Sitting of 25 June 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 24] reported—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bank of England (Election of Directors)* [211].
Committee—Mines (Coal) Regulation (re-comm.) [150]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [202].
Considered as amended—Education (Scotland) [204–210]; Life Assurance Companies Acts Amendment* [115].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Juries Act Amendment (Ireland)* [195], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

SAVING LIFE FROM WRECK, &C.—ROCKET APPARATUS.—QUESTION.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the delay and difficulty frequently experienced in establishing communication with vessels stranded on a lee shore, when the rocket apparatus has to be used against a gale of wind, and the firing party, as in the recent case of the "Hotspur," may fire for hours before a line is carried over; and, whether he will consider of a regulation by which the loss of life caused by such delay might be prevented, obliging every vessel to carry a properly fitted apparatus, together with a copy of instructions as to its use, and as to landing the shipwrecked after communication with the shore has been established?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he had inquired into the subject, and he must say that he had no reason to think that much difficulty was experienced in communicating between the shore and a stranded vessel by means of the rocket apparatus, provided, of course, the stranded vessel was within range. But in the case of a rolling ship, if the rocket were fired from the vessel instead of the shore there would be a practical difficulty in sending the line on shore. Besides, if the suggestion of the hon. Member were adopted, an Act would have to be passed to compel all sea-going vessels to carry rocket apparatus on board, and in order to give proper effect to such a law it would have to be enforced by penalties; and it was no easy matter to
168
keep rocket apparatus in constant efficiency on board ship. Should, however, the hon. Member communicate with the Board of Trade, he should have every information given to him, and his suggestion would receive careful consideration.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 204.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. William Edward Forster.)

CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Amendments made.
Clause 3 (Department may employ Officers in Scotland).
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council and himself had been carefully considering whether Clause 3 might be omitted, and they had come to the conclusion that it might. He now moved, therefore, the omission of that clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause struck out.
Clause 6 (Area of a parish and area of a burgh).
MR. M'LAREN MR. M'LAREN moved, in page 4, to leave out from "limits," in line 27, to "within," in line 28. The hon. Member said that as the clause stood the power of levying rates for schools was confined to the ancient limits of the burghs, and did not include the police boundaries, which in many cases extended much further, and his object was to remedy that defect.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 27, to leave out from the word "limits," to the word "within," in line 28.—(Mr. M'Laren.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
THE LORD ADVOCATEassented to the Amendment.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he understood that police boundaries did not exist in the case of all burghs.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who had had great experience in such matters, had informed him that such was the case, and he had not since had any opportunity of verifying the statement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 (Removal of teachers appointed before the passing of this Act).
THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in page 23, at end of clause, add—
"It shall be the duty of the sheriff of the county, or one of his substitutes, to attend any meeting of a School Board for a public inquiry under the provisions of this Clause, if requested so to do by the board or by the teacher to whom the inquiry relates, by a letter addressed to the sheriff clerk not less than six days before the first meeting for such inquiry; and the sheriff or sheriff substitute so attending may administer the oaths to the witnesses, and shall take a note of the evidence, and give all proper assistance to the board in conducting the inquiry, but shall have no voice in the judgment. It shall be lawful for any sheriff to nominate a fit and proper person to act as his substitute at any such meeting, and such person shall be paid out of the school fund a fee, to be fixed by the School Board, not exceeding five pounds five shillings for the whole inquiry. The proceedings of a board and the judgment or order thereof shall not be questioned on the ground that a sheriff or sheriff's substitute has attended and acted under this clause without request in writing as herein provided, or upon any objection to the date or form of the request."
MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he did not think it desirable that a gentleman in the position of the sheriff should be called upon to perform such duties as were contemplated in the Amendment.
THE LORD ADVOCATEobserved, that that part of the clause was permissive, and he believed that, generally speaking, the county business of the sheriff and the sheriff's substitute would necessitate the nomination of special substitute.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. M'LAREN MR. M'LAREN moved, in page 25, sub-section 5, line 7, after "Board," leave out to end of sub-section. The hon. Member, after remarking that there had already been a division on that question, said, he believed that the appointment of a referee to settle disputes between the masters and the school boards in the case of the higher class of schools, would lead to all sorts of discord and jealousy. The school boards would in many cases consist of men equal in point of intellect and standing to the London School Board, and he thought it was hardly to be tolerated that a board of 15 gentlemen should be controlled by one person, to be appointed by the Lord Advocate. There was no provision of that kind in the English Education Act.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had no objection to omit the words objected to.
MR. CRAUFURDwas sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had agreed to the Amendment. The school boards would not contribute anything towards the sustenance of the higher class of schools, and he did not see on what ground they could be made paramount with regard to the fees of the teachers. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would leave the clause as it stood.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had yielded to the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) on the subject. The school boards would be composed of persons who were interested in the education of the district, and who would be prepared to devote their time and attention to the matter. The interests of higher education might suffer if the fees were fixed too high, and he thought it was, on the whole, desirable to place the same confidence in the school boards in that case as would be reposed in them in other matters.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 (Conscience Clause).
MR. M'LAREN MR. M'LAREN moved, in page 28, line 11, leave out "or," and insert "and." The hon. Member said people out-of-doors had interpreted the clause as meaning, with the word "or," that though it would be competent to the teacher to open school meeting with prayer, and to close it with the singing of a hymn or with praying again, that could not be done at both periods, and he proposed the Amendment for the purpose of removing any doubt on the point.
Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 11, to leave out the word "or," and insert the word "and,"—(Mr. M'Laren,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill."
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the object of the clause was that there should be a religious observance both at the commencement and at the end of the secular instruction; but as the matter had been considered doubtful, he would accept the Amendment.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he concurred with his right hon. and learned Friend

171
the Lord Advocate in the construction which he had put upon the language of the clause—namely, that the-word "or" did not prevent religious instruction being taken at the beginning or at the end of the secular teaching. He feared that the introduction of the word "and," in substitution for the word "or" in the clause, would make prayer appear compulsory, both at the beginning and end; and he therefore preferred to retain the word "or," which did not prevent prayer being used either at the beginning or end.
MR. ORR EWINGremarked that he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), because the power to give religious instruction at the beginning and end of the secular teaching was necessary in schools attended by children upon the half-time system. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not listen to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Craufurd).
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought that, as the clause stood, the matter was quite clear. If, however, there was any doubt on the subject, the only way in which that doubt could be removed was to introduce words to the effect that prayer might be used either before or after the secular instruction, or at both periods.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had no objection to the thing being made alternative; but he thought that the substitution of the word "and" for "or" would only make the matter more doubtful than before. They might say, "either at the beginning or at the end or at both periods," the matter being left entirely optional.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRtrusted that his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, if he accepted the Amendment, would make it very distinctive, by some additional words, that he did not mean at the beginning "or" at the end, because it was introducing quite a novelty into Scotch teaching. In the great bulk of Scotch schools it was not at the beginning or at the end, but it was usually at the beginning. He did not know what the law signified; but common sense would signify that if they introduced the word "and," it meant both at the beginning and the end, and that was not at all what many hon. Members on his side of the House would
172
like to see made compulsory by law. It was certainly not in accordance with the practice of Scotch teaching in schools at present. He therefore trusted that his right hon. and learned Friend, if he accepted the Amendment, would make it very clear that this was an alternative, and not to be considered to apply to both periods.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he might be permitted to explain. He should certainly have objeced to the Amendment if he thought for a moment that it would, or by any possible construction could, have the effect of rendering instruction in religion or religious observances imperative, either at the beginning or at the end, or at both periods. He should have resisted altogether if the Amendment were capable of that construction, and although it might savour of a legal argument, he hoped the House would bear with him for a single moment while he pointed out how it was impossible that that construction could be put upon the words. They occurred in an exception from a prohibition. The prohibition was, "and no instruction in religious subjects shall be given"——
MR. CANDLISHrose to Order. The Lord Advocate had already addressed the House on this clause.
MR. SPEAKER: At this stage of the Bill no hon. Member is by the Rules of the House allowed to speak a second time; but, generally speaking, the House is inclined to be indulgent to hon. Members.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had no wish to trespass unreasonably upon the time of the House. The explanation he intended to give would not occupy a moment. The words of the prohibition were—
"No religious observance shall take place, except before the commencement or after the termination of the elementary secular instruction of the day."
That was a mere exception from the prohibition, and contained nothing in the nature of an injunction.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought that the object of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would be attained if the words of the English Act were adopted. The words were—
"Religious instruction shall be given either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and the end of such meeting."

173
These words would, he thought, meet the view of the hon. Member, as they would give power to the school boards to exercise a discretion in the matter.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he could not withdraw his Amendment in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), because what he suggested had been already discussed and negatived.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 156: Majority 112.
Word "and" inserted.
MR. ANDERSONproposed in line 12, after the word "day," to insert "or either of."
THE LORD ADVOCATEexplained that the clause, with the words proposed, would not be grammatical. He thought the clause was very well as it stood with the Amendment which had just been agreed to; but if they were to have any further amendment of this matter, he did not himself see any grammatical way of effecting the object in view, except by adding after the word "termination" these words—"or before the commencement, or after the termination of the secular instruction of the day." If it was in accordance with the general view of the House that these words conveyed the matter more distinctly, he should have no objection to their insertion.
MR. ANDERSONbegged to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the learned Lord Advocate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD ADVOCATEthen proposed in line 11, after the word "termination," to insert the words "or before the commencement, or after the termination."
Amendment agreed to.
Words inserted.
MR. M'LARENsaid, the next Amendment which stood in his name he should merely indicate, and then leave it in the hands of the Lord Advocate. It had been already stated strongly in that House that to compel children at the expense of the board to attend school for eight years—namely, from 5 until 13 years of age—was quite inconsistent with the habits of the poorer classes, and his Amendment was that
174
the attendance at school should begin at 6 and end at 12, so far as compulsory power was taken in the Bill. Let them be at school as much longer as they pleased; but let them not push compulsion beyond the years he had mentioned. A very large proportion of the children of Scotland left school at 12; and he knew more than one hon. Member of that House who left school at that age. He would not argue the question, but would content himself with proposing in page 28, line 18, to leave out "five" and "thirteen," and insert "six" and "twelve."
Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 18, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "six,"—(Mr. M'Laren,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment. The House had already affirmed that 13 was the proper school age, and it would be the duty of the parents in the first instance, and of the boards in the second, to see that children attended school up to 13 under ordinary circumstances. He had only one word to say in answer to his hon. Friend's suggestion, and that was that compulsion terminated upon a certificate being shown that a child could read and write, and had a small knowledge of arithmetic.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 (Defaulting parents may be proceeded against by the procurator fiscal on a certificate from the board).
MR. M'LARENsaid, he had two Amendments on this clause, the object of which was to introduce a cheaper form of legal procedure. The first Amendment was to enable the board to appoint a person other than the Procurator Fiscal to prosecute a defaulting parent, and the second was to enable the prosecution to be laid before two justices or the sheriff of the county. The hon. Member observed that Procurators Fiscal were "few and far between," while justices of the peace were as plentiful as blackbirds, and concluded by moving, in page 29, line 9, after "resides," to insert "or other person appointed by the board."
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was not disposed to offer any objection to

