducted than formerly, and it would continue to improve. At present it was the practice of the War Department to send out troops to India chiefly from Ireland. Remembering that ill the troops were to be sent overland, it would seem that they would arrive at or near Kurrachee. They would diverge in two lines from that point—one going on to Bombay, and thence to the uplands, and across the peninsula to Madras, and the other to Lahore and up the country and down the line of the Ganges to Calcutta. The natural flow of the troops would be gradually such, when the arrangements were fully made, that they would have the advantage of beginning the tour in a healthy climate, instead of beginning with the worst at Calcutta. The more completely that plan of moving troops was adopted the more effectively the five years' system would be carried out. The question arose, first, whether it was possible to provide battalions for the exchange; and next, whether the advantages were commensurate with the increased cost, which he estimated at £40,000. He believed that both these questions could be answered in the affirmative. He did not imagine that the change could be carried out immediately, but he trusted he had said enough to show that the question was deserving of the consideration of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the hon. Member who had brought forward the subject with great care, and in a very proper spirit, had shown the question to be well worthy of the consideration of the Government and of the House; but as he was not aware of the calculations and figures by which he proposed to make out his case, the hon. Gentleman would not, he trusted, think him wanting in respect for him if he felt himself unable at the moment to follow him. He admitted that there were strong reasons why a quicker relief of Indian troops would be of great advantage to the army. It seemed to him, however, that the hon. Gentleman's calculations of the expense were somewhat below the mark.

  523
  He assumed that the cost of sending a battalion four voyages instead of two in ten years would be almost entirely met in the manner he had pointed out. The question had been inquired into by Committees of the House. [Mr. O'REILLY: I do not believe this particular subject has been brought before any Committee.] It was quite evident that these calculations could only be tested by very careful study. The hon. Member appeared to think that regiments were now kept in India longer than ten years. He believed that the regiments coming home this year had none of them been in India more than ten years; and, unless exceptional circumstances arose, he did not believe that any regiments would be called upon in future to serve in India more than that time. The subject should receive the careful attention of the Government.

ANNUAL FINANCE ACCOUNTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury to the fact that the Annual Finance Accounts state neither the Total Capital Amount of the National Debt, nor the Total Annual Interest of the entire Debt, nor the Total Amount of Debt discharged under the heads of Exchequer Bills, Exchequer Bonds, and Terminable Annuities, and to ask him whether he would direct the preparation of such information and its publication with the future Annual Finance Accounts? The fact was that the Annual Finance Accounts as they were at present kept were neither ample nor clear. The House might fairly expect to find clearly stated in them the amount of the National Debt and the interest of that debt, and to be told at the end of every year how much of the debt had been discharged or by how much it had been increased. Every one, however, was obliged to make his own calculations on these points. In one paper the amount of the funded debt was given, and in a subsequent paper the unfunded debt, and these two added together made a total of £785,000,000. This amount, however, did not accurately represent the entire debt, which was £808,000,000. The reason why the residue was not stated was that the accounts did not make a computation of the amount of capital debt owing in respect of terminable annuities amounting to £22,500,000. On the other hand, the
  524
  interest of the National Debt was unduly overcharged, for the whole amount of the terminable annuities was included. The amount of the debt was therefore, in fact, understated in the Annual Finance Accounts by £22,500,000, and the amount of the annual charge in respect of the debt was overstated by £1,500,000. These were discrepancies that ought not to appear, and he was sure that the Secretary to the Treasury would take care that they were rectified. He was not asking for anything impracticable, for in the savings banks accounts the analysis was accurately made, and all that had to be done was to interpolate these figures into the papers in question.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that as the mode of keeping the Finance Accounts was of very long standing, the Treasury had naturally hesitated to tamper with them. They dated as long ago as the year 1822, and the form in which they were kept was fixed by a Committee of the House. It would, however, be necessary to make considerable alterations in the form of these accounts if the Exchequer Audit Bill should pass during the present Session. Matters of account would then be placed on a different footing, and when the accounts next year came under revision it would be proper to make several alterations. The present accounts, ancient and valuable as they were, might, he admitted, be improved in respect to some of the particulars to which his hon. Friend had called the attention of the House.

LOSS OF THE "LONDON."

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I rise, Sir, pursuant to the notice I have given, to call attention to that melancholy event, the loss of the London, and to the nature of the inquiry into that loss. The subject is as far removed as any subject can be from anything like party considerations; but it involves to a very great extent the welfare and the safety of a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects. I bring it forward without the least intention to attack or censure any of the parties concerned. I am not aware that I ever saw Mr. Traill, the magistrate who tried the case, or the Messrs. Money Wigram, the owners of the ship. I had no relation or connection on board the London; and I have not been requested by any of the friends of those who were lost to call attention to the mat-

  525
  ter. I am influenced by but one motive—namely, to appeal to this House, to the Government, and, above all, to the President of the Board of Trade. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not shrink from the responsibility which devolves upon him and his office in connection with this melancholy event, but that he will be ready to say that he feels—as I do—that this dreadful occurrence forces upon us the question whether the present state of our law for the protection of that portion of the public who are compelled by their business to pass to and fro between the colonies and the mother country does not require amendment. The sea-going public who have to travel between this kingdom and the colonies are specially exposed to two sources of danger. The one the desire of profit which prompts the shipowners to overload their vessels, the other the eagerness with which rival companies compete in conveying their passengers with the utmost possible speed. If the House will permit me, I may briefly remind it of the facts of this deplorable case:—Early in January last two of the finest ships that ever sailed from England—ships with respect to which the public were invited to pay extra fares for the superior accommodation and security against accident which they held out as far as human skill could go—left our ports almost at the same time. One of them was a steamship, called the Amalia, of no less than 3,000 tons, which left the port of Liverpool; while the other was the London, which, including her engines, measured no less than 1,700 or 1,800 tons, and she sailed from the port of London, Within a very few days from their departure they were both overtaken in the Bay of Biscay by that tremendous storm which we must all well recollect. They were overwhelmed by the sea. "Within a very few hours, if not minutes, of each other, within a few miles of each other, these two magnificent vessels sunk to the bottom like stones. In the case of the Amalia providentially another ship was at hand, and the passengers were saved. In the case of the London no fewer than 233 human beings in full health and strength were suddenly called together by that gallant man, the captain (Captain Martin), and told in the early hours of the morning that their time was come—that human help was beyond their reach; and before that day closed they were no more. The mind, Sir, can hardly imagine a scene more
  526
  awful or more touching than that which must have occurred on board the ill-fated London. But while these two vessels, supposed to be the finest of their class, were unable to contend with what we read; of as a wild and raging sea, all the passengers and the crew of the Amalia were conveyed in her small boats in perfect safety to the vessel which was near at hand for their rescue. As regards the London, within a few moments of her going down, nineteen persons intrusted themselves to a boat—a common gig—calculated to carry only twelve persons in smooth water. Notwithstanding the fury of the storm, those nineteen persons, after remaining in that frail boat for somewhere about twenty-four hours, were safely placed on board a small Italian bark! During those twenty-four hours that little boat fell in with no fewer than four or five ordinary sailing ships, one of which heard the cries of those in the boat during the night. So far were they from being overwhelmed by the fury of the waves—if I remember aright, that vessel was only a cutter—that this cutter actually tacked about during the hours of the night, trying, but trying in vain, to pick up the boat, which she could not see, though she was able to hear the cries of those who were in it. When, therefore, these two splendid ships were overwhelmed and lost, while ships of an ordinary character and even little boats were able to float in safety, can it be matter of surprise that the inquiry ordered under the Merchant Shipping Act by the Board of Trade into the causes of these extraordinary catastrophes was regarded with unusual interest by the public? Sir, I do not stand here unnecessarily to attack anybody in discharging the duty which I have undertaken; but I stand here as one of the public, and as such I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion that inquiry was a mockery and a delusion as far as it regarded the great question of the public safety. Sir, my object is to guard the public for the future. "We cannot recall to life the un-: happy persons who were lost; but we must, if we can, guard the public for the future; and looking at the matter from that point of view, I say that that investigation was utterly futile for any purpose of discovering what were the real causes of the unfortunate calamity to which I am referring. Sir, the first fact which excited a feeling of dissatisfaction in the public mind was the astonishing announcement in

  527
  the newspapers that the magistrate who conducted the inquiry had prohibited a counsel retained by the relatives of some of the lost passengers, who attended not with any vindictive feeling, but for their own satisfaction—their natural satisfaction—to endeavour to ascertain what were the true causes of this melancholy event from cross-examining a witness. In consequence of that refusal of the right to cross-examine on the part of the magistrate, I put a Question in this House to my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Milner Gibson) asking him whether it was really the fact that counsel had been prohibited from cross-examining the witnesses; and I confess I heard the answer which my right hon. Friend gave me with very considerable surprise and regret. My right hon. Friend used these words—
  "Mr. Traill, therefore, thought that the inquiry into the loss of the London should be conducted strictly in conformity with the law; but in the exercise of his discretion, had he allowed counsel to appear on behalf of the relatives of persons who had perished, he would have caused long delay, and might have unnecessarily prejudiced rights and liability which were proper to be determined in a Court of Law."—[3 Hansard, clxxxi. 507.]
  The construction which I put upon this language is, and I do not see what other construction it is open to. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON made a remark.] I am very glad that my right hon. Friend takes some exception to my interpretation of his answer, because I was about to say that I hope he has reconsidered it, and that he does not think that in the conduct of that inquiry it was the duty of those who presided over it so to shape their proceedings as not to compromise—whom? Why, the owners of the ship, who of course were the persons with regard to whom, although not actually under any charge or accusation, the important question deeply interesting to the public mind was whether or not this dreadful event had been caused by any default or neglect of any sort in the building or the finding of the ship. Therefore, it was that when my right hon. Friend made me that answer I immediately gave notice that I could not allow the matter to rest there, that I must raise the question in this House. And I do so now with the anxious hope that he will meet me in the spirit in which I am bringing it forward. Sir, I hold in my hand the Report signed by Mr. Traill and the nautical assessors. In the early part of that Report Mr. Traill refers to this question, whether or not he,
  528
  as a magistrate presiding over the inquiry, was empowered or was in duty bound to allow counsel to cross-examine the witnesses. He states that at the commencement of the proceedings an application was made that counsel on behalf of the friends of passengers might cross-examine the witnesses; but as permission to do so was not granted by the Act of Parliament, it could not be given. Now, I wish first to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the question whether Mr. Traill was right or wrong in the opinion he expressed with regard to the cross-examination of witnesses in the case to which I refer. This is a matter upon which, of course, I am bound to speak with deference to the opinion of legal Gentlemen around me; but it does appear to me from the section of the Act which regulates such inquiries as that upon which I am speaking, that Mr. Traill arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The clause in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, bearing upon this point, is as follows:—
  "If the Board of Trade so directs, he shall apply to any two justices, or to a stipendiary magistrate, to hear the case; and such justices or magistrate shall thereupon proceed to hear and try the same, and shall for that purpose, as far as relates to the summoning of parties, compelling the attendance of witnesses, and the regulation of the proceedings, have the same powers as if the same were a proceeding relating to an offence or cause of complaint upon which they or he have power to make a summary conviction or order, or as near thereto as circumstances permit; and it shall be the duty of such officer or person as aforesaid to superintend the management of the case, and to render such assistance to the said justices or magistrate as is in his power, &c. … Such justices or magistrate may require any master whose conduct is called in question, or appears likely to be called in question, to deliver the certificate, and he shall hold the certificate so delivered until the conclusion."
  The Law Officers of the Crown are better able to judge of the force of the words in the above clause than I am; but they appear to me to bestow full power upon the magistrate to conduct the inquiry in such a way as shall elicit the whole truth of the matter. I am perfectly convinced—and I think nobody experienced in Courts of Law will differ from me—that when any party has established a particular view of a certain question, the only way to obtain the whole truth of the matter is to subject the witnesses to a searching cross-examination. Now, I have good reason for believing that some individuals who toot part in the inquiry respecting the loss of the London do not think the opinion of Mr. Traill a sound one; but I will leave this point for the