175
a proposal intended to save expense, and therefore he was inclined to assent to the Amendment in so far as another person appointed by the board was concerned—that was to say, the board was to be at liberty to appoint a proper person other than the Procurator Fiscal to prosecute under this clause. But he was inclined to be more tenacious of the sheriff's jurisdiction, of whom they had enough in Scotland to perform this duty, which, particularly at the commencement, would be of a somewhat difficult and delicate character.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he was satisfied with the concession made by the Lord Advocate, and would not press his other Amendment with regard to the justices of the peace.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. SCOURFIELD MR. SCOURFIELD moved, in page 29, line 16, to leave out "three" and insert "six," the object being to allow legal proceedings to be repeated against defaulting parents at intervals of not less than six months, instead of three.
Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 16, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "six,"—(Mr. Scourfield,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
MR. CRAUFURDopposed the Amendment.
THE LORD ADVOCATEalso intimated that he could not assent to the proposed change.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. F. S. POWELL MR. F. S. POWELL moved, in page 29, line 17, after the word "fund" to insert the words—
"No requirement in this section contained shall be held or construed to apply to any child employed in any kind of labour, and receiving instruction in conformity with the provisions of the Factory Acts, or of any Act in force at the time being for regulating the education of children employed in labour or in any industrial occupation above ground or in mines."
The hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was copied, with slight alteration, from the by-laws used in England.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BRUCEunderstood the object of the clause was to exempt children from
176
the operation of the Act as to attendance at school who were already receiving instruction on the half-time system, under the Factory Act, from the age of 6 to 13; but it also applied to children working in mines where the age was 12 years. He questioned whether exemption from the operation of the Act should be provided in the latter case. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
MR. TREVELYANstrongly objected to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman. This Bill represented the Scotch opinion as regards the obligation of parents towards children in 1872, and he did not think the measure should be hampered by provisions which represented the English feeling with regard to education in years now long gone by. The provisions of the Factory Acts were not meant to represent the maximum of education and exemption from labour—on the contrary, they represented the minimum; and it was important, now that school boards were being established over the whole of Scotland, that they should not be burdened with any conditions except those which were imposed by their own feelings as to the amount of education the children should have. It was most important that this Bill in its entirety should represent the feeling of Scotland. The addition of the words proposed simply brought them back to other times, and to the opinion of another country, and it was therefore desirable that they should not be inserted.
MR. J. LOWTHERwas surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman use the expression "another country." That the country commonly called England should be spoken of in that House as "another country," must surely gladden the heart of every ardent "Home Ruler."
MR. ANDERSONasked if the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment was aware that the half-time system had taken no hold in Scotland, and that the teaching under it was of the worst possible description? Having had experience of it, he would not be surprised if the school boards thought the education under it was of so insufficient a character that they would not take it as an excuse under the provisions of the Bill.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment. The purpose of the hon. Gentleman, as

177
he understood it, was to make it reasonably certain that the parents of a child who was employed, and was at the same time receiving instruction in conformity with the provisions of the Factory Act, should not be prosecuted as a parent who had grossly neglected his duty to his child. If the words proposed, or any others, were necessary to the attainment of that object, he should not oppose the Amendment, but he trusted his hon Friend would find that it was not so. It was declared by Clause 67 that it should be the duty of every parent to provide elementary education for his children, and if he was unable, from poverty, to discharge that duty, then it was put upon the school board to provide instruction for him, and upon the parochial board to pay for it. Clause 68 provided for the case of defaulting parents who were neglecting their duty, and neglecting it grossly and without reasonable excuse. The hon. Member would perceive that it was only after the school board had called the defaulting parent before them and given him an opportunity of explaining why his children were not at school, and being dissatisfied with his explanation, that they were to certify in writing that he had been and was grossly and without reasonable excuse failing in the discharge of his duty in providing elementary education for his children, and that prosecution was to take place. No school board would, in the first instance, certify that a parent was grossly neglecting his duty to provide elementary education for his children who was providing them employment and instruction under an Act of Parliament; or, if they did so certify, there was no sheriff who would convict in such a case. Any such procedure would be an outrage on common sense. He therefore trusted the hon. Member would not press this Amendment.
MR. ORR EWINGrecommended the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 (Method of procedure).
MR. M'LAREN MR. M'LAREN moved an Amendment reducing the amount of expenses in which offending parents are proposed to be mulcted from 40 s. to 5s. The hon. Gentleman argued that it was cruel to require a poor man to pay 40 s. for the
178
expenses of the prosecution against him, and pointed out that under the English Bill the penalty for the breach of any by-law should not exceed 5s.
Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 23, to leave out the word "forty," and insert the word "five,"—(Mr. M'Laren,)—instead thereof.
THE LORD ADVOCATEreminded the hon. Member for Edinburgh that the fine of 5s. provided for in the English Bill could be imposed every 24 hours; whereas the fine of 40 s. sanctioned by the Bill now before the House could only be imposed once in three months. The sum of 40 s. was the maximum, and there might be cases in which the expenses of witnesses amounted to that sum; but he thought that in the majority of cases the expenses would be trifling.
MR. J. LOWTHERsupported the Amendment, and hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would divide the House.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he hoped hon. Gentlemen would remember that they were dealing with Scotland. The penalty had been fixed at 5s. in England, because public opinion in England was not prepared to go higher, and 40 s. had been determined upon in Scotland, because they were prepared to go higher. They had made up their minds in Scotland that every child should be educated.
MR. ORR EWINGremarked that law was very cheap in Scotland, and that the Amendment might conveniently be adopted.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that he had seen a good deal of sheriffs law, and had no respect for it. As the proposal of the Government placed large power in the hands of the sheriffs, he should support the Amendment if his hon. Friend went to a division.
MR. CANDLISHurged the Government to accept the Amendment. The Act would work more smoothly with moderate and lenient penalties, and though the English Act did not limit the frequency of prosecutions, they could not reasonably be instituted oftener than once in three months.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was a certain point beyond which if they reduced the scope of the penal clauses they weakened law. If compulsory education were introduced at all it must be

179
backed by such provisions as would make it effectual. He thought 5s. too low a limit; but there was no limit to the frequency with which it might be exacted, as it might be renewed from day to day. There was a provision in the Scotch Act which might make the maximum infliction reach the sum of 8s. four times in the year. In the English Act the amount was limited to 5s.; but there was no reason why it should not be imposed 100 or even 200 times in the course of a year, and the possible severity of the one case was an equivalent for the higher figure in the other. If the hon. Member moved that the amount should be reduced to 5s. in the case of Scotland, in common consistency he must move that the limit of three months which had been fixed should also be further limited.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, when the interval between which the summons could take place was reduced from six to three months, the amount of the fine was reduced from £5 to 40 s.; and in the same way he now thought it might be desirable to make a similar reduction as regarded the 40 s. expenses. He ventured to suggest that the sum should be fixed at 10 s.
MR. ANDERSONthought 40 s. too high and 5s. too low. If 5s. was fixed, it might prove insufficient, and the school board would have to pay the difference, and thus be discouraged in taking action. He thought 20 s. would be a fair sum.
MR. M'LARENsaid, if Her Majesty's Government would accept 20 s., he had no objection to withdraw his proposal.
Question, "That the word 'forty' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the word 'five' be inserted, instead thereof," put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed, to insert the word "twenty,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—instead thereof.
Question, "That the word 'twenty' be inserted, instead thereof," put, and agreed to.
SIR JOHN HAYpointed out that Clause 71 enabled certain children who were very proficient to be exempted from attendance under the Inspector's certificate; but there was another class of children who ought to be exempted from attendance also, but who were not so exempted; he meant children who
180
were not of strong intellect or of strong bodily frame. It would be improper to compel such children to attend school, and he therefore suggested that words should be inserted in the clause providing that any child should be exempted from attendance who obtained a medical certificate of inability to attend.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that Clause 68 would satisfactorily meet the case put by the hon. and gallant Baronet.
Clause 72 (Copy of list of defaulting parents, &c.)
MR. F. S. POWELL MR. F. S. POWELL moved to leave out the clause. Clause 68 enacted that a list of parents who were in default should be made. But this clause went further. It enacted that that list, in which the names of parents were to be placed without their being heard, and without an opportunity being given to them to show cause why their names should be erased, should be sent to the various police authorities throughout the country in order to be entered in a record. One of the ways to make a law unpopular was to make the penalties it imposed unnecessarily severe. To employ the police at every turn in carrying out a law would make it unpopular.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, so much objection had been urged against the retention of this clause by those whose opinion he valued, that he did not feel disposed to fight for its retention.
MR. GREENEsaid, it was necessary to watch Her Majesty's Government very closely with regard to the penalties. They were in every Bill, and, in fact, this might be called "a penalty Government."
Clause struck out.
Clause 77 (Repeal of Acts at variance with this Act).
On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the words "at variance," in page 31, line 26, were struck out, and the word "inconsistent" inserted.
THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved to add the following words to the end of the clause:—
"And provided, That any sum payable to a schoolmaster prior to the passing of this Act, under the Act of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighty-seven, shall continue to be paid to him so long as he holds the office of schoolmaster on account of which such sum was payable to him, and shall thereafter be paid to the School Board of the parish in which he held such office, for the purposes of the school fund."
MR. M'LARENsaid, he had been, told, on good authority, that in some of the Highland districts the schools had fallen into desuetude, and though the schoolmasters continued to receive their salaries and their schoolhouses, there were no scholars attending them. It could never be the intention of the Treasury to pay salaries to those schoolmasters who did not perform any duties; and therefore to meet the cases to which he had referred, he moved to insert the words "and performs the duties" after the words "holds the office of schoolmaster."
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not consent to accept the Amendment. The office of schoolmaster was statutory. [Mr. M'LAREN: And so were the duties.] He (the Lord Advocate) had never heard of any such cases as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Amendment negatived.
Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

MINES (COAL) REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 21st June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

PART I.
Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children.
Clause 11 (Employment of women, young persons, and children above ground about mines).
MR. BRUEN, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit from the clause the provision of a Saturday half-holiday to such persons so employed, said he did not intend to proceed with it; but there were some coal workings in Ireland where such a provision was unnecessary; and he would therefore move the insertion of the following words at the end of the clause:—
"The provisions of the clause as to the employment of women, young persons, and children after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon, shall not apply in the case of any mine exempted in writing by the Secretary of State."
That would give to the Home Secretary the power to exempt from the operation of the half-holiday any part of the coun-
182
try to which the provisions of the clause were not applicable.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had received no objection to the clause as regarded Great Britain. No doubt in Ireland many feast days and festivals were observed and interfered with the regularity of labour. Workmen in Ireland would often themselves object to leave off work at 2 o'clock on Saturdays. Therefore, the Secretary of State might properly have the power of exempting mines in Ireland from the operation of the clause; but the Amendment ought to be strictly limited to Ireland.
MR. BRUENthen moved the insertion of the words "in Ireland."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 (Register of boys and male young persons employed in mines).
MR. PEASE MR. PEASE moved, in page 5, line 40, after "employer," insert "other than the owner, agent, or manager," on the ground that they were often not responsible for the keeping of the register, and that the responsibility should rest on the manager. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, as a colliery owner, might become responsible in this way, though he and other owners might seldom go near their mines.
MR. BRUCEthought it essential that the owner and agent should be responsible for proper compliance with the Act.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 (Employment of young persons under 18 about engines).
MR. FOTHERGILLasked why the driver of an animal which worked the engine should be restricted to a boy or male person, and why a woman should not be employed in this capacity? He knew of works in South Wales which had been stopped, and their stoppage was generally supposed to be due to legislation with regard to female labour. He visited the works when they were in operation, and they were pretty well manned with women. Several engines were worked by women; there were none but women throwing coal on and looking after the horses. He did not want to compel women to be drivers, but if they liked the occupation, he did not see why they should not follow it.