  529
  decision of the Law Officers of the Crown. I now come to another paragraph in the Report which I read with a great deal of surprise, if not with indignation. Mr. Traill proceeds to draw a distinction between two points involved in the inquiry. The first had nothing to do with the case in hand, as it related to the trial of a master or mate of a vessel for dereliction of duty, by which their vessel was either seriously damaged or it became necessary to abandon it. The second point, however, very materially affected the inquiry. The 432nd section, part 8, runs thus—
  "Whenever any loss, abandonment of, or serious damage to a ship, or any casualty causing loss of life, shall have happened as therein mentioned, to inquire into the cause of such loss, &c."
  Mr. Traill then remarks that—
  "In the former of these two in instigations there is something to be determined—namely, 'the cancelling or suspending the certificate;' and in this case, therefore, the Act has provided for an appearance by counsel, by directing that the master or mate 'shall have full opportunity of making his defence in person or otherwise.' In the latter investigation, on the other hand, there being nothing to determine, and no person on his defence, no such provision is made."
  Such a statement, that there was "nothing to determine and no person on his defence," is exceedingly strange, for Mr. Traill in a previous sentence plainly showed that his duty was to inquire into the cause of the loss of the vessel and the passengers. It is hardly possible, I think, to imagine a case more seriously affecting the public interests than that which Mr. Traill was called upon to examine, and which he himself stated—namely, the cause of the disaster to the ship London. Mr. Traill has stated that there was no person on his defence. I say that in every sense of the word the owners of the ship were morally on their defence. It was imperatively necessary that that inquiry should be conducted with the most jealous regard to the public interests, and the public interests only; and that it should not assume the character—which I am sorry to say beyond all doubt it did assume—of an inquiry the object of which was to protect the owners of the vessel from blame. I hope the House will kindly permit me to read some short extracts from two letters bearing upon the subject, because it is my wish to show the spirit and the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. The first is from Mr. Thomas, a gentleman who had the misfortune to lose a brother and a sister-in-law in the ill-fated vessel, and who retained Mr. Talfourd Salter as
  530
  counsel to watch the inquiry. I should, however, have before stated—what is well known to the public—that after applying again and again in vain for permission to cross-examine the witnesses, Mr. Talfourd Salter retired from the inquiry in disgust. Mr. Thomas thus writes—
  "We were most anxious to obtain every information, and secured the services of able counsel and a shorthand writer to report verbatim whatever might transpire in the Court of Inquiry. Those steps were rendered useless by the course pursued. Not even the simplest question was permitted to be put direct to any witness, and no cross-examination, of the evidence was allowed. The presence of our counsel was even misrepresented by the press; the public were informed that he had not seen fit to ask any questions. We were compelled, therefore, to decline being represented, and to withdraw from an inquiry where, from whatever cause, nothing but one-sided testimony appeared to be sought. To those who watched the proceedings they appeared to be mainly an examination of officials by a tribunal of their own. The fact that private persons like ourselves, who come forward at some cost and inconvenience, were not permitted, even by counsel, to try to elicit anything, lest it should be adverse to the owners of the ship, or the administration of the Board of Trade, speaks for itself, and I venture to hope that you may see fit to press for a more full and impartial inquiry into the circumstances attending a calamity which is the cause of mourning to thousands at home and abroad."
  The next letter I will read, with the permission of the House, is written by a gentleman known, I have no doubt, to many hon. Members—Mr. Ralph Benson. A short time ago Mr. Benson, who is an able young man, was in active practice as a barrister; and, having lost a brother in the London, he took a deep interest in the inquiry, and was present during the greater part of the proceedings. He thus writes to me—
  "I think that we, the relatives of the lost, regarded collectively in the eyes of the Court as we are one in the sorrow of our bereavement, should be allowed the privilege of cross-examining such a succession of witnesses as have been adduced in the present case, who for days together consisted of either crew and dependents of the owners, or persons directly interested in proving that no fault could attach to the ship or her fittings. See how the aspect of things changed when the only independent testimony was adduced—namely, the three surviving passengers; they were strong in denunciation of the behaviour of the vessel, and all were men accustomed to the sea; one had been by profession a sailor. I never heard anything so unsatisfactory as the way their evidence was taken; it was removed from the hands of Mr. O'Dowd to those of Mr. Traill, and if I had not myself pressed, after the examination I was concluded, that certain questions should be put, they would not have been asked, though the magistrate had the brief under his own eyes containing statements derogatory to the vessel."

  531
  I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that it is unfortunate that any gentleman placed in the position of Mr. Benson should be under the necessity of writing such a letter as that I have just read. He, and the other gentlemen who have communicated with me on the subject, have done full justice to the personal kindness and courtesy of Mr. Traill. I am bound to make this admission; but courtesy and kindness were not the great objects sought in such a serious case. What was required was a bonâ fide searching inquiry into the whole of the circumstances of the dreadful catastrophe, and the fullest scope should have been given to all parties for the purpose of eliciting the truth. I submit to my right hon. Friend that there should have been no attempt for a moment to suppress legitimate efforts to arrive at the real facts of the case. This morning a gentleman who understands the subject on which he speaks, and who happened to be at Dover when the London passed through the Straits, told me that the alarming depth of the vessel in the water was the subject of general conversation among the observers on the pier. I will also read to the House a letter to which I attach great importance. It comes from Captain Stewart, of the Royal Navy, who happened to be at Plymouth when the London passed that port. He says—
  "A sailor's eye can always detect whether a ship looks too deep in the water or not; and, notwithstanding the evidence adduced, and the endeavour to prove that everything was done for the safety of the passengers that human foresight could suggest, I maintain that the attention of spectators on the Hoe was called to the ship from her deepness of immersion while she lay at anchor in the Sound, and comments were freely passed upon the circumstance; and yet, anticipating bad weather, she is permitted to depart with fifty tons of coal on her upper deck, with her topgallant and royal masts on end, and topgallant yards across; the imprudence of which was subsequently shown in evidence by the coals choking the scuppers and the spars being carried away."
  In another place he writes—
  "The shortcomings of some and the cupidity of others had far more to do with the loss of the ship than the elements."
  And again—
  "The truth is, that the interests of the owners are paramount to every other consideration, and to this, and making a swift passage, the efforts of the captain are directed. It must be now obvious to all that such ships as the London, whose length is more than seven times their breadth, and fine at both ends, are not adapted for carrying heavy cargoes and passengers at the same time."
  532
  That is the letter of Captain Stewart, a perfectly impartial witness, who saw the London only by accident, and who tells us that her unfitness to go to sea in heavy weather became the subject of general observation on the public wharf at Plymouth, The next letter which I wish to read to the House is one which was written at the request of some of the survivors by Mr. Talfourd Salter. He says—
  "Mr. Thomas called at chambers yesterday to ask me to send you in writing an exact account of what occurred at Greenwich when I proposed any question in cross-examination of the witnesses in the London inquiry. It was this—The question was written down by roe and handed to the magistrate; the substance of it—never, I believe, the words—was put either by Mr. Traill himself, or it was handed by him to Mr. O'Dowd, and put in that way by him. To a number of questions, however, the magistrate demurred altogether, suggesting to me either that they were irrelevant, or not such as the witness under examination could well be expected to answer. I could not agree with him, and gave him my reasons for still desiring that the questions should be put; still he demurred, and ultimately the matter dropped. The obvious disinclination of the magistrate prevented my persisting; had I done so, the questions might or might not have been put. The reason for not persisting was a thorough conviction of the utter futility of the method adopted to the end for which I was instructed to appear, and this is the reason which caused me subsequently to advise you that my further presence on the inquiry was worse than useless."
  That statement from a gentleman of Mr. Salter's position must, I think, convince everyone that the inquiry was not conducted as it ought to have been. Who were the principal witnesses? They consisted of persons who were either directly connected with the owners of the vessel, such as sailors and shipbuilders, or of officers connected with the Board of Trade as emigration officers and surveyors—gentlemen, in short, who were already to some extent committed in the matter, as having passed the vessel and allowed her to go to sea. They declared that she was in a state to make a safe voyage, and they, therefore, could not be expected to come forward afterwards to falsify the statements they had previously made. I may give an idea of the carelessness with which this evidence was taken when I say that Captain Lean, the emigration officer at the port of London, gave evidence that he had passed the ship as all right. In Mr. Traill's Report the words were put in inverted commas that "the ship was perfect in every way." During the inquiry Captain Lean handed in a report of her sails to show how perfectly equipped she was.

  533
  There was something in the manner of putting in the list that appeared to excite Mr. Salter's suspicion—he had not then retired from the inquiry—and he expressed a wish to ask Captain Lean how long he had had it in his possession. The question having been put, the answer was that the list had been given him two days before the inquiry by the proprietors of the ship. This fact will, I think, serve to show the House how little dependence ought to be placed on the evidence of persons who were themselves already in some degree committed in the matter. When a further question was suggested with the view of pressing Captain Lean upon this point, the magistrate, I understand, refused to put it, or hesitated to do so. Again Captain Stoll, the emigration officer at Plymouth, was examined, and I must say that the evidence given by him and others was such as to suggest very strongly the inquiry in what the real value of the inspection of vessels at our outports by emigration officers consists. That is a question, in my opinion, not only well worthy, but demanding the serious consideration of my right hon. Friend. The British public are led to place confidence in those inspections. They are led to believe that they may go to sea in safety in vessels which have been passed by the emigration officers, They never suspect—that which I believe to be the truth—that, whether from long habit or the want of adequate instructions, the visits of these officers have, in point of fact, become mere matters of form. This is a subject to which I would most earnestly invite my right hon. Friend's attention. There is one fact connected with the case of the London which strongly impresses on my mind the justice of the view which I entertain on this point. While that ship lay at Plymouth fifty tons of coal were added to her stock. Those fifty tons were stowed on her deck in bags round the sides of her bulwarks, and there left entirely unsecured. The natural result was, that as soon as she experienced the action of a heavy sea those bags of coal broke adrift and burst. The coal covered the deck and stopped the scuppers. Captain Stoll himself stated in evidence that when he inspected and passed the ship at Plymouth the coal was stowed away in the manner I have described. Since I gave notice of my intention to bring forward this question I have received letters from various persons, chiefly
  534
  seafaring men, all condemning in the strongest manner the way in which the coal was stowed on board the ship. This very morning I had a communication from a naval officer strongly impressing on me the impropriety of the emigration officer having allowed the ship to go to sea in that condition. The evidence on one side having been such as I have stated, what was the evidence on the other? It was most important, and I am sorry to say that it was very reluctantly received. It could not, however, be altogether excluded. A well-known gentleman, Speaker of the House of Assembly in Australia, Sir D. Cooper, who had sailed in the London in a former voyage, declared it to be his opinion that she was then so bad that she ought never to have gone to sea. Again, Mr. Wilson, the shipbuilder of Liverpool, spoke of the ship as being so badly constructed that he would not allow his son to go to sea in her. This evidence was so important that it could not be altogether suppressed, and Mr. Traill was obliged to admit that such was the opinion of Mr. Wilson, the shipbuilder. There was also the evidence of Mr. Monro, one of the passengers by the London; and last, but not least, that of the unfortunate Mr. Dennis, one of those who were lost, and who, within half an hour of his death, wrote a record which I have seen. His brother-in-law called upon me a few days ago and showed me an interesting memorandum, written in pencil, enclosed in a bottle which was washed on shore, and which his relative had written. Mr. Dennis was an experienced man, had been much at sea, and his words bearing on this subject contained in this painful memorandum are—
  "Ship too heavily laden for its size and too crank; windows stove in, water coming in everywhere; storm not too violent for a ship in good condition."
  I have here also a memorandum from a gallant and distinguished friend of mine, an admiral in the navy, who at one time commanded Her Majesty's ship Rodney, and who draws the following comparison between that vessel and the London:—
  "Dimensions of the Rodney—Tons, 2,626; length, 205 feet 6 inches; breadth, 54 feet 5½ inches. The London.—Tonnage, 1,428; length, 267 feet; breadth, 35 feet."
  That is to say, that the length of the London was seven times her breadth instead of only about four times, as in the case of the

  535
  Rodney. Here arises the question, and I am speaking in the presence of shipbuilders of experience, whether or not the time has come when, for the public protection, this style of shipbuilding, evidently calculated, owing to the rivalry of different companies, to attain a high rate of speed without a due regard to safety, should be allowed to continue, so that such vessels should be trusted to carry a large number of passengers and at the same time a heavy cargo of merchandise. I am sorry to detain the House, but there is other evidence which I think is most important connected with the composition of the crew. The evidence upon this point was, I am sorry to say, checked by the magistrate, and was not gone into. I believe, however, that it is most reasonable to suppose that the unsatisfactory nature of the crew was in no inconsiderable degree the cause of the calamity which befel the ship. There was, no doubt, a large number of able-bodied seamen on board; but I am told there were many quite unfit to be intrusted with the management of a large and important ship, and also a considerable proportion of Dutch sailors, who were entirely unable to understand any English word of command that might be given. I speak here without any knowledge on my own part, but I should like to know how far it is or is not the duty of the emigration officers and those surveyors who are called on to examine a ship of this class to see that she is not only properly fitted out and equipped, but also properly manned. I venture to submit to the House that the safety of our fellow subjects ought not to be intrusted to a vessel which is manned to a considerable degree by men who not only are not efficient sailors, but are not able from their ignorance of the language to understand the directions they receive with respect to the duties they have to perform, when, as in this case, a storm should arise. I will not detain the House by dwelling any longer upon this most painful case. I have stated the grounds of complaint which exist with regard to the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. I again state it broadly and distinctly as my opinion that, with the sort of Report to the Board of Trade which I have now lying before me, instead of the result of the inquiry filling my mind with the conviction that all was right, it has filled it with the suspicion that all was wrong. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again, and I entreat him to accept
  536
  the responsibility which his office throws upon him in this grave matter. I am sure he will agree with me that it is time that we should take precautions that our fellow-countrymen shall not be exposed to these dangers to suit either the interests of shipowners or the crotchets of magistrates. Inquiries of this nature should be bonâ fide, if they are not so conducted as to elicit the truth there had better be no inquiries at all—they are mere delusions; you are deceiving the public, you are throwing dust in their eyes. If an inquiry of this sort is to be conducted by a great Government Department, and for an object so important, as admitted by Mr. Traill himself, as to ascertain the cause of the loss of a ship, let it be conducted in such a way that, although we cannot rescue the poor creatures from the doom which has overtaken them, we shall nevertheless lay the foundation of such alteration in our system as shall afford reasonable grounds of safety to the public. I therefore wish to ask my right hon. Friend a few questions. I have already expressed my doubts whether Mr. Traill was justified in refusing to allow a cross-examination of the witnesses, although my opinion may not be worth much on that point. I wish first, therefore, to ask whether the real power of those courts of inquiry are, as at present constituted, sufficient for eliciting the only object worth attaining—namely, the whole truth in these cases? Secondly, if the power is held, after full consideration, to be sufficient, will he now tell the House, as a Minister of the Crown at the head of the Board of Trade, that he wishes that the law shall be effectually carried out for the future? or if the law be unsatisfactory, will he undertake, now that he has a Bill before the House relating to the Merchant Shipping Act, to amend the law by introducing a clause for this purpose? Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to the manner in which the inspection of vessels is carried out by the Emigration Office? Will he take care that these inspections shall be bonâ fide, and that the inspectors shall have full authority to stop any ship going to sea that may not have complied with the necessary requirements? I have no hesitation, in spite of this Report, in expressing my opinion that the London was an ill-constructed and over-loaded ship, and neither Captain Lean, in London, nor Captain Stoll, at Plymouth, ought to have allowed that ship to go to sea.

  537
  Fourthly, will my right hon. Friend cause to be enacted that an effective control shall be established over emigrant ships and the cargoes they are to carry, and further will he adopt some system of licence with respect to cargo and passengers, so that no ship shall be allowed to go to sea with a larger amount or number than specified in her licence, these being limited upon the authority of officers who shall be responsible, and upon whose report the public may place implicit reliance? Lastly, I desire to ask whether he adheres to the answer which he gave the other night to a right hon. Friend of mine, who asked whether he would not consent to make it: necessary that the deep load-line should be marked on passenger ships? I do not know what objection there may be to that. I find none. There is one solitary passage in the Report to which I am able to give my concurrence; it is where Mr. Traill, at the conclusion, says that it would be most desirable that the deep load-line should be marked on our passenger ships, and I hope my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to that suggestion, for if adopted it would have the 7nost important effect in giving security to our country men who are bound to cross the seas to a distant colony. I have nothing more to say. I thank the House for the attention with which it has listened to the remarks which I have thought it my duty to make. I end as I begun, by saying that I have brought the subject forward only from a sense of duty, and from a strong conviction that we ought to draw from the sad event which has taken place a ground for obtaining greater security for the public. I hope to obtain such an answer as may be satisfactory as coming from a Minister of the Crown.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: There can be no doubt, Sir, that the fate of the London. accompanied as it was by such a great loss of life, was a most awful and deplorable event. Considering the precautions which appear to have been taken before the departure of the vessel to insure her being seaworthy, and the experience and skill of her commander, the occurrence is one which is calculated to make us believe that there exist certain unforeseen perils of the ocean against which human prudence cannot provide. My right hon. Friend opposite has felt it his duty, and very properly I think has acted in discharge of it, to call the attention of the House to the circumstances of this melancholy event.
  538
  I cannot agree with him, however, in one portion of his statement—that those inspectors who passed the ship did their duty merely as a matter of form, and that they did not exercise their judgment as they were bound to do. It appears to me rather that the necessary inference is that you cannot place such great reliance upon a system of Government inspection being capable of providing you with all that you require. For what was the case of the London? In the first place, with respect to her construction, you have the Government surveyor—a Board of Trade surveyor—and he passed the ship. He passed her also with regard to her engines, and testified that they were in good order. Then, you had Lloyd's surveyors, in the interest of the underwriters, who obviously would suffer great loss if the ship foundered at sea. They passed the ship as seaworthy. Then, last of all, yen had the emigration surveyors, who had not only to look at the ship generally and see whether she was seaworthy, but also to take into consideration whether she was overloaded, and whether she was about to go to sea in a condition which might jeopardize the safety of her passengers. Well, they also passed her. They are in the habit of inspecting ships, and if they had seen anything wrong in the London it is not probable that it would have escaped their observation. I think these men did their duty. But, after all, what is the effect of this inspection? I am afraid that it is to relieve the shipowner to some extent from that responsibility which is the best security for the public. Supposing that an action had been brought against the owners of this ship for default in having sent to sea a bad vessel, what an answer it would have been to place before a jury to say that two sets of Government inspectors laid examined the ship and passed her as seaworthy, that Messrs. Wigram had complied with all the Government requirements, and how then could they be required to compensate those who had suffered loss? I am afraid, then, that remarks on previous inspection made by the right hon. Gentleman are not very favourable to its principle. I do not think that the inspectors failed in the discharge of their duty, but I doubt whether by Government supervision you can secure those provisions which may be necessary for the safety of the public or effectually prevent these awful calamities. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman

  539
  that the inquiry with respect to these accidents, to be worth anything, should be searching, impartial, and conducted without fear or favour. But was this inquiry other than an impartial inquiry? It was an inquiry nominally directed by the Board of Trade, but really instituted in fulfilment of the direct requirements of a statute; and all that rested with the Board of Trade was to see that the inquiry should be conducted in accordance with the Act of Parliament. We appointed a gentleman to superintend the inquiry, who had no leaning either to Messrs. Wigram, or to the persons connected with the navigation of the ship, or to the relatives of those passengers who were unfortunately lost. Our superintendent guided the case, and had only the object in view which the right hon. Gentleman justly said should be the sole object—to arrive at a conclusion as to what was really the cause of the loss of this ship. It is often supposed that these inquiries are in the nature of prosecutions; but that is not so. Their primary object is to ascertain the cause of the loss of the vessel. The late Mr. Hume first suggested these inquiries. The great number of wrecks and loss of life, therefore, excited attention, and there was a general belief that the cause of those wrecks was imperfectly understood. They had generally been accounted for by stress of weather, ignorance of masters, and in other ways. Mr. Hume suggested that there should be a sort of inquest when any wrecks of an important character took place, to ascertain the cause. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore correctly described what was the real primary cause of these inquiries, but it has been supposed that they are mainly instituted for the prosecution of the master or mate—for the cancelling or suspension of the certificates of those officers. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: That does not apply in this case.] No, the cancelling or suspension of those certificates might be an incident of an inquiry of the kind, for if a ship were lost by the culpable negligence of the master, it would be impossible for the Government, who had given him a certificate of competence and fitness, to allow him to retain it, but it would not be the main object of the inquiry. When Mr. Traill said that "there was nothing else to determine," he did not as I understand him mean what the right hon. Baronet supposes. What h; meant was that there was nothing to determine in a
  540
  legal sense. The Court of Inquiry was for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of the wreck, and as no question relating to the master's or mate's certificate was under consideration, there was not in any legal sense any question to determine respecting the rights or liabilities of any person. That was perfectly true, and therefore he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had quite correctly represented the meaning of Mr. Traill's remark. If the question as to the propriety of the master retaining or forfeiting his certificate were under investigation, and if any person deputed by him to protect his interest were present, that person would be entitled to cross-examine witnesses, and to be heard; but in this case there was nothing but an inquiry into the cause of the wreck, no persons were strictly on their defence, and there were no rights or liabilities to be decided on. That I understand to be the meaning of Mr. Traill's remark. Now, the Act of Parliament is entirely silent as to whether counsel for any of the persons interested, directly or indirectly, have a right to be heard. My own opinion, and that of those I have consulted, is that that was a matter entirely within the discretion of the presiding magistrate of the court. All I can say is that if Mr. Traill, who was the presiding magistrate, had thought fit to allow the counsel on behalf of the relatives of passengers who perished to cross-examine witnesses, Mr. O'Dowd would have made no objection. Mr. O'Dowd himself called every witness that was mentioned to him, and put every question suggested by any interested party at all relevant to the case.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that a great many questions which were suggested were never put, and others were greatly altered.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: It would have been our wish that Mr. O'Dowd should have taken the course I have mentioned, and, as I am informed, he did take it. Having the management of the case it was his duty to call every witness suggested to him as likely to give useful information, and put every question, from whatever side it proceeded, calculated to lead to a correct conclusion. Mr. O'Dowd informs me that he took that course.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he did not mean to make any complaint of Mr. O'Dowd. What he had said was that questions which were suggested were never put, and that others were completely

  541
  altered, but he made no imputation on that head against Mr. O'Dowd.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the character of the witnesses, and observed that persons were called who had previously committed themselves by opinions on the ship. That is true; but whom can you call, if you want to know anything of the character and equipment of a ship, but those who have had opportunities of becoming acquainted with the vessel? It was impossible to avoid calling the witnesses who were examined, but we felt so strongly that some other persons should be called who might give useful evidence that we had certain witnesses examined who might be called "experts," and who were without any interest in the matter. We did our utmost, as far as the case permitted, to call independent witnesses, and I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was an unsatisfactory thing that we could not by any means get that amount of valuable independent testimony which we could have desired to obtain. We got some, I however, and Mr. Wilson was called by the direct suggestion of the Board of Trade. I do not demur to the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of calling witnesses uninterested and independent, but in cases of this kind there is a difficulty in finding persons who can give useful information, and who, at the same time, I have not known beforehand anything of the ships respecting which an inquiry is instituted. The right hon. Gentleman has asked whether I am satisfied with the law I as it stands in respect to the mode in which these inquiries are conducted. I say that I am not quite satisfied. The system is will susceptible of improvements, but I will not pledge myself hastily to bring in a measure for effecting a change. The desirability of making a change in the mode in which these inquiries are conducted has been under the consideration of the Government, and I have no doubt that before long we shall be able to suggest to Parliament some improvement in the system. Generally speaking, we have been attacked for conducting those inquiries with too much stringency. It has been complained that we have inculpated persons improperly, and that we have not sufficiently allowed for what are called the unavoidable dangers of the sea. The right hon. Gentleman now takes up the matter in a totally different spirit, and he wishes the inquiries to be more searching than they have been.
  542
  My honest opinion is that the inquiry into the loss of the London was a very searching inquiry, and I believe there was no failure of justice, although I admit there were some unpleasant circumstances connected with the inquiry. I believe that Mr. Traill endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to arrive at a just conclusion. While admitting that these inquiries as at present conducted may be improved, I must observe that they have produced great benefits to the navigation of the country. There have been cases—as the right hon. Gentleman opposite Mr. (Henley) will recollect—inquiry into which has called attention to the absence of necessary lights, has shown the imperfection of past surveys, and the necessity for new surveys, which have been made. A remarkable case was that of the Alma, lost in the Red Sea. Inquiry was followed by communication with the Government of Egypt, which placed no fewer than three valuable lights on the coast of the Bed Sea, and thereby greatly facilitated navigation. Inquiry into the stranding of a ship on the coast of Newfoundland led the Admiralty to direct a survey, which is now being prosecuted. In the case of the Duncan Dunbar, lost in the Atlantic, it was endeavoured to be shown that she had been lost through some unknown currents and dangers that surveyors and navigators had nut formerly discovered; but all the notions about unknown currents and dangers were exploded, and it appeared that the vessel had been lost through an error on the part of her navigator. These are useful results, independently of the bringing of charges against shipowners for faulty construction, and the direction of public attention to matters connected with steam-engines, and to scientific matters connected with navigation. These inquiries have been useful, on the one hand, in dispelling rumours of dangers that did not exist; and, on the other, in calling attention to the absence of lights and the necessity for new surveys improvement in the construction, and in these ways navigation has been materially facilitated. Instead of confirming charges against shipowners of bad construction of ships, they pointed out the true causes of danger and of loss. I can assure the right hon. Baronet that no one is more impressed than I am with the dreadful character of the wreck of the London, but any one who has turned his mind to these subjects will

  543
  feel, after reading the evidence with regard to the loss of the London, that it is exceedingly difficult to decide what the cause of that loss really was. It may have been injury which no inquiry could disclose; it may have been water going down the hatchways; it may have been that her form did not adapt her to cope with the gale she encountered. I believe that no evidence that could be of use was refused. We were only anxious to have the most full and searching inquiry that was possible; our only desire was to arrive at the real cause of the wreck. I believe the Report is not satisfactory as to the real cause of the wreck; and I imagine that it could not be otherwise than unsatisfactory, because the evidence leaves the real cause doubtful.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that he was not satisfied with the present state of the law on this subject. That was an important statement, coming from him in his situation. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that it was under his consideration and that of others, whether it was possible and how to amend the law. He believed others concerned, especially those who came under the operation of the law—masters and commanders in the merchant service—regarded it with universal dissatisfaction. It was not possible that it should be otherwise, and the very circumstance that had brought about that dissatisfaction was the original vice by which such inquiries were marked. They could not have a court of inquiry and trial at the same moment conducted on principles either satisfactory to those concerned or doing justice. The spirit of inquiry was one thing; trial was distinctly another; and if they attempted to mix the two together they rarely arrived at a satisfactory conclusion on either. How had the system acted in the case of the London? The loss of life was unfortunately so great, and the public mind was so shocked, that a degree of attention was roused which under ordinary circumstances would not have occurred. The right hon. Gentleman said with great truth that he felt many of the witnesses were not of a kind to give satisfaction. What happened? Surely if they had a witness who, from any circumstance, however honest he might be, was in a certain sense either prejudiced or committed, the only mode of testing the value of his statement and putting him
  544
  right with the public, for whom he was giving his testimony, was to subject him to the most searching cross-examination. In this way they would ascertain the real value of his testimony; if he was a sound witness, he would stand well before the public and his testimony was worth having. But, if he had been previously committed to the question, and they screened the witness from cross-examination, no one would value his testimony; it was not worth a farthing. Many of these inquiries which had happened within the last three years had attracted great public attention and had been the subject of much animadversion. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might have spared what he said about the finding in the case of the Duncan Dunbar. That was still a vexata quæstio. The court he (Mr. Milner Gibson) had himself constituted came to a distinct opinion on a fact resting upon testimony on oath. But the Department over which he presided chose to wholly ignore that testimony on oath. Witnesses had sworn in the most distinct manner that not only at the time they were on the rock, but afterwards on the island, they saw numerous objects floating by in a particular direction. The right hon. Gentleman had affirmed that this was all moonshine. With equal consistency it might be said that all testimony on oath was moonshine; but certainly this was a most remarkable fact; and when there were people whose future well-being depended on such courts, it was not right that they should be subject to such animadversion afterwards. He did not think that any one objected to inquiry. But that inquiry should be searching, and it should be inquiry solely. If the result of the inquiry indicated culpable conduct in any quarter, let the matter be tried by a competent tribunal. Let a charge be framed; let the man inculpated answer guilty or not guilty, and let a competent tribunal or jury decide on the fact. He saw a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell), who had a great deal to do in framing the existing law. It was tentative. When he (Mr. Henley) had the honour of holding the office of President of the Board of Trade, it was a new law, and there had been very little experience regarding it. His right hon. Friend would correct him if he was wrong; but he believed it was thought when that law was framed that these inquiries might be much more numerous than they had turned out to be, and there was some apprehension as