183
In conclusion, he moved the substitution of the word "person" for "male."
MR. LIDDELLsaid, the dress women wore was a sufficient reason why they should not be in charge of engines.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had no doubt that some of the employments mentioned in the first paragraph of the clause might be followed by women; but the charge of an engine required firmness, courage, and presence of mind, and ought not to be entrusted to a woman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 (Penalty for employment of persons contrary to Act).
MR. STAVELEY HILL MR. STAVELEY HILL moved the insertion of the words "knowingly and wilfully," to save an employer from being punished for a misrepresentation as to a boy's age. The words were recognized legal terms, introduced into most Acts, and their meaning was well understood.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 21, after the words "with or," to insert the words "knowingly or wilfully."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BRUCEsaid, so far from the words being introduced into all previous legislation and their omission being a novelty, they did not occur in the Factory Acts, under which many Members of the House conducted their works. The policy of the Act was to require that they and their agents should keep a sharp look out as to the ages of the children they employed. The latter part of the clause sufficiently protected an agent or owner who was misled by a false representation.
MR. RODENregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not accepted the Amendment. At a large meeting of miners which had recently been held it was unanimously agreed that the word "knowingly" ought to be adopted, and he thought such an expression of opinion ought to be respected by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. LIDDELLhoped that the Government would assent to the Amendment, which was simply founded on justice. It would not be fair to inflict penalties on persons who infringed the
184
law in utter ignorance. The men engaged in mines admitted themselves that the insertion of the proposed words was only a matter of justice.
MR. BRUCEstated that he wished on the part of the Government to say that, while he would listen with the greatest respect to the representations of persons interested in legislation on this subject, it was contrary to a proper sense of responsibility on the part of any Government to be bound by any compromise come to by persons out-of-doors; and it was his business to see that the law proposed by the Government should be effective. In this case he did not think that the act of the owner, simply because he was ignorant, was an innocent act. It was the owner's duty to take proper precautions against the infringement of the law, and there were instances where proper precautions were not taken.
MR. MUNDELLAobserved that though it was maintained to be unjust to inflict penalties on persons who had no intention to violate the law, yet the Factory Acts made individuals liable for negligence, and they could not plead ignorance in extenuation, for, if they were allowed to do so, the Factory Acts would become a dead letter.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANmentioned that the owner of a factory passed frequently through his factory, and had many opportunities of seeing and judging of the age of the persons employed; whereas the owner of a coal mine was very rarely in it, and seldom saw the persons employed underground, and to make him criminally responsible, as proposed by the Bill, seemed to be an extreme proposition.
LORD ELCHOregretted that the Home Secretary would not accede to the Amendment. He admitted the soundness of the principle that the Government could not consider themselves bound by any decision come to by any body of men out of the House; but when persons who were the most interested in the operation of this Bill agreed upon any point in connection with it, that might be taken as primâ facie evidence in its favour. Seeing that the workmen wished the proposed words to be introduced, he would certainly vote for the Amendment if it were pressed to a division.
MR. AKROYD, as a factory owner, could not allow the distinction drawn between factory owners and mine owners.

185
Although factory owners were not protected by the word "knowingly," he had never suffered a penalty, and he objected to any body of gentlemen determining elsewhere what should be done in the House. If the mill-owners had been consulted before the Factory Acts were passed these Acts would never have become law.
MR. JAMEShoped his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not agree to the Amendment, but would hold by the clause as it stood. He protested against this agreement on the part of workmen and employers, for both of those parties were interested in objecting to the restrictions imposed by the Secretary of State. ["No, no!"] At any rate, the children ought to receive the independent consideration of the House. If the word "knowingly" were inserted, nothing would be more easy than to shift the burden of responsibility, and it would be perfectly hopeless to support a conviction. It was to prevent people from being passive and to make them active that the law was necessary. If it should so happen that a charge were preferred before magistrates who were mine owners, it would be impossible to prove the word "knowingly" to their satisfaction.
LORD ELCHOwished to enter a protest against the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member as to the considerations influencing mine owners in regard to this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was necessary to guard the children of miners.
MR. JAMESsaid, he referred to all children, and not merely the children of miners.
LORD ELCHOobserved that the hon. and learned Member implied that it was requisite to guard children against their parents. [Mr. JAMES: No, no!] He was glad he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he knew that one of the main objects of the mining population was to protect their children in this matter.
MR. RYLANDScontended that the present clause violated every principle to the prejudice of the employers. Under it four or five distinct penalties could be sued for in relation to one single case. They were really over-legislating on these matters, and there were so many penalties in this Bill that there was every reason to believe it would defeat its
186
own object. The imposition of so many penalties on owners and agents would render legislation altogether intolerable.
MR. SCOURFIELDcould understand a person being punished for contravening an Act of Parliament; but he could not understand the propriety of punishing a man for "permitting another to fail" in his duty. That was assuming something like omniscience on the part of the employer.
MR. GOLDSMIDthought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. James) had, as usual, much overstated the case. His hon. and learned Friend appeared to derive his notion of legislation from the Continental idea of paternal government. He (Mr. Goldsmid) could not see how a proprietor of a mine conld be punished for "permitting another to fail" in his duty. It was highly desirable that the word "knowingly" should be introduced, at least so far as it applied to absent owners or agents.
MR. HERMONsuggested that unless the clause was modified the Home Secretary ought to indicate some standard by which an employer of labour might ascertain the age of the children he employed.
MR. B. SAMUELSONremarked that if, as stated by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian), mine owners were less acquainted with their works than factory owners, if "knowingly" was inserted they could never be made responsible. They should be very careful not to allow too much weight to compromises come to behind the back of the Committee. If they gave way in this matter it would be the children who must suffer, whom they were bound to protect.
MR. FAWCETTquite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) that there was in some matters a great danger of over legislation, and he hoped he would remember the cheers he received in making that admission when next he proposed to carry a Bill to prevent a man getting a glass of beer. He thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. James) had been somewhat misunderstood. He did not think he meant to make any sweeping accusation against the parents or employers of children in mines; but because there were some employers and some parents who over-

187
worked their children and subjected them to conditions to which children ought not to be subjected it was necessary for the Legislature to interfere. He entirely approved what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Akroyd) had said, and he thanked the Government for having resisted this Amendment.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANpointed out the difficulty there would be in discovering the age of the child. He could not believe that hon. Members really wished to treat mine owners as if they were a set of Molochs as regarded children. He felt it his duty to enter his protest with that of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) against the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James).
MR. SEELYwould object to the infliction of criminal penalties unless knowledge of the acts was proved, but this clause only imposed penalties. He hoped, therefore, the Government would adhere to it.
MR. T. E. SMITHremarked that in the case of sailors, pointsmen, &c., the principals were held liable, and that the Amendment would defeat the purpose of the Bill. An owner whose manager was fined would take care he did not offend again, or he would dismiss him.
MR. STAVELEY HILLdoubted whether the Factory Acts contained so sweeping an enactment, and he could not understand why the word "knowingly" should be inserted in a subsequent clause and excluded from this. [Mr. BRUCE said, he intended to omit it in the clause referred to.] He admitted that Parliament was not bound by the decision of the masters and men, but their practical experience entitled them to great weight, and two Inspectors present at the conference concurred in the decision.
MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that while the great majority of owners would willingly keep within the terms of the law, there was a small minority who would try to avoid doing so, and against that it was necessary to guard. Under the analogous provisions of the Factory Acts there had been no unfair informations since they had fully come into operation, though at an early period in their history employers were treated with injustice.
MR. BROWNhad no apprehension of the owners being proceeded against. The certified managers would be held responsible for the Act not being infringed.
MR. LEEMANsaid, the word "owner" would subject every shareholder in a joint-stock company to the penalties provided by the Act. What, then, did the Home Secretary mean by making a body corporate responsible? If the word "knowingly" were not inserted every poor woman who had a share in a coal mine would be liable to be sent to prison.
MR. BOUVERIEwas of opinion that the clauses already passed naturally involved this clause in its present shape. Whether or not it was right to interfere in this wholesale way with the conduct of business and the age and sex of the persons employed, it was necessary after adopting that principle to insure its being carried out. The owners of mines might say they were fined for wrongs of which they were ignorant; but still they had the management of the mines. Unless a penalty was put in the right way, they might as well not place any penalty at all.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, that owners had not the power they were supposed to possess. They could not enforce what they wished to have done. Their workmen were their masters, and they knew it; their agents were very nearly their masters, and they knew it. If he discharged an agent he did not know where to get another; he punished himself and not him. The same with the workmen; they had 20 situations waiting for each of them. Under these circumstances, to punish employers for acts of which they had no knowledge was an absurdity. Of course, employers could be mulcted as long as they had anything to pay with, but it was an injustice; the right persons would not be punished, and the object sought would not be accomplished. The immediate employer of the youth under age—the person who infringed the Act—was the person to be punished, and not the head of the house. He had no power to compel those under him to do what he wished; the Bill did not give him power, and he could not exercise it if it did. The owners would have to suffer, and yet the object in view would not be accomplished.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that no one ever dreamt of proceeding against every individual shareholder in a joint-stock

189
company; any penalty imposed upon it fell upon the share capital; and there was one person who could sue and be sued in its name, and who represented the company before the magistrates.
MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, that years ago they passed a prohibition of the employment of women underground; that had been perfectly successful; women were no longer employed underground; and why should not a prohibition which had been effectual in one case be effectual in another, without making innocent people liable for acts they had no intention of committing?
MR. BRUCEwished to say, in reply to the last observation, that females were all distinguished by their attire, while it was impossible to tell from appearances whether a boy were 10, 11, or 12 years of age. Under the Factory Acts employers had for years borne the responsibility which it was now sought to put upon coal-owners; and, until to-day, he had not heard of a single complaint of the administration of the law. The statement of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) that every
individual shareholder in a company might be summoned, was one that refuted itself. Under the Factory Acts the responsibility of proving the age of a person employed was thrown upon the employer, who, through his agent, took the trouble and responsibility of inquiring from parents and guardians the ages of the boys employed. It was his conviction that the moment this responsibility was put upon the coal-owners they would take effectual steps to prevent the employment of children under the proper age; and if by any misfortune they were not obeyed, and they were summoned, he would undertake to say they would not be summoned again. The difficulties and objections urged against the clause were bugbears; and if the Amendment were adopted it would in 99 cases out of 100 be impossible to bring home to employers a breach of the prohibition upon which the success of the Bill, so far as children were concerned, mainly depended.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the difficulty in this case turned upon the peculiar words of the section. He could not find anything of the same kind in the Factory Acts, which were couched in different terms. They said that if an offence were committed for which the
190
employer was legally responsible, and it should appear that the same had been committed without his personal sanction and concurrence, it should be lawful for the Inspector to summon him. In other words, before proceedings began trouble was to be taken to ascertain who was the real offender. They did not find in the Factory Acts anything about permitting or suffering a person to do or not to do a thing, words which were wide, without the proposed qualification, particularly when the employer was to be liable to a criminal proceeding. He would recommend that in this case they should either use such language as was used in the Factory Acts, or that at the end of the clause words should be added exonerating the owner who could prove that he had done all that could be reasonably expected of him. It was absolutely impossible that he could exercise any control in individual cases; it would often be impossible that such control could be exercised by the agent of one pit. Therefore, they ought to proceed first against the man who was the immediate employer, and leave him to show that the owner was responsible. Then, if it were shown that the owner had not done what he ought to have done, he could be proceeded against; but he ought not to be punished for a crime which he had not committed if he had informed the agent of his duty. In the first instance, proceedings ought to be taken against those who had immediate control, power being reserved to fall back upon the masters if they had not issued proper instructions. He thought, therefore, that unless some qualifying words were inserted, the Committee would bring people into a danger into which they did not intend they should be brought.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 170: Majority 15.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Resolutions [June 24th] reported.
Resolution 2 (£26,400, Martial Law).
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that on the Vote in Committee yesterday a sum of £2,000 was voted for the Judge

191
Advocate General. He then asked what position the office stood in at present; and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War stated that though they had asked for £2,000, the expense of the office was only £500. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before any final decision was come to with reference to any alteration in the office, an opportunity would be given to the House to express an opinion on the proposed change? He himself entertained a strong opinion that the office of Judge Advocate General should not be abolished.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought he ought not to be called on to enter into any engagement. What he meant yesterday, and what he would repeat now, was this—that the whole question of the duties and responsibilities of the office was to be considered by the Government in connection with the alteration and consolidation of the Military Law recommended by the Royal Commission of which his right hon. Friend (Colonel Wilson-Patten) was the Chairman. In order to take the whole question into consideration, no permanent arrangement with regard to the office had been made; and in the meantime the office was temporarily held by the Judge of the Admiralty Court.
MR. KINNAIRDwas very glad his right hon. Friend did not accede to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would be a bad thing for economy if, when a plan for the amalgamation of offices was proposed and an hon. Gentleman from Ireland objected, the Government were to give way.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 7 (£1,134,632, Post Office Packet Service).
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he understood that last night the Postmaster General gave a pledge that some explanation should be given by one of the Law Officers on this matter. As far as he was concerned, he was not in the least aware that any question would be raised on the Vote, or he would have been in his place. He admitted that it was the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to be in the House when they knew or were informed of any matter coming on about which their advice might be required; but he could not
192
agree that it was their duty to be present "from early morn to dewy eve" in case they might be wanted. That would make the position of Law Officers one which no gentleman would accept. The explanation he had to give as to the form of the Vote was this—There had been disputes between former Governments and Mr. Churchward, and a suit was now pending in which Mr. Churchward was the appellant. That suit was hung up in the Court of Exchequer Chamber; Mr. Churchward had the conduct of it, and could at any moment withdraw his appeal and so put an end to the suit. As he did not choose to do so, it was necessary from time to time to insert this notice, in accordance with a solemn Resolution come to by the House of Commons. He felt that this notice, so appearing in the Votes year after year, had a disagreeable and an awkward look. Sir Robert Collier and he had been asked whether it could not be dropped. So had the Solicitor General and he; and in both cases they had advised the Government that it could not be dropped with safety, but that, in fulfilment of the pledge given to the House of Commons, it must appear in some shape or other, either in the Votes or—which would, perhaps, be better—in the Appropriation Bill.
Resolution agreed to.
Remaining Resolutions agreed to.
And it being now twenty minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

THE FIJI ISLANDS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. M'ARTHUR, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to establish a British Protectorate at Fiji."
  said, he was aware that a subject of this kind had not much interest in that House, but it was regarded as of great importance in Australia; it materially affected British interests in the Pacific; it involved the protection of a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects; and it had now assumed such magnitude that the Government must deal with it in

  193
  some form or other. The Islands numbered 200 or 210, the natives were superior in strength and intelligence to any other of the races of the Pacific; but some years back cannibalism and human sacrifices prevailed amongst them to an enormous extent, and they were amongst the most ferocious and degraded of the inhabitants of the Pacific Islands. In 1834 a few Wesleyan missionaries, with true apostolic zeal, went forth, taking their lives in their hands, to reclaim these degraded savages, and few greater triumphs had been achieved in the history of the Christian Church than in these Islands during the last 37 years. The greater part of the Fijians had embraced Christianity, cannibalism had been abolished, schools had been established, and churches built, and the King and a large number of his Chiefs had embraced Christianity; and not only so, but the Scriptures had been translated, and were now in the hands of 100,000 natives. The Fiji Islands occupied one of the most important stations in the Pacific, forming the key of Polynesia. They were upon the direct track to San Francisco and British Columbia, and in the hands of a foreign Power would do us serious mischief. In 1859 the Sovereignty of the Islands, with 200,000 acres of land, had been offered to Great Britain. Colonel Smyth had been sent out to report on the propriety of accepting the cession. That officer had either been unfit for his task, or went there with a prejudice against the proposal, for his replies to the three leading questions put to him by the Government were, that the Islands did not lie in the path of any great commercial route; that the navigation was dangerous; and that they did not as a station afford us any security in the Pacific, while the prospective supply of cotton could never be otherwise than insignificant. Captain Washington, hydrographer, on the other hand, gave the very contrary replies to these queries; and had since been corroborated by the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire (Admiral Erskine) in the account he had published some years ago of his cruise in the Pacific Ocean. With regard to the first point, a new line of steamers was projected from Sydney to San Francisco, and the Fiji Islands lay in their direct track on the great circle, and would also be a convenient station for the line plying
  194
  from Vancouver's Island and British Columbia to Australia and New Zealand. As to the supply of cotton, an eminent botanist, Dr. Berthold Seeman, had borne his testimony that the Fiji Islands had seemed specially made for the growth of that plant, which could be cultivated on almost every rood of the land; and whilst in 1865 the exports in value amounted to £9,000, in 1871 they had increased to £88,920, and the increase in tonnage between Fiji and Sydney was not less than 100 per cent. Not only that, but while the price of ordinary cotton in Manchester was 10 d. or 1s. per lb., that from Fiji realized 3s. and 3s. 2d. It could not be expected that a country possessing so many advantages would remain long without attracting the attention of colonists, and there were now upwards of 2,000 persons, all British subjects, who naturally looked to Great Britain for protection. The subject was taken up at an Intercolonial Conference held at Melbourne in 1870, and the unanimous opinion expressed in a resolution was, that it was of the utmost importance to British interests that these Islands should not form part of or be under the guardianship of any other country than Great Britain. At a public meeting held at Sydney also, it was agreed that a Petition should be presented to the Legislative Council, stating that the Fiji Islands had, within the last few years, become peculiarly interesting, affording great facilities for commercial enterprize and the extension of agricultural operations—that the condition and prospects of the Islands were exceedingly unsatisfactory, and the source of much anxiety to the well-wishers and promoters of Christian civilization in the Pacific Ocean—that Her Majesty's Government having declined to proclaim the Fiji Islands a British colony, notwithstanding the desire of the inhabitants, they were liable to be annexed by any maritime Power other than Great Britain. A memorial embodying these views was sent to the Home Government; but the application made was declined, Lord Kimberley stating that Her Majesty's Government could not depart from their original intention not to extend British Sovereignty to these Islands; but his Lordship added that the Government were prepared to give any aid in their power, by means of the Consul, for the maintenance of order until the Euro-

  195
  pean community could establish a regular Government. A copy of this despatch was forwarded to the Earl of Belmore, Governor of New South Wales, with an intimation that if that colony wished to annex Fiji, the necessary powers would be conferred upon it for the purpose. The colony of New South Wales very properly declined to take such a step, regarding the question as an Imperial one. Sir James Martin, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, expressed great regret at the course taken by the Earl of Kimberley and the British Government, who were willing to recognize any regular Government which the European community might establish in Fiji, but were not prepared, as British Ministers to undertake the responsibility and incur the expense of converting Fiji into a British colony; and they added that they were not aware of any precedent for such an invitation to a few Europeans to establish, a separate nationality for themselves, and that the question was an Imperial one, and ought to be taken up by the Imperial Government, which had naval force enough to protect any Government which might be created tinder Imperial auspices. These were the words of statesmen, in which he fully concurred; and he trusted the British Government would ultimately yield to the unanimous wish of its Australian subjects on the question. The Victoria correspondent of The Times, writing in July last, said that great satisfaction was felt with the manner in which the Premier deprecated the project to annex Fiji to New South Wales, because such annexation, to be of any benefit to either party, must be the work of the Imperial Government; the acquisition of what must one day be one of the great depôts of the Pacific was a consideration of importance to Great Britain; the English Government advanced no reason against it but the expense, and to acquire the Islands at the expense of a few thousands would be a stroke of good policy. In fact, the policy of the Government was penny wise and pound foolish. Acting on the suggestion of the Earl of Kimberley, a Government had been formed, which commanded neither respect nor confidence; an association had been formed to resist the payment of taxes; and that Government was now drilling a force of natives to maintain its authority. With regard
  196
  to its conduct towards the natives, it was of the most arbitrary character, and it appeared from The Fiji Gazette that it was the intention of the Government at an early day to institute measures for the inauguration of a military force to bring under subjection the mountaineers, and to occupy their land. If the Fiji Islands were under a British protectorate nothing of that kind would, in all probability, occur, nor would such outrages as those committed upon the British Consul, and which were detailed in The Daily News of the 10th of April last, happen. Her Majesty's Government, after trying to shift all responsibility on to the shoulders of the colony of New South Wales, thereby showing that it was not at all a matter of principle, now declined to recognize the unanimous voice and feelings of our friends in Australia. In the interest of Christianity, commerce, and liberty, he regretted that the money question, which, after all, was but a very small one, should stand in the way of putting down the slave trade, for they might depend upon it, that however much money they might spend in endeavouring to attain that object, they would never succeed until they assumed the protectorate over these Islands. Such a consideration as that did not stand in the way of former Governments when, the suppression of the African Slave Trade was aimed at. Again, it should be remembered that Fiji offered many advantages for the establishment of a naval station in the Pacific, and that would be a very important matter if we intended to maintain our naval supremacy. They would not have to make conquests for a naval station there; but having made them, he thought it was a matter well worthy the consideration of the Government. Was it not possible, he asked, to have such a British protectorate in Fiji as existed on the Gold Coast of Africa, and which, it should be borne in mind, had conferred such blessings on the natives of that Coast for the last 40 years? Moreover, such protectorate need not assume an extensive form, and the cost, as estimated, would not exceed £7,000 a-year. France and America had places in the Pacific under their protection, and he could not perceive any reason why this country should not extend its protectorate to Fiji. The course we had pursued of late years of refusing to extend our Colonial Empire