  545
  to arranging a proper tribunal. Experience had shown there were very few. Out of from 1,300 to 1,600 casualties in the course of a year, not above thirty required inquiries of this kind to be instituted, and of these, perhaps, in one third of them no I blame was attached to any one, If this proportion was anything like the number to be tried, it must be very limited, and, therefore, there was no reason why greater care should not be taken by those who conducted these inquiries. No inquiry was of any value unless it carried the confidence of that part of the public who were connected with it. The object was to correct mischief, to prevent casualties or wrecks if possible, by pointing cut errors which might and ought to be avoided; but to do this there must be a competent tribunal. They must not be dependent on the crotchets of this or that man. He did not pretend to say how the police magistrates had tried these cases; but, after reading many of the reports and much of the evidence, he confessed it often seemed to him that they had come to a conclusion on that evidence to which he was satisfied no jury would have come. He thought when men were frequently to be ruined by the decision of these courts, the charge which was brought against them should be fairly stated in the first instance; that they should have an opportunity of pleading to that charge, that evidence should be given, and that a competent tribunal should pronounce upon it. Much had been said upon the question of surveyors and the surveying of these ships. He very much doubted whether these things did not run in a sort of groove, the effect of which was to relieve the parties concerned from all responsibility. He was sorry the House had these discussions before the evidence was officially before them; but on reading the evidence in detached portions in the newspapers from time to time, he was bound honestly to state his impression that it struck him that, so far as the testimony of the surveyors and officers of that kind was concerned, this was what was called a whitewashing inquiry. He had not seen the official Report, but he accounts in the public press left that impression on his mind. He would just refer to one point. A question arose about the number of storm sails, and the emigration officer was asked whether he saw them, to which the reply was, "No, I did not see them; there were responsible owners, and, therefore, I took
  546
  them for granted." Now, that was surely a very loose system, for, as far as the sails were concerned, the officer might just as well have been smoking his pipe at home. What was the use of an inspector who did not see the things which he certified? Another great evil was that some of these officials inspected one thing and some another, nobody being responsible for the whole vessel, so that the inspection was apt to drop between two stools. These surveys relieved the owners of much responsibility, and yet did not conduce to safety. During the last sixteen or seventeen years the whole mercantile marine had gradually been taken into the tender keeping of the Government; but, in spite of all this paternal care, the disasters that happened in proportion to the number of voyages had been steadily increasing. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) shook his head, but this was certainly the fact up to 1862, the date of the last Return that had yet been issued. He should be glad to see the Returns up to a more recent date, and could not, of course, tell what they might show, but he did not imagine that the wrecks during the last two or three years had been so few as to give a more favourable result. The proportion of wrecks and casualties had been increasing year by year; on the casualties he laid no stress, as no doubt vessels came oftener in collision owing to the crowded state of the sea, but any one who would take the trouble to consult the wreck table from 1852 to 1862 would see that, the average of disasters was increasing. If they were to take carpenters, masons, farmers, or any other industrial class in the country, and undertake to teach them how to carry on their trades, they would encounter the same inconveniences and perplexities which were becoming increasingly troublesome with regard to seamen. For the last forty years the Government had been meddling with seamen, and the result had been that that class were steadily deteriorating, and that complaints resounded on every hand. He believed that the touch of the Government hand in these matters acted like a blight, and that in nine cases out of ten, instead of effecting any good, it only did mischief, relieving those who were properly responsible of the blame to which they would otherwise be liable.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he wished to deprecate the increased severity in legislation which some right hon. Gentlemen would found upon the disasters which befell the

  547
  London. Whereas the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had endeavoured to draw from the loss of the London a reason for more stringent Government inspection, the conclusion to which it conducted him was precisely the reverse. It had been remarked to the disadvantage of that vessel that its proportion of length to breadth was excessive, that it had seven lengths for one breadth; but this was the proportion used in large steamers at the present day; and the large companies had adopted it very successfully. It was said that the principal witnesses in favour of the vessel were interested parties, because on previous occasions they had expressed opinions in favour of the vessel; but in such inquiries it would be difficult to find witnesses of any weight who had not previously been conversant with the matter. When the slight amount of interest which they had in the result, and the diversity of opinion they expressed upon some matters were taken into account, he thought they were entitled to general credit. Besides, the two leading witnesses upon the inquiry were surveyors of Lloyd's. Lloyd's surveyors could not be said to have any interest in the vessel. Their function was to survey the vessel when building, to ascertain the "strength" of her various parts, and to give a certificate accordingly. He did not think this committed them at all, as there was no difficulty in their saying, if the fact required it, that the vessel had not been fitted as they intended, Again, Lloyd's surveyors would be the first to say if they thought so, "You have overloaded the ship, and thus destroyed a ship that otherwise would have been good and sound." But in the case in question Lloyd's surveyor went out of his way to say that if the vessel had been a foot deeper in the water he should not have considered that she was too deep to go to sea. Instead of believing that a more rigid system would prevent disasters, he came to an entirely opposite conclusion. He believed that, in reference to the poorer class of passengers, who were unable to protect themselves, there should be a full supervision to secure to them sufficient room and a sufficient quantity of water and provisions; but first-class passengers exercised a large amount of careful scrutiny as to the character of the different lines of ships they travelled by, and guided themselves by the result of these observations. It was thus that they saw that the best found lines, like Cunard's
  548
  and the Peninsular and Oriental, invariably commanded a very large number of passengers, even although there were vessels running upon the same lines at very considerably lower rates. This being so, he thought that the less the Government interfered under such circumstances the better. He was not sure that the Government inspection already was not too minute. It would be pernicious if the Government went into detail, and said what should be done and what left undone; and he thought that the Government should confine their operations within the limits of inspection, instead of giving directions. He certainly was in favour of having an inquiry when an accident happened; and he would go further, and say that he thought it most unjust that the relatives of the deceased should be prevented from cross-examining the witnesses with the view of ascertaining whether they had any claim against the owners. The Act of Parliament contemplated that if there was fault on the part of the owners the parties who suffered from the death of relatives should have redress to the extent of £15 a ton of measurement of the vessel. On this calculation the owners of the London would have been answerable, assuming the accident to have occurred through their default, to the extent of £25,000. It was at the same time only just to the owners that they should be enabled to elicit facts by which they might be exculpated. The tendency of the inquiry which had taken place could not be other than to prejudice the owners of the vessel to some extent, and he wished to say a few words to prevent them from falling under censure without having been heard. He was informed that the firm to which this ship belonged never insured, and that this was the first loss which they had sustained since 1809. Such a state of things showed an amount of care which entitled them to a large amount of credit until something to the contrary was proved. These facts might, perhaps, explain why the emigration commissioner had not looked so carefully into some matters as he would have done had the owners been of a less high character.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that if the firm had been damaged it was from the mode in which the inquiry had been carried on. He was of opinion that some material alteration should be made in the present mode of conducting inquiries of this description. The tribunal by which such

  549
  cases as the loss of the London was investigated was of the most unsatisfactory kind, while the inquiry appeared to be undertaken merely for "whitewashing" purposes. In the case referred to all attempts to fix blame upon any person were immediately frustrated by those presiding over the inquiry, and the result was that the inquiry was stifled and the investigation was unsatisfactory both to the general public and the shipping interest, as it was felt that the Court of Inquiry merely acted as a "buffer" to shield those through whose fault the calamity happened. If a Court of Inquiry were established on better principles, in which the conduct of the owners, the commander, and the sailors could be properly investigated, more care would be exercised by the emigration officers, by those who licensed ships, and by those who intrusted captains with valuable cargoes and with the care of human life, and thus a wholesome terror would be inspired in the minds of those whose duty it was to protect the lives of their fellow beings from the dangers of the seas. He could understand no possible reason why the friends and relations of those whose lives had been sacrificed, not to the uncontrollable fury of the elements, but through the imperfections of the ship and her management, should have been prevented from sifting the matter by cross-examination. It was clear that the crew was not a good one. The opinion of many persons who were well able to judge was that the crew was not a fit crew to navigate such a ship, since in the hour of danger the sailors deserted their captain and rushed to the forecastle for safety, instead of remaining at their work. Why did the Court interpose to prevent the inquiry from attaining its legitimate result in ascertaining who were to blame in the matter? He was glad this discussion had taken place. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would give the matter his most serious attention, and that some beneficial change would be made in the constitution of these tribunals.
  MR. WEGUELINsaid, he believed that the tribunal was an unsatisfactory one, but he did not concur in the reasons which had been given for this conclusion. The only parties who were not represented upon inquiries of this kind were the owners. The public were represented by the counsel for the Board of Trade, the relatives of the sufferers might have counsel, but the owners had no locus standi be-
  550
  fore the Court. It was upon this ground that he thought that the constitution of the Court was not satisfactory, and that every party to inquiries of this nature should be fully and fairly represented.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, the Gentleman who had just spoken had evidently misunderstood the purpose for which these inquiries were instituted, which was to enable the Board of Trade to arrive at a decision with regard to the merit or demerit of the conduct of the commanders of the ships which had been lost. He believed that the tribunal before which these inquiries were instituted was one rather for the protection of the public than for any other purpose. The Board of Trade instituted an inquiry to free the commander from any responsibility, or in the alternative to enable them to exercise the power vested in their hands by withdrawing from him the right to command a sea-going ship. This being so, he agreed with hon. Members who had expressed dissatisfaction with the present scope of the inquiry. As to the objection which had been suggested, that the representatives of the relatives of those who were lost had not been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, he believed that the President of the Board of Trade had on another occasion answered it by stating that there was no power to admit any such cross-examination. If any new legislation should take place he (Mr. O'Beirne) believed that it would be found that it must be upon an enlarged basis, and that it must enable all those who were intrusted with the loading of ships, the owners and officers of ships, and the relatives of those who were lost, to be represented before any efficient tribunal that should be instituted. Unless this were done, the country would not be satisfied that the inquiry was complete and satisfactory. There were many issues which did not at present fall within inquiries as now held under the Act. No officer was bound to examine and report the condition of a ship when she finally left port. The inquiry, as now conducted, was confined to the character of the vessel, her build, her capabilities, and her water-line when laden. There was nothing to prevent a vessel starting on her voyage with many tons of coal on her deck. Many losses had arisen from that cause, particularly in the North of England. He agreed, therefore, with the opinion which had been so generally expressed, that the present system of inspection was entirely inadequate to the

  551
  necessities of the case, and would willingly support any well-considered measure to remedy the defects which were admitted to exist.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he had informed the Messrs. Wigram of the nature of the attack which he had intended making on them, so as to give those gentlemen an opportunity of defending themselves?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONrose to reply to the question.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, that, as he (Sir John Pakington) had already addressed the House, his doing so was out of order.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that, as this was a matter of great importance, he must claim the indulgence of the House.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, that the rule was that no Member could address the House twice in the course of the same debate, and unless the House consented that the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to speak he must conform to the rules.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he was entirely in the hands of the House. With reference to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, he was not aware that a statement of the facts connected with the loss of this vessel constituted such an attack as was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had given the usual notice required, and having in that notice stated his intention of calling the attention of the House to the manner in which the inquiry into the loss of the London was conducted he believed he had done all that was usual or necessary.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not believe that any one would suppose from the terms of the Motion given by the right hon. Gentleman that he had intended to read letters and impugn the conduct of the owners in the way he had done. As regarded the mode of inquiry itself, he need hardly remind the House that he had urged the necessity of legislative interference; but he believed that the Messrs. Wigram had not been treated with fairness by the right hon. Gentleman. The object of his Motion merely appeared to be to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, and to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposed to amend the Merchant Shipping Act. That notice did not
  552
  suggest that he was about to impugn the conduct of Messrs. Wigram, but merely related to the mode of conducting the inquiry. It should be remembered that the inquiry of which the right hon. Gentleman complained was not intended to enable relatives of the sufferers to claim damages against shipowners, but was instituted solely for such purposes as ascertaining the course pursued with regard to the navigation of the ship. Whether it might be right or wrong to establish a tribunal for the purpose of investigation, by relatives, by shipowners, or by the freighters of goods, was a question open to discussion; but that was not the sort of inquiry contemplated by the Act. He could not therefore see that the magistrate was to blame because he declined to allow an inquiry of one kind to be converted into an inquiry of another description, and because he had preferred conforming to the law as it was to acting upon a law which must necessarily have been of his own framing. He quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in believing that an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act was required, but he could not help deprecating the course which had been pursued that evening by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GRANTsaid, he must protest against the interpretation which had been put on the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and thought the House was highly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought the subject before the House. If a calamity involving a large number of lives was not a sufficient matter for inquiry it was difficult to say what would justify an investigation. When a large loss of life occurred there ought to be a full inquiry whether the master of the vessel was competent to navigate it or not. He did not concur in some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Tavistock, who seemed to think that no supervision on the part of the Government was necessary. His own personal experience brought him to a totally different conclusion. The interests of no class demanded the exercise of more Government vigilance and protection than did those of the emigrant or third-class passengers.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, that the hon. Member had misunderstood him. He had expressed on this subject the same opinion

  553
  as that which the hon. Member himself entertained.
  MR. GRANTsaid, he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that wherever there was Government inspection there was a deterioration of accommodation. If any one required protection it was passengers who went on long voyages. Those who observed the condition of vessels sent abroad must be aware that not only was the present supervision needed, but that a more stringent one was requisite. There ought to be a larger number of officers, an inquiry into the kind of provisions, and a close inspection as to whether the vessel was overladen or not. The cupidity of the owner of a vessel frequently knew no limit but the actual safety of his vessel. So far from the owners of the vessel in question having sustained no losses for so many years being an argument that the vessel was not overladen, he thought it was rather an argument the other way. The owners of the vessel appeared not to have suffered from losses of this description since 1809, and to have been their own insurers; but a lengthened immunity from loss should not, in his opinion, have engendered increased boldness, but should have had just the contrary tendency. In his opinion, the Courts of Inquiry as at present constituted were perfectly incompetent; and as for Government supervision of vessels, he would recommend that it be increased rather than relaxed.

NAVY—EAST INDIAN SQUADRON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he wished to ask, Why a portion of the expense incurred by keeping up a naval force on the coast of India was not borne by the Indian Government? It was quite true the fleet of seven ships stationed there might not be exclusively employed for purposes connected with India; but it was mainly so, and for that reason he thought some portion at least of its cost should be charged against the revenues of the Indian Government as was done in the case of the Army Estimates instead of being wholly borne by the Imperial Government.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that, although the fleet of seven ships referred to undoubtedly did duty in behalf of India, they also performed Imperial duties. Sir Charles Wood had expressed the opinion that the requirements of the Indian Go-
  554
  vernment would be satisfied by an occasional ship in the Persian Gulf, and another to visit the Red Sea. The fleet required for the protection of the Indian coast would not be large; three of the vessels composing the East Indian squadron were employed in the suppression of the slave-trade in the Mozambique, where such trade was carried on extensively, by means of small vessels. The Government had not overlooked the matter, but, upon consideration, thought if inadvisable that any charge on the account referred to should be thrown upon the Indian Government.

  ARMY NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN INDIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he had to complain of what he felt to be a hardship endured, by certain non-commissioned officers when serving in India. The House might not be aware that when a soldier in India was appointed a non commissioned officer he did not begin to receive the pay which his rank entitled him to until the official return of his predecessor's discharge had reached India from England. He was thus for three or four months, or sometimes longer, doing the duty of sergeant without receiving the pay. This could not be the intention of the House, and he therefore asked the noble Lord the Minister for War to give the matter his attention. No class of men in the army were more entitled to the consideration of the House than the non-commissioned officers, and he thought their case one of peculiar hardship.
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £12,656, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the additional Charge for Half-Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retired Pay, consequent upon altering the system of Retirement of Officers of the Royal Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1867."
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, that considering the Supplementary Estimate under consideration had only been presented to hon. Members on Saturday, some few words of explanation were required from the Secretary of the Admiralty respecting it. Without such an explanation it was incumbent upon them to read it in their own way. It appeared that the noble lord asked the

  555
  country to pay £12,000 in order to accelerate promotion in the navy. The House would, in his opinion, be guilty of what might be deemed an absurdity if it recognized the principle of retirement involved in the Motion before the Committee. It was proposed that admirals of seventy years of age, vice admirals of sixty-eight years old, and rear admirals of sixty-five years old, should be placed on the retired list. Why, an admiral with greater responsibility should remain on active service until he was seventy, while a rear admiral with less responsibility should have to retire at sixty-five, he could not understand, and he should like to have some explanation upon that point. There were about 102 admirals altogether; but it appeared that all who had hoisted their flag or been employed in the Admiralty should have a right of exemption, and should not be called on to retire at all, so that out of the 102 about eighty-four would be exempted from this provision, the exemption would, therefore, be the rule instead of the exception. The plan proposed some years ago by the right hon. Baronet who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, that all admirals of seventy should be called on to retire, whether admirals, vice admirals, or rear admirals, was much more reasonable than this complex scheme of three ages of retirement with the further complexity of all these exemptions.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was glad that his hon. Friend approved generally of the scheme, with the exception he had stated. They were all likely to make mistakes sometimes, but he had not often heard errors more egregious than those contained in the figures of his hon. Friend. Instead of amounting to eighty-four the exemptions amounted to three admirals of the fleet, seventeen admirals, eighteen vice admirals, and fifteen rear admirals, making fifty-three in all, a little more than half the number stated by his hon. Friend. The proposition that all admirals should be superannuated or compulsorily retire at the age of seventy had never been put before the House officially, though it had often been discussed, and he had no hesitation in stating that it could never be carried out. The country would not be satisfied to force into retirement the few distinguished officers now surviving who had had the opportunity of serving in our great wars. He need not mention names, but there
  556
  were gallant and distinguished officers of great age at the head of the list who in the course of nature could not be long among us, and to place them compulsorily in retirement would be a great affront and a most uncalled for and unfair proceeding. The only able officers exempted were those who had served at the Admiralty or discharged duties in connection with the government of the navy, and of these the number affected was very few, for nearly all had hoisted or would hoist their flags. As regarded the Controller of the Navy, nobody could say that the duties which he discharged were not equal in importance to those of any officer with his flag hoisted. What became, therefore, of the objections to this scheme, which at small cost provided a self-acting system for accelerating promotion in the navy? The stagnation, as he had stated on a former evening, was at present so great as to call for the adoption of some such measure. For the last ten years twenty-four commanders on an average had been promoted to be captains; according to the present state of the list not more than half that number could expect promotion during the next few years. There were first lieutenants still on the list who had served faithfully ten to thirteen years in that grade; and everybody acquainted with the navy must know that no officer ought to remain in that station for anything like such a period of time. As a matter of necessity, then, the Admiralty were driven to propose a scheme. Many gallant officers, no doubt, would be retired under its provisions who, given the opportunity, would have distinguished themselves equally with others; but having arrived at a time of life when they had no longer the prospect of becoming active, useful flag officers, they were placed in no worse position by retirement, having their pay and rank secured to them. There was no greater injustice in fixing the limit for rear admirals at sixty five and for full admirals at seventy, than there was at present in putting the limit for captains at sixty and for rear admirals at sixty-five. If rear admirals were continued on the list till seventy, what prospect was there of having useful and energetic vice and full admirals? The matter was a very difficult one, the Admiralty had given it their best consideration, and he implored hon. Members, because they disapproved merely of a certain limit of age, not to reject a scheme calculated greatly to benefit the navy.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that just before his retirement from office he had drawn up a plan based on the principle of retirement by age, and he had never changed his opinion that the good of the service required the adoption of that principle. Extremely unwilling, therefore, to offer opposition to any plan brought forward with that end in view, he yet saw serious objections to the scheme proposed by the Government. He felt it was open to serious objection on account of its requiring vice and rear admirals to retire at an earlier age than seventy, which was the lowest he had proposed. How was it to be ascertained, and who was to be the judge, whether an admiral was physically unfit for service? By his plan all flag-officers were to retire at seventy, and he could not understand why a rear admiral should retire at sixty-five and a full admiral at seventy. He would refer to a case with which the noble Lord must be familiar—that of Rear Admiral Hall, of the Nemesis, who had served his country in all parts of the world, and had been wounded twice. That gallant officer was now a rear admiral, and if be did not hoist his flag before he was sixty-five years of age, he would have to retire at that early age. If the system was to be carried out, it should be carried out fairly and impartially; there should be no exemptions of any kind. Approving generally the principle of retirement by age, he therefore disapproved the proposal to retire vice admirals at sixty, and rear admirals at sixty-five years of age. He had no wish to enter into a comparison of the plan which he himself had proposed, and that which was now introduced by his noble Friend; but he thought if hon. Members referred to the former they would find that the noble Lord had not accurately represented its provisions. He did not propose that these gallant gentlemen should go on the retired list, but that there should be two lists, on to one of which they should go, the other being for retired officers. He could not understand on what principle his noble Friend proposed an exception in favour of the officers who had had the good fortune to be in the Admiralty and connected with the Government. The rule of retirement ought to be carried out with impartiality, and he objected to its being complicated with fifty-three exceptions.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, that the first question to be considered before discussing the propriety of spending £12,600, was
  558
  whether the principle of compulsory retirement by age should be first applied to officers in the navy. In the navy the physical powers of the officers were less taxed than in the other branch of the war service. If this principle was to be introduced into one branch, it ought to be carried out in the army also. Again, why was an exception to be made in favour of officers who had held positions in the Admiralty? If a man was to be taken as incapacitated for the public service because he had reached a certain age, why should the rule not be applied even to the First Lord of the Admiralty? He presumed, however, that, notwithstanding a very long tenure of office, a First Lord, on retiring with a Government, would look forward to again serving his country in the same capacity, The fact was a man aged seventy, with a good constitution and moderate habits, was a younger man than one aged fifty with a bad constitution and of indifferent habits. He objected to the plan as merely a deception, by which the country got nothing. If an officer was merely to be transferred from one list to another, while he still received honours and emoluments as if he had not been changed, nothing would be saved to the nation. The notion of reducing the flag list to eighty-five, as proposed, was the merest delusion, because the old officers removed were only placed upon another list, and went to swell the numbers of the navy before the public.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTremarked that he would in the first instance place himself in a fair position on the attention of the House, by saying that he was not personally concerned, nor could be benefited by the present vote; in fact, every successive Board of Admiralty having for long years past precluded him from following up his profession. He could not, therefore, be misunderstood when rising on the present occasion to raise his voice against any compulsory retirement of officers proposed. He denounced the proposal as being in character most unfair and unjust, discreditable to the Admiralty in proposition, and one which it would be in his opinion unworthy of the House of Commons to sanction, inasmuch as it was to the prejudice of men who had risen to high distinction by meritorious and gallant exploits, and who would have their hearts broken by being placed on a compulsory retired list. On the other hand, the country would gain nothing by the measure—