  197
  had led us into many unfortunate wars, and had, in most instances, to be abandoned. He trusted that policy would not be pursued in the present instance, and that the fine opportunity we now possessed of acquiring these Islands would not be thrown away. On economical grounds alone it would be advisable that we should take these Islands under our protection, as otherwise we should be put to a large expense in endeavouring to put down the practice of kidnapping, to which reference had been made in "another place" last night; whereas, if Fiji had a protectorate, two gunboats would be sufficient not only to prevent kidnapping, but also to enforce our authority there. Then, again, the King wished to be under British protection; the people wished it; the missionaries desired it; so did the manufacturers and also the colonists; while civil government was urgently required to complete the blessings we had conferred upon it. Therefore, he thought it was only reasonable that the Government should accede to their united wishes. In conclusion, he must say that it was not often that he entirely concurred in the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli); but he most cordially agreed in that part of his speech last night, at the Crystal Palace, in which he said—
  "In my opinion no Minister in this country will do his duty who neglects any opportunity of reconstructing as much as possible our Colonial Empire, and of responding to those distant sympathies which may become the source of incalculable strength and happiness to this land."
  The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINE, in seconding the Motion, said that his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Arthur) had appealed to him to give the House his personal experience of the goodness of the Fiji harbours and the admirable position of those Islands, which he had obtained 20 years ago, when he was the commanding naval officer at that station. At that date he had reported to the Admiralty that the Islands would form a valuable coaling station for Her Majesty's ships in the Pacific, and that the harbours in them were easily accessible to large ships, and available in every way for naval purposes of all kinds. In consequence of the rapid progress of the
  198
  inhabitants of those Islands in civilization, the time had arrived when we had a right to demand that the community should be placed under regular and responsible government. As an instance of the rapidity of the progress which these Islands had made during the last few years, he might mention that in 1849 he gave the Chief Thackombau, now erroneously called King of Fiji, who has now a Minister of Finance, and who, shortly afterwards, paid the American Government 40,000 dols. for alleged injury done to a Consul, the first dollar he had ever possessed, although at the time His Majesty would have much preferred a musket instead of coin. In 1849 the White population of the Islands consisted of 14 or 15 Englishmen, who possessed one schooner of 25 tons, while the exports and imports were not of more value than £100 per annum, whereas at the present time, the White population numbered 2,040 souls, and the exports were of the annual value of £90,000, and the imports of £82,500; while the number of vessels over the whole of the Group were according to the last return no less than 211. Almost all our colonies had been formed originally by voluntary settlement, and it had afterwards been necessary for this country to step in and give them the benefit of some system of law and government. In the same way, and upon the same principle, the progress of affairs in the Fiji Islands proved that even where there existed but a very small community of White people, it was requisite that some protection against violence and lawlessness should be established. The interests of the natives and the claims of humanity alike demanded that. Nobody could doubt that the contact of White men with a native population among whom slavery was the rule must result in the rapid diminution of that native population; and, moreover, it was not to be expected that a community possessing the greatest facilities for piracy, and being without law, would not prey upon commerce until some settled kind of government and order was introduced into it. Indeed, he thought if it was not primarily a question for us to step in and decide, it would ultimately, on account of its increasing magnitude, become a question which would have to be settled on account of all nations and civilization generally.

  199
  With regard to what it was the duty of England to do in that matter, if his advice was of any value, he should be inclined to recommend a protectorate over these Islands, although he knew that was a rather vague term. To the authority of the Earl of Kimberley against such a proposal he would oppose the equally great authority of Earl Grey. The hon. and gallant Admiral then quoted passages from Earl Grey's work on Colonial Policy, describing in 1853 the nature of British authority as exercised on the West Coast of Africa, where justice was administered by British magistrates, the Governor having at his disposal only two or three companies of a West India regiment. Earl Grey also showed the immense advantage resulting from the existence of British influence on the West Coast of Africa, and from our authorities there having a very small number of troops to enforce their decrees; and he concluded by pointing out that the consequence had been the establishment of a local Government which taxed itself to the amount of £40,000 a-year. He thought that putting small ships in the place of West India regiments, in the case of Africa, we might maintain a Government in Fiji and the other Islands with equally satisfactory results. At all events, it was necessary that something should be done, if only as a preparation for the future; and it was our duty, as paramount in these seas, to take upon ourselves the work of establishing something like a Government amongst the islands. In conclusion, he begged leave to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to establish a British Protectorate at Fiji."—(Mr. M'Arthur.)
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) had brought that important subject under the notice of the House, for he (Mr. Eastwick) maintained that it was only a question of time, and that the protectorate of Fiji by this country was not only expedient, but necessary. There was a statement in Part 4 of the Consular Reports recently presented, to the effect that the number of British subjects who had settled in the Fiji
  200
  Islands gave to them the character, though none of the advantages of a British colony. There were, according to that Report, 3,700 British subjects in these Islands, so that, if it were correct that in 1871 the number was 3,000, a rapid increase had taken place. And at the same time the cultivation of the Islands was extending. The Georgian Group and Leeward Islands contained only 450 French subjects, and not more than 970 Europeans; and the fact that those Islands had been brought under French rule formed a strong argument in favour of a protectorate in islands with 10 times the number of European settlers. Not only that, but the Fiji Islands were almost bordering on the Australian Colonies, and it was fairly asked that they should be a stepping-stone between them and the waste of waters between us. It had been mentioned that the United States had annexed the Navigator Group, and there might be some hon. Gentlemen who would wish that the United States would annex the Fijian Group also; but he could not himself sympathize with that view; and it must also be remembered that the United States had no intention to proceed further in that direction. Moreover, it more properly devolved on Great Britain, for an independent buccaneering Government had been established, which would attract all the desperate characters in Australia and the surrounding islands. It was already raising troops to coerce the peaceable settlers and overawe our Consul, and according to Sir James Martin, the Attorney General of New South Wales, it would interpose difficulties in the way of dealing with offences in the South Seas unless the Imperial Government, without delay, either expressly recognized it, or took possession of Fiji; for if that Government remained unrecognized, the seizure within its limits by British authority of persons charged with offences for the purpose of trying them in these colonies might lead to difficulties of a serious character. He hoped, therefore, the House would support the Motion of his hon. Friend, for the formation of a Government in Fiji was indispensably necessary; indeed, there was no other way to prevent the kidnapping now going on in the South Seas except a British protectorate, for the adoption of that step would enable us to establish an Admiralty Court, and

  201
  to call upon the tribes to acknowledge the power and jurisdiction of the Queen, to renounce human sacrifices and other barbarous practices, and agree that murders, robberies, and other crimes should be tried by the Queen's officers. The objection could not be the expense, for it need cost us nothing. We had a Consul there already; and the necessity of keeping ships of war in the seas where these Islands were situated had been pressed on the Government by Lord Belmore, who, in a despatch of the 22nd of November, 1871, said—
  "I must press on the Government the necessity for the constant presence, while the season permits, of one, if not two, of Her Majesty's ships for some time to come among the South Sea Islands, cost what it may."
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he was sorry that the protectorate of these Islands had not been assumed 10 years ago, and he should certainly support the Motion, though he thought that absolute annexation would now be better. He did not quite understand the meaning of a protectorate, the French protectorate of Tahiti amounting to absolute government, and he agreed with the Earl of Kimberley, that a protectorate, if it meant something less than annexation, would not diminish our responsibility, while it might be a source of embarrassment. Something must certainly be done, for Lord Belmore had declared that anarchy prevailed in the South Seas, and it was clear that the Fiji Group was fast becoming the refuge of scoundrels and fugitives of all descriptions. The soi disant Government was not recognized by many of the White settlers, and, as mentioned by Sir James Martin, British subjects charged with acts of violence in the Fijis were amenable to the Courts of New South Wales, an Act of George IV. giving them jurisdiction over all the islands in the Pacific not subject to any European State. Our intervention was, therefore, likely to be invoked. In that case he saw no medium course between reorganizing the Government that had been set up by the Whites, and absolute annexation. To the first course there were, he need hardly say, insuperable objections, for all control over them being by that Act abandoned, it would lead to the extermination of the natives, and to the increase and permanence of slavery. The policy he recommended,
  202
  therefore, was that of absolute annexation, and he said so with the full sense of the reasons that made the British Government unwilling to extend our colonial possessions. In this instance, however, it was a duty to humanity to do so, for the present scandals could never be effectually put down until we assumed the government of these Islands. It was intolerable that a great slave-holding Anglo-Saxon settlement should grow up in the South Seas. While he was glad to hear that the Government intended to strengthen our squadron in the Pacific, and to add some light-armed cruisers to it, he also hoped that the more decisive step recommended by this Motion would be supported by the House.
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, it appeared that considerations of expense had hitherto deterred the Government from taking possession of these Islands and establishing civilization in them; but he seriously doubted whether there would be any expense at all in doing so. The great colonies of Queensland and Victoria had cost the mother country nothing, and South Australia had caused no expenditure till some years after her foundation, when a grant of £200,000 had been made to meet a season of distress consequent upon the mismanagement of an autocratic Governor appointed by the Home Government. He cordially agreed with the last Speaker that annexation was the only course to be thought of, if any action at all were taken by the Government. The policy and mission of this country had hitherto been to enlighten the dark places of the earth; that policy had been recognized by Europe as an honourable distinction, and he trusted the Government when taking this matter into consideration, would be impressed with the feeling of pride with which the people of England regarded the results of that policy hitherto.
  MR. SALTremarked that, in considering a question of this kind, we should regard ourselves as the head of an aggregate of great countries rather than as a single country. The particular matter under discussion was a question of detail combined with a grave question of policy. The question of detail as to whether the Fiji Islands were of more value to this country than to any other, and whether they would