  559
  their seniority in rank and pay being to remain the same as it would have been had they remained on the active list; consequently, he felt compelled thus most decidedly to object to the naval service being made an exception by the application to it of an invidious rule which it was not proposed to apply to the army or to the Civil Service. He, however, should be glad to support, and that with all his heart, a scheme which would have the effect of promoting lieutenants who had been long in active service to the rank of commander, and, similarly, commanders to the rank of captain.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, he agreed with the gallant Admiral who had just sat down that this scheme would inflict great hardships upon many brave and excellent officers, who had not only the will but the ability to continue their services to the country—men who were fully capable of active service, and who, therefore, naturally disliked to be placed on a retired list. The measure would bear very hard upon many old admirals who naturally looked forward to hoisting their flag, or obtaining a seat at the Admiralty Board. The noble Lord had stated that there would be fifty-three exceptions to the general rule, but he had forgotten to mention that there were other admirals, some of whom had served their country well, but who would be compelled to retire if this scheme were adopted. He sincerely hoped that the noble Lord would either omit the seventh clause, which made the exceptions, or give some satisfactory explanation on the subject.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that the proposal to place rear admirals on the retired list at the age of sixty-five was a most monstrous proposition. It was simply ridiculous to say that an active, able, clever officer, who was sixty-five years of age, should be turned out of the navy (for that was the real meaning of the retired list) because he arrived at the rank of rear admiral. The past history of the achievements of the navy showed that men had commanded fleets with the most consummate ability, and with the greatest success, at seventy-five and eighty years of age. The 12th of April was approaching, and that was the anniversary of a great naval battle, which was fought by an admiral aged eighty-two. And yet they were told that a rear admiral must be compelled to retire from the service at sixty-five. This was a question, not of
  560
  sentiment and sympathy, but of common sense. How lately was it that a statesman had passed from among them who had, at eighty years of age, directed the affairs of the country with unrivalled genius, who possessed the regard and esteem of the House, and the confidence of the country? And why should a rule be applied to the navy which was not applied to the House of Commons? This, too, was a most cruel proposition, because it was retrospective. If it were passed it would commit the country to conduct neither just nor generous, and which he was sure the people neither desired nor approved.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the Select Committee in 1863, on which he and several other Members of the House sat, and which pursued its inquiries during the whole of the Session. The Report of the Committee was discussed word by word, and on almost every paragraph a division took place. The conclusion arrived at was a very satisfactory one, but it was entirely adverse to the scheme now submitted for the consideration of the Committee of Supply. The Committee upstairs had had the advice of several First Lords of the Admiralty, and other officers of distinction. They had examined a large number of the most competent professional witnesses, and had discussed the question in all its bearings. It was, therefore, necessary before the conclusion come to by that Committee was departed from, that the Committee of Supply should have a very clear explanation from his noble Friend of the grounds which induced him to bring forward the present scheme. His noble Friend ought to dispose seriatim of the reasons assigned by the Select Committee for the conclusion at which they arrived. The Committee of Supply ought not to deal hurriedly with this question, which involved the system of promotion and retirement in the navy and would give rise to a great many considerations. It was an extraordinary thing that the navy was organized in a manner calculated to startle the mind of any person of ordinary intelligence. In the first place, promotion in all the lower grades of the navy was largely influenced by favour, and any person who had good connections and friends, rapidly attained the rank of captain. When any one had attained that rank he was further promoted according to seniority till he attained the rank of admiral. It had happened that persons having great connections were brought upon the

  561
  list of captains at an early age, and they then got the benefit of seniority, while other persons who had not the advantage of family connections were not advanced to the rank of captain, and consequently did not get the benefit of seniority till much later in life. The first effect, therefore, of a system of compulsory retirement by age, would be that those who had family connections would be quite secure from its operation, while those who, having no family connections, had come on the list of captains later in life, would be forced out of the service to make room for the others. The present state of things was greatly to be deplored. He, and a late Member of that House, Sir John Hay, were the only Members of the Select Committee who brought forward or supported any scheme by which merit should be recognized in the higher ranks of the navy, but they had found themselves in the most humble majority. In his opinion, the Committee of Supply ought not to enter upon the particular proposal now before it without going fully into the whole system of promotion and retirement, which was a scandal and a disgrace to the country. He believed that the system in the French navy was exactly the reverse of ours, no opportunity being given for promotion in the junior ranks by favour. Indeed, as the officers of subordinate rank were withdrawn from public notice, it was thought right in the French navy that they should be promoted according to merit. What, again, would be the general effect of the scheme just submitted to the Committee? He did not think it was at all satisfactory to have the estimate framed for one year only, for it was important to know what would be the accruing and accumulative effect of the scheme during a series of years. The noble Lord ought to have appended such a calculation to the Vote itself, as merely verbal explanations were far from satisfactory. Any scheme of the kind would not be practically useful. They all knew that, whenever an emergency arose, the First Lord of the Admiralty must take the list and go down it until he came to an efficient man, and what the service required was, when they had got him, to give him the rank necessary for the discharge of his duty. He protested against this hurried mode of dealing with so large a question. The Select Committee held that it was undesirable, in the interest alike of the service and the public, that a scheme of compulsory retirement
  562
  like this should be carried out, but their opinion had been overruled by the Admiralty.
  ADMIRAL SEYMOURsaid, that very few men would consent voluntarily to be placed on the shelf, and he, for one, was opposed to the scheme of compulsory retirement, particularly when the principle was not applied to other professions. It was not applied to generals in the army, or bishops in the church, or Judges in the law, nor did he see why the naval profession should be singled out by being retired at a certain age. If, however, it were thought necessary that compulsory retirement should take place the proposal of the Government was, he thought, far better than that of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington).
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that one would think from the remarks of hon. Members that this was the first time compulsory retirement had been heard of for the navy. The fact was, however, that there were a great number of other officers who were subject to retirement, and all the Government proposed was to extend the principle of age retirement to flag officers. If it were lair for one it was fair for all. The difference between the scheme of the present Government and that of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) was that the latter was extremely distasteful to those officers who had served in the great wars, and the present Government came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to make such a proposition then. Objections had been taken to one detail of the present scheme and another, but the question was whether the House was prepared to go to a very large expense for the purpose of keeping up the flow of promotion in the navy. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) knew nothing about the navy. Of course he said this in a friendly sense, but it was difficult to get non-professional men to enter into the details of these questions. They must promote officers while they were young if they wanted an effective service. No doubt in former days men of family were too much preferred, but there was no one who knew anything of the navy who would not admit that the present system of promotion was exceedingly fair, or who would assert that officers were promoted now merely because they belonged to influential families. During the last ten years the Admiralty had promoted on an average twenty-four commanders a year to be captains, and the state of the list

  563
  was that there was a prospect of only having eleven instead of twenty-four. Of lieutenants they had promoted thirty-seven a year, and the prospect now was of being able to promote seventeen a year. If the Committee wished to know how incompatible this state of things was with the welfare of the service let them turn to the Navy List, where they would find lieutenants often, twelve, fourteen, and fifteen years' constant service, and yet the Admiralty were unable to promote them to be commanders. The Admiralty had an opportunity of doing something now and at a small cost. What they proposed was simply to extend the scheme of compulsory retirement now existing in other branches of the service to flag officers. They proposed certain exemptions, which had been objected to, but he was certain that, if he had proposed to include officers like Admirals Sir William Parker, Sir George Seymour, Sir Thomas Cochrane, and Lord Fitzhardinge, and other old and distinguished officers, the House would not have been satisfied with the scheme. That was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had not carried his plan. The present Government had steered clear of this rock, and proposed to exempt those who had hoisted their flags, while all future flag officers would be put on this retired list when they came to the specified age. Let the enforced retirement be for those who had not served in the great wars, but while these great men were alive do not let them be forced into retirement.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to know whether the practice of selecting officers below the rank of captain for promotion still existed; and whether admirals, on hoisting their flags, had still the right of appointing an officer?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Yes. The practice was to promote by selection until they came to the rank of captain. That was the converse of the French system. The French admirals were selected by choice, and the juniors partly by chance and partly by seniority. He did not say that if we had to form the navy afresh the present practice would be established.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 70: Majority 18.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL. [BILL 19.]
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [16th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed:—Debate resumed.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he must object to their proceeding at that late hour (quarter to twelve) with a measure of so important a character.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he concurred in the objection, and moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—{Mr. Whiteside.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 99: Majority 44.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he moved the adjournment of the House. He complained of the way in which it was unfortunately the usage to bring Irish questions on for discussion. The Bill which the Government now proposed to read a second time at ten minutes to twelve o'clock contained 193 clauses, and he would ask the House, as a deliberative assembly, whether it was possible for them at so late an hour to do justice to the measure. He must further state that the Bill, under the mask of a great arrangement, would, in reality, perpetrate a great Government job, inasmuch as its operation would be to create a Vice Chancellor a place worth £4,000 a year, thus adding to the legal establishment in Ireland, which was notoriously already overmanned. He knew he should have the support of the senior Member for Brighton (Mr. White) in resisting a proposal in which a question of such importance as a matter of economic arrangement was involved at so late an hour of the night. It should be introduced at a time when it would have deliberate discussion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Claud Hamilton.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. LAWSON) said, he thought the House would be surprised to learn that a measure which had been stigmatized by