  203
  be of value to us in time of war, was a question which might safely be left to the Colonial Office. With regard to the cost of maintaining a few troops in the Islands for their protection, Her Majesty's Government would do well carefully to consider the importance of the work to be done compared with the smallness of the sum to be expended before coming to a decision upon it; and he must remark that the difficulty of governing these Islands could not be very great if they got the right men for the purpose. He hoped the policy of withdrawing troops from British colonies would not be pressed too far, and he said that, although he approved, on the whole, with some exceptions, the policy which had been pursued thus far in reference to that particular question. Turning to the question of Imperial policy involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would pronounce clearly their opinion as to whether England could, without danger of disaster, stop short in the civilizing course involved in the addition of new colonies to her Empire.
  MR. DIXONsaid, he believed the statements made with regard to the present condition of the Fiji Islands and their Government were very much exaggerated. He had been in communication with a gentleman who had recently arrived from the Fiji Group of Islands, who had given him a very different account. The facts appeared to be these—In Australia it was not easy to grow cotton and sugar for want of native labour; but in the Fiji Islands the case was different, and a number of enterprizing Australians having gone there in consequence, it was natural that they should seek the protection of the English Government. Their overtures were, however, declined; and, under these circumstances, they established a Government of their own. The form of Government adopted included two Houses of Parliament, and Thaukambau was recognized as the King. It was now proposed to the House of Commons to establish in the Fiji Islands that very protectorate which the Government formerly refused, and this proposition was met by another of a still more serious character—by a suggestion that we should at once annex the entire Group. What right had they to annex a territory with a population of 100,000
  204
  or 200,000 persons, without the consent of the inhabitants? If they had such a right, they would have an equal right to annex other islands of the Pacific Ocean, and we should be embarking in a course the end of which no one could foresee. He contended that the English Government should hold their hands, and wait to see whether the newly-formed Government could not repress kidnapping; and that they should take no action with reference either to protection or annexation until they were requested to do so by the inhabitants of the Fijis. He hoped they would not be led into incautious and hasty action by the violent language used that evening.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would remind the hon. Member for Birmingham that it was the Fijians who had themselves supplicated the protection of England, which could only be afforded by an annexation of the Islands. We ought not only to extend the protection of the British flag to the White population, but also to incorporate in the Empire a sturdy race, and establish a community which would tend to augment the strength and influence of this country, for if we allowed the present state of things to continue much longer we should probably have to interfere in a manner which would be discreditable as well as expensive. The dregs of the population of Australia were swarming in every direction, and the authorities in India were already considering what was to be done with the "loafers," who flocked there in large numbers. The same immigration of worthless characters was going on even to a greater extent in the Fiji Islands, which in the course of a few years would become a receptacle for pirates. It was all very well for professors of political economy to say that we ought not to take charge of these Islands, but practical men who were acquainted with the real facts of the case took precisely the opposite view, and, as for himself, he was certain that the incorporation of these Islands with the Empire would be of the greatest advantage to us not only on account of their strategic position, but also on account of their productive capacity, and therefore he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend. He thought, however, that the Motion would receive a larger share of support from the House, if his hon. Friend would substitute for

  205
  "protectorate" the words "British authority."
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that although Fiji was not a British colony, yet the artillery of so many speakers in the present debate had been directed against the Colonial Office, that the House would not feel suprised at his rising to reply to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur). A fallacy ran through a great majority of the speeches which had been delivered. It seemed to be assumed that at the present instant, the inhabitants of the Fiji Islands were supplicating us either to assume authority, or, at all events, to establish a British protectorate over them. As far as his information went the inhabitants were doing nothing of the kind, and therefore, brushing that cobweb aside, he would proceed with the general question. Allusion had been made to other acquisitions of territory which Her Majesty's Government had sanctioned in South Africa, and on the West Coast of Africa, but there the circumstances were essentially distinct from the case of the Fiji Islands. With regard to South Africa, we had to deal with a large territory immediately bordering on our great colony of the Cape, and containing a population which comprised a considerable number of British subjects, and it was essential to the welfare of the Cape that order and good government should prevail in that colony. Again, in that case, there was a unanimous wish among the native population that we should annex the territory, because they feared that if it were not under British rule they would be absorbed by another neighbour. We had, besides, the interests of a large population of British diggers and of the Cape Colony to consider. What the Government said, therefore, was that if the great colony of the Cape, in the interests of civilization, of the British diggers, and of the native tribes, and of South Africa itself, thought fit to undertake the government of that country, Her Majesty's Government were not indisposed to think it would be a wise and conciliatory policy to consent to the annexation. With regard to the West Coast of Africa, we had a large sea-board, which was broken in upon by certain Dutch possessions, the result being a divided authority and a dual jurisdiction, which could not fail
  206
  to be productive of complications and inconveniences, whilst the friendly cession to us by the Netherlands Government of their forts could not but tend to the peaceful and progressive development of our own original settlement, and conduce to the well-being of the native tribes. The case of the Fiji Islands was, however, entirely different. Thirteen years ago Mr. Pritchard, British Consul at Fiji, forwarded to Her Majesty's Government what purported to be an offer on the part of the King to cede to Great Britain the Sovereignty of the Islands. Now, he noticed that in the course of this evening's discussion the hon. Member for Lambeth spoke of the King of Fiji as being the supreme Ruler over all the Islands, whereas the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Erskine) said there were many Chiefs who had authority in the different Islands. Her Majesty's Government would certainly have done wrong if they had annexed the Group without instituting an inquiry on this point, and they accordingly sent out a gentleman of high character, who reported that instead of there being one King, there were about 40 independent Chiefs who had power in the Islands, and whose authority would have to be disputed in the event of any foreign Power acting on the assumption of the King having the power to dispose of the territory. It was exceedingly doubtful whether these independent Chiefs really understood what was involved in the word "annexation;" and even if they had understood it, it was still more uncertain whether they would have concurred. There existed among the tribes many barbarous practices which it would have been impossible to tolerate in a British possession, but which could not be eradicated without great difficulty, and no inconsiderable labour and expense. Doubts were, moreover, thrown upon the cotton-producing powers of Fiji in Colonel Smyth's Report. It was pointed out, moreover, that all England wanted was a coaling station, and that that might be obtained without annexing 200 islands for the purpose. It was also pointed out that the direct route from Sydney to Panama lay many miles south of the Fiji Islands. Under those circumstances the Government of the day would have acted very rashly if they had accepted the offer which was made. Since that time nothing like a formal

  207
  offer had, so far as he knew, been made on the part of those Islands that we should assume Sovereignty over them. His hon. Friend behind him (Sir Charles Wingfield) had spoken of the existing Government of Fiji; but on that point, he must confess he had heard with pleasure the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), because it was the first in which anything like a fair view had, in his opinion, that evening been taken of the condition of that Government, to which he had heard with pain such terms as "filibustering" applied. It was no part of his duty to express any opinion upon the character or probable stability of the Fiji Government; but at all events it was a Government which professed to be endeavouring to establish law and order, to put down slavery, and to develop the resources of these Islands; and until that Government should have been proved by some act of its own to have forfeited our confidence, and to have committed offences against public morality, it was, he thought, a little hard that we, in the House of Commons, should take upon ourselves to judge of its conduct from the reports contained in newspapers and in private letters which were not always disinterested. It must also be borne in mind that the annexation of Fiji, though it might by some be looked upon as a simple matter, was not one which could be considered entirely by itself. The hon. and gallant Admiral behind him, than whom nobody was more conversant with the subject, had informed the House as to the enormous number of islands which there were in the Pacific, and had used these remarkable words, that the occupation of Fiji would entail the acquisition of an enormous number of small islands, and would be a step owing to which White settlers would gradually occupy all the Islands in the Pacific. If we were to annex one group of Islands, was it possible, he would ask, that we could stop there? He might also observe that the Fiji Islands were over 1,700 miles from Sydney, and 1,150 from New Zealand, and about 1,400 from Brisbane. When, therefore, they were spoken of as being contiguous to Australia, those who used such language must, he could not help thinking, be regarded as having rather an elastic imagination. There might be, no doubt, considerable advantages arising from
  208
  the annexation of the Fiji Islands, but it was by no means desirable that we should hurry to a conclusion in the matter. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would sum up the case for and against annexation as clearly and concisely as he could. The first argument in favour of annexation was that there was a large and increasing number of British subjects resident in these Islands; that a considerable amount of British capital was embarked there; and that during the last two or three years they had made great progress. That, however, was hardly a good reason for interfering with the present state of things, for we must take care that in trying to make things better we did not make them worse. The second argument was with regard to the cotton-producing powers of the Islands, and he thought the statements which had been made in the Report of Colonel Smyth had been negatived by experience, for the evidence went to show that cotton of a very superior character could be grown in Fiji, and the supply might no doubt be materially increased. There was also the argument in favour of annexation, that it would be a great advantage to us to have an advanced post in the Pacific, and there was, besides, another point, of very considerable importance, that unless there was a strong Government in Fiji our exertions to put down the abuses of the labour-traffic would be very much paralyzed. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that there were cogent reasons against annexation. In the first place, we had no expressed wish on the part of the inhabitants of those Islands that we should annex them, or enter on a protectorate. Then there was the question of the expense, which might be variously estimated, and when speaking of philanthropy and the growth, of cotton the British taxpayer must not be entirely ignored. We ought, therefore, to see our way very clearly before we entered on any course which would throw additional burdens on him unless there were some corresponding advantage. New Zealand had been mentioned in the discussion, but hon. Members should bear in mind that our original policy with respect to New Zealand had cost this country something not far short of £20,000,000, expended in wars with native tribes. There was a further argument against annexation, and that

  209
  was that it would be rather hard after having declined the proffered Sovereignty in 1859 and actually encouraged the European community to try and govern themselves, we should now, when we saw the Fiji Islanders progressing, uninvited and unwelcomed, turn round and say—"We shall change our minds and annex you, because we think it would be to our advantage." These were the main reasons why he looked upon annexation as impossible at the present moment. A protectorate would, in his opinion, be very much worse. It involved all the responsibility, without the advantages of annexation. Indeed, he had never been able to find out exactly what a protectorate meant, but the idea of a protectorate, especially of an uninvited protectorate, was one which he could not help thinking it would be in the present case most unwise to entertain. It was, however, by Australian energy that the resources of the Fiji Islands were being developed, and if they could be governed through one of those Colonies, considerable advantages might be the result. That was the proposition which the Government had made in the last despatch presented to Parliament, in which the Earl of Kimberley said that—
  "If the Colony of New South Wales were willing to undertake the responsibility of providing for the government of the Islands, Her Majesty's Government would not refuse to entertain such a proposal, if it met with the concurrence of the Native Chiefs."
  We should thus virtually extend British Sovereignty over Fiji, whilst it would be directly governed by and through that portion of Her Majesty's Dominion which was most immediately concerned with its commerce and settlements. It was far better, however, to wait and act with caution than to take any precipitate step. He had heard some general principles enunciated to-night about adding to our Colonial Empire. Well, if the House chose to lay down the rule that wherever there was a country inhabited by uncivilized and barbarous tribes, the possession of which by England would, in our opinion, be ultimately beneficial to the inhabitants of that country and to ourselves, then it was our duty to annex that country. Of course, if such a rule were established, it was wrong on the part of the Government in not annexing Fiji in 1859; but he was not prepared, either speaking for himself or on the part of
  210
  the Government, to adopt such a Quixotic policy, and he would beg the House seriously to consider to what results such a rule would lead. He would not, however, endorse for a moment the policy founded on the other extreme. A policy founded on the other extreme was maintained by a party in the country. He did not refer to that party which was said to undervalue the advantages to England of her present colonies, and to desire the disintegration of the Empire. He sometimes heard of that party, but he never met them. If they existed, he believed their number was infinitesimally small, and they might be practically ignored. In fact, he was inclined to think that they only existed in the fertile brains of imaginative statesmen who, in order to create a new political programme for their own party, found it necessary to misrepresent the policy of their opponents. But he referred to those who, more or less admitting the value of existing colonies, stedfastly set their faces against the acquisition by England of any more territory under any pretext whatever. They were principally actuated, no doubt, by economical considerations; but in his opinion there were sometimes considerations of higher moment than those of economy. The conquest of a country against the will of its inhabitants; the acquisition of territory merely for our own aggrandisement and our own convenience—these were offences against public morality which could not be defended. But the acquisition of territory freely offered by the goodwill of its inhabitants, securing to them the advantages of order, good government, civilization, and Christianity, and at the same time opening up to us new markets for our trade, new fields of labour for our people—this was not an acquisition to be spurned or lightly estimated. The peculiar conditions of Great Britain should never be forgotten—the smallness of her area at home, her large and ever increasing population, the active, energetic, restless character of her people, all point to the wisdom of enlarging by every legitimate means the field of action before us. And he would venture to say that if English statesmen, forgetful of these conditions, ignoring the responsibility of England as a great nation, and thinking only of economy, should ever lay down as an axiom of policy that Great Britain should under no circum-

  211
  stances acquire additional territory, they would not only do an unwise and wrong thing, but they would sound the first note of their country's retrogression in the scale of nations. Every case, however, must be dealt with on its own particular merits, and it was not right to adhere to any hard and inflexible rule; and he was quite content that the conduct of the Government should be judged by the future result. And what were the Government now doing? With respect to the slave trade they had passed a measure which they hoped would put a stop to that traffic, and the Admiralty were about to strengthen the squadron in those seas where it was complained that the slave trade was carried on. With regard to the Fiji Government, which had been so much abused, he did not stand up to defend them; but it must be recollected that the gentleman who had been so much reflected on in the public press had recently left that Government, and that a person of the greatest respectability now occupied his place—namely, Mr. Thurston, who had recently been British Consul in Fiji. Moreover, the individual who had accepted the office of Chief Justice bore the highest character. While there was hope that good government might prevail in the Fiji Islands, it was not for this country to interpose by force, and accordingly instructions had been sent out to the English Representative there to recognize the actual Government as a de facto Government, but the extent of our recognition would depend on the ability of the Government in the Islands to maintain good order, and on the sincerity of their efforts to suppress the slave traffic. He did not see what other course Her Majesty's Government could take, and if hereafter the White population and the natives should desire the territory to be annexed, the British nation would never hesitate when the interests of civilization and Christianity were concerned to take whatever steps would best promote those ends. But it was better to be too cautious than too precipitate, and while progress was being made in the Fiji Islands, the British Government exercised a wise discretion in not forcing a protectorate on them. Whenever any information arrived in this country relative to the condition of the Islands he would take care that it should be laid before Parliament, and
  212
  considering how much had already been done, he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had to a very great extent conceded the point at issue. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the way in which the Government had acted in reference to the Cape and in_ reference to the West Coast of Africa, pointing out that the Government had been induced to pursue a policy of annexation in those cases, because it was necessary to have the frontiers of those colonies well protected, for commercial and other reasons, and to draw into their net those neighbours who were around them. But the argument applied to those distant colonies of the Empire applied still more strongly to the Empire itself, for it was a matter of Imperial interest that the great Empire of England should not suffer from not attending to the annexation of points necessary to strengthen her dominions all over the world. His hon. Friend went on to depreciate the importance of Polynesia. Was it possible to suppose that the islands of Polynesia would be allowed to remain independent principalities? If those islands were to fall to one of the great States of the world, were we not in duty bound to see that these important ports and centres of civilization and religious influence should not fall into the hands of other Powers than our own? We were bound, watching over the security and welfare of our great colonies, Australia and New Zealand, to take some action in the case of the Fiji Islands. The cost of maintaining colonial establishments there would be comparatively small. He agreed with his hon. Friend as to the question of protectorate. He thought his hon. Friend was almost committed to annexation. He evidently looked to future action in the matter, and certainly annexation was a hundred times safer. He deeply lamented that the legitimate offer made a few years ago had not been accepted. It was a shirking of responsibility which naturally fell upon us, and which if it had been then accepted would have saved us from very serious difficulties that might await us in the future. His hon. Friend said that the Government felt so well disposed in this matter that if Australia should think fit to do the work for us there would be no

  213
  objection. That, again, was a shirking of responsibility. It was also a new doctrine, as to which he should like to have the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, whether a colony had power to attach responsility to the mother country for annexing any stray islands in the seas adjacent to it. The straightforward course would be to announce at once that if the people of these Islands were willing to submit themselves to our rule, we would be willing to accept them, with all the responsibilities that followed upon such a course; and by so doing we should secure not only the hearty concurrence of Australia, but the approbation of our own countrymen and the applause of the civilized world.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had listened to the speech of his noble Friend with great attention and warm sympathy. This was not a new question. Some 16 or 18 years ago he had accompanied a deputation to Lord Palmerston on the subject. They waited upon other Ministers; and they asked—"Where is Fiji? We never heard of it." But with Lord Palmerston it was very different. He knew that Fiji possessed some of the most remarkable harbours in the world, and unrolling a map told them the exact number of fathoms in depth, and stated that there was not a ship then afloat that could not sail into those harbours. Most cordially did he receive the deputation. His hon. Friend now said it was to Lord Palmerston's Government that the offer of annexation was made. The state of things then was very different from what it is now. And what did Lord Kimberley say in reply to Lord Belmore? He feebly answered—"The next point is one already under the consideration of the Foreign Office." "Consideration" was a great word with the Government. Lord Belmore had said—
  "The practical importance of the subject is my excuse for drawing your Lordships' attention to it—it is that of giving certain magisterial powers to the British Consul at Fiji over British subjects."
  There were 2,000 British subjects, which formed an important population. They applied to us to annex the Islands, and the Government took on themselves the responsibility of refusing. He hoped the Government would not fall back on Lord Palmerston's opinion. They must rest on their own responsibility. [Laughter.] His hon. Friend laughed.
  214
  [Laughter.] Surely, this was one of the wisest of Governments, for when they got into trouble they laughed. The Motion, however, threw on the Government the responsibility of resisting the appeal for annexation, and if they refused, some other country would take the step. It was a question between a bold and a cowardly policy. If we accepted the offer of these Islands we might save an enormous amount of crime, the responsibility for which, if we refused the offer, would to that extent rest on our shoulders. These offers did not come often. If his hon. Friend went to a division he should support him. When the expense of New Zealand and of Australia was spoken of, his answer was that the Governments of Australia were repaying us all expense incurred, and would repay us 100 per cent for the money that England laid out. Our colonies were an accession of strength to the mother country, and woe be to those who refused to accept the offer now made to England. It was all very well for Members of the Government to make pretty speeches about our colonies, but we wanted something else—we wanted action.
  MR. M'ARTHUR, said, he found that the general feeling of the House was that his Motion did not go far enough, but that the Government ought to annex the Fiji Islands. He would, therefore, alter the terms of his Motion, which would be to ask Her Majesty to establish a British protectorate at Fiji, or to annex the Islands, as the Government might think desirable. It had been said that no such wish had been expressed and no such offer made; but be believed that the White population would be delighted with the annexation of the Islands, and the rest of the inhabitants had again and again expressed themselves favourable to the proposition that they should be annexed to the British Crown. A few years ago the population of Fiji was 200,000; now it was reduced to 120,000, and it was daily decreasing. England's true policy was, therefore, not to be too late. Delay was against England. Our true policy was to place ourselves in communication with the Islands; and if this were done, he believed that the Islands would receive with acclamation the announcement that they were to be annexed to the British Crown. Let law and authority be once established there, and emigra-

  215
  tion to the Islands would set in to an extent that at present was almost beyond contemplation.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had heard with surprise and disappointment that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) to carry to a division not the Motion of which he had given Notice, but that Motion with an essential alteration. From a number of hon. Members the hon. Member had received considerable support so far as the general purpose of taking some step was concerned; but every hon. Member who gave such support emphatically condemned the plan of establishing a protectorate, and recommended annexation. The hon. Member, however, now invited the House to pass a Resolution, leaving it in the discretion of the Government to adopt a measure which his Friends condemned, or one which they approved; to both of which alike, under existing circumstances, the Government, which alone was responsible, was opposed. Was it possible that Parliament could place itself in such a position? The Government ought not to have referred to them the option between a protectorate and annexation. It would be surely absurd for hon. Gentlemen who had denounced a protectorate to place the Government in the position of selecting between that and annexation, with no indication to guide them. What was a protectorate? It might be anything or nothing; it was the most shadowy of all relations; it might involve almost all the responsibilities of government. Those who undertook to mark out a policy and enforce it on Government surely ought to indicate what in its essential features that policy was to be, and not to mix together in the terms of the Motion, without distinction, things which they declared to be entirely different. The Government was not prepared to accept the responsibility of either the one or the other, and that not because it professed a policy of indifferentism, or had registered a vow in Heaven that nothing should induce it to add to the territory or the territorial responsibilities of this country. Unquestionably, he had viewed with surprise how hon. Gentlemen, when the Government were overwhelmed and totally inadequate to undertake their own responsibilities—when from year to year the Government were groaning over
  216
  the mass of work left undone—["Oh, oh!"]—he thought that was one of the truisms of the day, and he did not envy them their position who were disposed to dispute it. It was admitted that there might be cases in which it might be wise even to make additions to the territorial responsibilities of this country; but as his hon. Friend said—and justly said—without any reference to abstract principles, the question ought to be considered on its own merits, and with reference to its own individual character. The hon. Member entreated them in the name of humanity and philanthropy to interfere, because the native population was diminishing; but would he guarantee that the annexation of the Islands would stop the diminution of the native population? Probably, the hon. Member knew that while 30 or 35 years ago there were 120,000 people in New Zealand, the population had now dwindled down to about 40,000, and, therefore, he must decline to accept the guarantee of the hon. Member that annexation would stop the decay of the population in the Fiji Islands. His hon. Friend the Member for Perth had referred to the historical aspect of the case and stated that Lord Palmerston expressed readiness to annex the Fiji Islands; but, so far from that being the case, he ventured to state that the Duke of Newcastle, who was Colonial Secretary at the time, was the only Member of Lord Palmerston's Cabinet who was favourable to annexation. It was true the circumstances of the present day were different; but the difference mainly consisted in the fact that at the present day there was no request on the part of the people of the Fiji Islands for annexation. His hon. Friend further said that the inhabitants of the Fiji Islands longed for this country to annex them; but was he the ambassador and plenipotentiary to represent and act for these islanders? If he was, let him do what other plenipotentiaries were bound to do, exhibit his credentials. Again, at the present day, the people were thrown upon their own resources, Europeans had settled in the Islands, and a Government had been formed, which was endeavouring to organize itself in a sense favourable to civilization. The statements made by his Friend the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) in support of his Motion all went to prove the disposition of the