  565
  the noble Lord as a Government job had been framed with the view of carrying out the recommendation of a Royal Commission, consisting of some of the most distinguished men both in Ireland and in this country. The noble Lord had, doubtless, great experience in Chancery reform; but the names of the Commissioners and the fact that they had unanimously reported in favour of such a proposal as that under discussion would, he thought, relieve the Government in the opinion of every impartial man from the charge which he had made. The Report was signed by, among others, the present Master of the Rolls. Lord Romilly, by the right hon. Francis Blackburne, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland, Mr. Brewster, the right hon. Joseph Napier, who, if he were sitting on the Benches opposite, would naturally be surprised to hear that Bill characterized as a job, by Mr. Justice Willes, Mr. Baron Hughes, the late Sir William Atherton, Sir Roundell Palmer, and Sir Hugh Cairns. It was hardly credible that such men would have lent the sanction of their names to a job. As to the allegation that it was unreasonable to ask the House to proceed with the discussion of the Bill consisting of 193 clauses at that hour, he could only say that the vast majority of those clauses involved merely matters of detail. The principle of the Bill—which had on two previous occasions been fully discussed—which had last Session passed the second reading, and only been lost in Committee through the species of obstruction offered by hon. Gentlemen opposite—was simply whether the office of Master in Chancery should be continued in Ireland or a Judge substituted instead, whose duty it would be to manage the whole of a case coming before him from beginning to end, and the law be thus assimilated as far as possible to that which prevailed in England.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that while entirely acquitting his right hon. Friend of any intention to mislead the House with respect to the real facts of the case, he must point out that a noble Marquess in another place (the Marquess of Clanricarde) who had taken it into his head to become a Chancery Reformer—had moved for a Commission, which was appointed in 1854, and on which he (Mr. Whiteside) had declined to sit, as he disapproved of a Commission consisting of fifteen or seventeen Members. It had reported that the business of the Incumbered Estates Court should be put into Chancery. A Committee was subse-
  566
  quently nominated to investigate the validity of that recommendation, and he found on that Committee the names of Sir James Graham, the right hon. Edward Ellice—one of the keenest men of his day—Mr. Walpole, Mr. Henley, Sir Erskine Perry, and other men of first-rate capacity. Many years age the House of Commons determined not to be cheated by the lawyers, and selected two laymen to be Members of the Committee to insure the thorough reform of the Court of Chancery. That Committee investigated the question, the Attorney General of the Government of the day in the chair, who, although he acted most fairly, was overruled. The Commission afterwards instituted sought to overthrow the decision of the Committee. He had the highest respect for the names of the Gentlemen composing that Commission, but his judgment was not to be influenced by mere names. In the last Session there were one or two divisions in the House of Commons on the subject, showing very clearly that the House was of opinion that it was not necessary to create new Judges in Ireland. There were three Judges in the Landed Estates Court, who were also Judges in Equity, but he was not sure that one would not be able to discharge the duty now devolving upon them. Hon. Members were now told that they were obstructives if at twelve o'clock at night they stated their opinions upon the costs of the suitor, concerning which not one question had been asked of any witness by the Commission. The costs of the suitor according to the procedure proposed by the Commission would be one-half greater than those now entailed upon him. The Lord Chancellor of the present Ministry had declared in the other House that the costs of an action in which but £500 was involved, absorbed nearly the whole of the money. Much had been said upon the subject in England; but the representatives of Ireland were not even to be heard in reference to it. His hope was that the same fate which had overtaken the Bills introduced in the two previous Sessions of Parliament would overtake that now before the House.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had made statements in regard to the Bill which were not borne out by its provisions. He had stated that fifteen new places were to be created; but that was a most egregious mistake, seeing that four only were to be created by the Bill, while it abolished

  567
  several. It was not a Bill, too, founded simply upon the opinions of the Commissioners, whose names had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but it rested on the approval of the whole equity profession in Ireland. It was of the greatest importance that the law of Ireland should be assimilated to that of England; and the conclusion he had arrived at from his own experience was, that the present administration of equity law was most disastrous. His right hon. Friend had not met the Bill on its merits. Some time ago the proposal was made to abolish the office of Master. For some years the equity jurisdiction in Ireland had given rise to many abuses, and most of these sprung from the jurisdiction of the Masters, and the number of appellate tribunals by which their decisions in small suits could be corrected. In Ireland there was but one opinion in the legal profession, and that was that the Master in Chancery ought to be abolished; yet the right hon. Gentleman set himself up against all the other authorities, and said he would not have the Bill. Up to the year 1850 the Chancery practice in England and Ireland was identical. After that time a new system was introduced for Ireland which had ever since given the greatest dissatisfaction. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman himself proposed to abolish the office of Master, and to create three Vice Chancellors, and yet he objected to this Bill as expensive, while it only proposed to create one Vice Chancellor. Even last year the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed a Bill to appoint two Vice Chancellors. [Mr. WHITESIDE: I proposed to appoint two of the Masters.] That explanation only made the matter worse, because Mr. Napier and the right hon. Gentleman himself brought in a Bill to abolish the office of Master on the ground that it was pernicious.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he rose, not for the purpose of prolonging the discussion, but to correct his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lawson) on a matter of fact. From what his right hon. Friend had stated, he should be disposed to infer that he had not read his own Bill. From the very clauses of the Bill it would be seen that it was proposed to appoint a Vice Chancellor with one chief clerk and two junior clerks; in addition to that, the Master of the Rolls was to have power to appoint a chief clerk and two junior clerks, and there was further power given for the appointment of a chief clerk and two junior clerks for the Lord
  568
  Chancellor. [Mr. LAWSON: If the Treasury consents.] He most sincerely hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention would be called fully and fairly to the Bill, which would make an additional charge upon the public funds of £12,700, while it preserved in full as long as they lived the salaries of the Masters who were to be discontinued. It was quite true that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) by the Bill of last year proposed to create two Vice Chancellors, but one of them was to be an existing Master, and the other a Judge of the Landed Estates Court, as it was considered that two Judges would be quite sufficient for a long time to discharge the duties of that court.
  MR. S. B. MILLERsaid, he had referred to the Report of the Commission upon which the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Lawson) had relied as conclusive, and he there found that it was appointed in the first place to inquire into certain matters "with a view to reduce the cost of suitors and the expenditure of public money." The second branch of the inquiry was with a view "to assimilate as far as practicable the administration of justice in England and Ireland." Now, he could state without fear of contradiction that the Commission overlooked altogether the first branch—namely, the question with reference to the cost of suitors and the expenditure of the public money, and confined themselves merely to the second branch—namely, the assimilation of the practice and procedure in both countries, because the Commissioners themselves stated that when they had inquired into the latter point they thought it right to make their Report. The Report, then, on which the Attorney General for Ireland so much relied was utterly valueless as regarded the important points of the cost to the suitors and the expenditure of the public money.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that he objected to the discussion of Irish Bills at such a late hour.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it useless to prolong the discussion, and he would agree that the Order of the Day should be postponed till Wednesday.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Debate arising; Debate adjourned till Wednesday.

  MILITIA PAY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to defray the Charge of the Pay, Clothing, and contingent and other Expenses of the Disembodied Militia in Great Britain and Ireland; to grant allowances in certain cases to Subaltern Officers, Adjutants, Paymasters, Quartermasters, Surgeons, Assistant Surgeons, and Surgeons Mates of the Militia; and to authorize the employment of the Non-commissioned Officers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, and The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.

  ECCLESIASTICAL LEASES (ISLE OF MAN).
  On Motion of Mr. BARING, Bill to amend the Law respecting Leases by Ecclesiastical Corporations as far as relates to the Isle of Man, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARING and Mr. BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 80]

  SHANNON RIVER.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the manner in which the Drainage and Navigation of the River Shannon has been carried out under the direction of Her Majesty's Government, and to report what steps should be taken to complete the works for which a compulsory levy of £300,000 has been made on the adjoining counties:"—Colonel FRENCH, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. WILLIAM ORMSBY GORE, Mr. ACLAND, Lord DUNKELLIN, Colonel VANDELEUR, Sir EDWARD DERING, Sir WILLIAM JOLLIPFE, Mr. DILLON, Mr. LAIRD, Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, Mr. DUDLEY FORTESCUE, Mr. AGAR-ELLIS, Mr. CAVE, and Lord BURGHLEY;—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Dunsandle and Clanconal.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Salmon Fisheries (Scotland), nominated
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Commission* (52).
Committee—Mutiny.*
Report—Mutiny.*

HENRY DUFFIELD—LAW OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF STRADBROKE presented a Petition from Henry Duffield, complaining of imprisonment for damages and costs in certain actions, and praying for relief. The petitioner had been defendant in certain actions for breach of promise of marriage and for seduction, and had been cast in damages and costs: he had subsequently become bankrupt. In consequence of his inability to pay these debts he had been unable to obtain his release under the present Bankruptcy law; and he now complained that under the existing state of the law he was virtually condemned to imprisonment for life.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the law had been correctly stated by the petitioner. The Act of the late Lord Chancellor respecting bankruptcy excepted the two cases of breach of promise of marriage and seduction, and consequently there were no means by which one who was in custody for non-payment of costs recovered against him in the case referred to could get out of prison. There was no power of releasing him during the term of his natural life unless the costs were paid. That was, no doubt, a defect in the Act passed by his noble and learned Friend the late Lord Chancellor with respect to insolvents, and he should think it his duty to see whether some alteration could not be made in the law in a case which appeared to involve great hardship, however much the conduct of the guilty individual might deserve to be condemned.

  THE DAY OF HUMILIATION,
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that to-morrow having been named by the Bishop of London as a day of fasting and humiliation on account of the Cattle Plague, the Committees in the Commons would not meet until one o'clock. He bogged to propose that their Lordships' Committees should not meet until half past one o'clock.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the judicial business of the House would go on at the usual hour. But it would be proper that the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament should coincide as nearly as possible in the business of legislation, and, therefore, half past one would be a very suitable hour for the Committees of that House to meet.
  Motion agreed to.

  SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee nominated: The Lords following were named of the Committee: The Committee to appoint their own Chairman:

  Ld. Privy Seal

  D. Richmond

  D. Sutherland

  E. Doncaster

  E. Airlie

  E. Strange

  E. Ducie

  E. Innes

  L. Colville of Culross

  L. Panmure

  L. Abinger

  L. Lovat

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  L. Llanover

  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past One o'clock.