  217
  people to rely upon their own resources, and therefore he asked whether, in the name of prudence and policy, any sufficient reason had been shown why the British Government should at the present time undertake the task of making a provision for the civil welfare of the people of the Fiji Islands which they were endeavouring to make for themselves? So far as it was possible to lay down an abstract and general rule with regard to annexation, he was prepared to say that Her Majesty's Government would not annex any territory, great or small, without the well-understood and expressed wish of the people to be annexed, freely and generously expressed, and authenticated by the best means the case would afford. Let them guide their conduct in that respect by the light of experience. In New Zealand a treaty was entered into by and with the consent of the native authorities with this country; but when it came to be acted upon, it was ascertained that the New Zealanders put a different interpretation themselves upon the meaning of that treaty, and which had led to a series of bloody wars that were not honourable to the history of this country, and which had cost between £11,000,000 and £12,000,000. This, however, was the case of 200 islands, inhabited by about 150,000 or 160,000 persons; and of those 200 islands about 60 were uninhabited; and those that were inhabited were not under the rule of one chief; but 12 principal tribes, with many subdivisions, with relations from the heads of the tribes to the kings of a most uncertain character. Under these circumstances he appealed to the House and the supporters of the Motion not to attempt to force on Her Majesty's Government the duty of forcing the Fiji Islanders to annex themselves to this country, for there really was no evidence that they desired it. If the House wanted to force Her Majesty's Government, they ought not to force the people of these Islands, who were endeavouring to organize a Government amongst themselves, and which this country, by means of friendly negotiations, were encouraging; but if Her Majesty's Government was to be forced into doing anything, let it be to ascertain the real feeling of the islanders, and not to force on the islanders that which they had shown no desire should take place. This was the only form in
  218
  which he, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, could accept any responsibility with reference to the question.
  MR. SPEAKERasked the hon. Member for Lambeth if he withdrew his Motion?
  MR. M'ARTHUR, in reply, said, he was going to move his amended Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could not move an Amendment to his own Motion.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, the hon. Member might withdraw his original Motion by the leave of the House, and then move it in an amended form.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYobserved that after the statement of the Under Secretary of State it would be impossible for the Government to refuse the annexation of those Islands, if they obtained from them a responsible expression of a desire for such annexation.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, that as the general feeling of the House appeared to be in favour of leaving the Government the option of either establishing a protectorate over the Fiji Islands, or of annexing them, he wished to alter his Motion accordingly. He presumed, therefore, that the better plan would be for him to withdraw his original Motion and substitute another to that effect.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSasked, as a point of Order, whether it was competent for the hon. Member, if he withdrew his Motion, to move his amended Motion that night, or on another opportunity?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would depend on the pleasure of the House, if the Motion was withdrawn, whether another Motion should be put at once or not.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'ARTHUR MR. M'ARTHUR moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the propriety of establishing a Protectorate at Fiji, or of annexing those Islands, provided that this may be effected with the consent of the inhabitants."
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he rose to Order. If the Motion was to be put, the whole of the Rules of the House would at once be put an end to. That subject had been argued with great interest and ability on the question of a protectorate; and it was not until the hon. Mover replied that he intimated that, in consequence of the debate, he was about to amend his Motion by in-

  219
  cluding in it the alternative of annexation. On the putting of that question the First Minister of the Crown argued the whole matter; and, no doubt, according to the practice of the House, the hon. Member would have been perfectly in order if, with the consent of the House, he had withdrawn the former Motion and then proposed the words on which the question was argued by the Prime Minister. But now to alter the terms of the Motion again, which terms had not been argued either by the House or by the Prime Minister, appeared to him to be such a deviation from the whole established order and mode of proceeding that he put it to the Speaker, with great submission, whether that Question could now be put from the Chair. He thought the Motion ought not to be so altered now, because they would be dividing on a totally different question from that which had been under discussion.
  MR. COLLINSalso asked whether the hon. Member having now brought forward a practically new question after half-past 12, was not shut out by the spirit, if not by the letter, of a Resolution of the House?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was no doubt that the Motion now before the House differed materially from that originally proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth. Of course, it was in the power of the House, if it pleased, to entertain that Motion; but he was bound to say that it seemed to him, having regard to the practice of the House, that the present Motion, differing as it did so materially from the original, should not be entertained without Notice.
  MR. KINNAIRD: Take the original Motion.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, that having had a discussion on the subject which he trusted would be followed by some good result, he would under the circumstances withdraw the Motion. ["No, no!"]
  Whereupon Question put,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the propriety of establishing a Protectorate at Fiji, or of annexing those Islands, provided that this may be effected with the consent of the inhabitants."—(Mr. M'Arthur.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 135: Majority 51.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY (COLLEGES).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERT, amid considerable interruption, rose to call attention to the power possessed by Colleges of the University of Oxford to alter their own statutes, and to move a Resolution on the subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that all applications on the part of Colleges of the University of Oxford to alter their Statutes should be laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the same have been received by the Privy Council, if Parliament be then sitting."—(Mr. Auberon Herbert.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYexpressed a hope that the hon. Member would not press his Motion, on the ground that the object he desired to attain could only be arrived at by legislation. The Motion might be brought forward at a more convenient season, when it could be discussed with advantage.
  MR. GLADSTONEsupported the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, on account of the lateness of the hour.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERT, under the circumstances, consented to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BURIALS BILL— [BILL 1.]
(Mr. Osborne Morgan, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Mr. Hadfield, Mr. McArthur.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN MR. OSBORNE MORGAN moved to adjourn the Committee to Tuesday, July 9.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday the 9th day of July next, again resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that believing it was hopeless to expect that the Bill could be proceeded with in the present Session, and considering that the Notice Paper should not be encumbered with measures that were virtually defunct, he should move that the Committee be resumed on Tuesday, September 3.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "9th day of July," in order to insert the words "3rd day of September,"—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—instead thereof.
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN, remarking that if he did not succeed in making progress on the 9th of July he should withdraw the Bill, protested against this most unusual attempt to get rid of the measure by a side-wind. It would not, however, be killed in that way, for though it might not pass that Session, it would be introduced again and again, until it succeeded.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 130: Majority 52.
Words inserted.
Main Question, as amended, proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday the 3rd day of September next, again resolve itself into the said Committee."
MR. CANDLISHexpressed his belief that the feeling of the majority then present was different from the feeling of the majority of the House. As he believed that the appearance of the benches opposite was the result of a sharp and decisive whip which had taken the House by surprise, he would move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Candlish.)
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the course taken that evening had been forced upon hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House in consequence of the refusal on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire to proceed with the Committee that evening.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he had only desired to save hon. Gentlemen from the labour of considering a Bill in Committee at that hour of the morning (half-past 1). He must again protest against the shabby way in which the Bill had been treated by the hon. Baronet opposite.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHrose to Order. He did not much care for what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, because he could make allowances for his feelings under the defeat he had
222
just experienced; but he wished to know if the word shabby was a proper word to use in reference to his (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's) conduct.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he thought it was too strong an expression for one hon. Gentleman to apply to the conduct of another.
MR. BRUCEappealed to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) not to put the House to the trouble of dividing. He could not regard the majority opposite as a fortuitous concourse of atoms. It was evidently the result of a very well-arranged plan; but, under the circumstances, he should advise his hon. and learned Friend to submit to stern necessity, and to bring the Bill forward again next Session.
MR. CANDLISH, in withdrawing the Motion, said, that as it was quite impossible for a private Member to carry a Bill like this, he hoped the Government would undertake to re-introduce the measure themselves next Session.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That this House will, upon Tuesday the 3rd day of September next, again resolve itself into the said Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment (No.2)* (172); Acrobats* (173).
Second Reading—Church of England Fire Insurance* (102); Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment* (126); Review of Justices' Decisions* (164).
Report—Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) and Act (No. 2, 1864) Amendment, now Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (130).
Third Reading—Charitable Trustees Incorporation* (127); Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (168); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* (156); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (142); Elementary Education (Provisional Order Confirmation)* (148); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* (147); Bank of England (Election of Directors)* (144); Customs and Inland Revenue* (162), and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL—(No. 168.)
(The Lord President.)

THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
LORD DENMAN, who had given Notice that the Bill be read a third time this day six months, said, it might appear a somewhat unusual course to oppose the third reading of a Bill which had been passed with great labour and care by the other House, and, in some measure, adopted by their Lordships' House; but when he regarded the candidates, he did not think that any man should object to appear personally before the constituency he desired to represent to explain the political opinions he held, and to answer such questions as the voters might put to him. There
158
had been a clause against holding committees in public-houses in the Bill of last year, and he believed that such a Bill as that for bribery and corruption, and the clause for closing public-houses, would have greatly secured quiet at the polling stations. As to the voters, he was sure the present Bill could not work unless some considerable time was devoted to its further consideration, and on these grounds alone he felt justified in taking this course; but besides, he saw before their Lordships a Bill of the principle of which he and many of their Lordships—who had not, like him, voted against the second reading—disapproved; and he had his noble and learned Relative's opinion, given in 1830, that bribery would not be diminished by the Ballot—intimidation was to be put down by public opinion. In the same letter that noble and learned Lord expressed his abhorrence of the doctrines as to tenants votes, that a landlord might do what he would with his own, and thought that undue influence ought to be exposed and frustrated. And, as regarded the Returning Officers, he thought the multiplication of polling stations—even at a distance of four miles—in counties was so great that it would be difficult to find gentlemen to fill the office of High Sheriff—for, so far as he could learn, no one was bound to pay for those polling stations; at all events, the Sheriff, in the first instance, had to incur expense, and instead of having a deposit from the nominators, he had to look to the precarious chance of recovering a verdict against those who might ultimately be liable. He was quite sure if their Lordships passed this Bill—without amending it in the Bribery and Corruption Bill formerly a part of this Bill—they would repent it, and he earnestly entreated them to reject it in its present shape. With regard to the Amendments proposed, they had caused much anxiety to the noble Duke, and he was sorry that he could not support more than one of them at first; but as they afforded half publicity he would support them if they were returned from "another place." But why should their Lordships consent to change—even for eight years—a good open manly system of voting for one of which they disapproved? He believed that the feeling of a large portion of the people of this country was adverse to the scheme of secret voting.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he differed completely from the noble Lord. He did not believe that even the opponents of the measure would think it advisable to reject the Motion for the third reading. He retained very much the same opinion with regard to the Ballot as he had done while a Member of the House of Commons, and he regarded the present measure as one of a very unimportant character, that would equally fail to produce the good effects anticipated by its supporters, and the bad ones predicted of it by its opponents. When first returned to Parliament, in 1841, he told his constituents that he considered the Ballot a very unimportant question; but that as, in his opinion, it would do little harm and less good he felt bound to oppose it. He represented large constituencies for 15 years, who always returned him, notwithstanding his declared opposition to the Ballot. As long as he had a seat in the House of Commons he had acted consistently with the views he had thus avowed; but within the last four or five years he had changed his opinion. He now considered the Ballot more unimportant than ever, in consequence of the altered position of the employers and employed in this country, but should support it because he thought it would do a very little good and still less harm. He believed that the mass of the constituencies attached very little value to the Bill now before their Lordships, and he could not but regret that measures of real importance, such as the Public Health Bill and the Mines Regulation Bill, had not been given precedence of such a measure as this. But as the Ballot Bill had been introduced by the Government and passed by the House of Commons, he thought it was unwise of their Lordships to have adopted Amendments which certainly would not be accepted by the other House of Parliament. It was too late on a third reading to ask their Lordships to withdraw those Amendments; but he hoped that when the Bill came up from the Commons, as it certainly would, with their Amendments struck out, their Lordships would not insist on them.
On Question? that the Bill be now read 3a.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to insert after Clause 2 the first of a series of 15 clauses, proposing a complete scheme for the adoption of voting papers.
Moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following clause:—
"Any voter may, in compliance with the provisions hereinafter contained, give his vote by a voting paper instead of personally."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not entertain an Amendment which was entirely outside the scope of the measure before them. When the Reform Bill introduced by Lord Derby's Government was before their Lordships, an Amendment for the adoption of voting papers was sent down by their Lordships to the House of Commons; but though the Government of the day might have been supposed to be favourable to such a system, the Amendment was rejected in the House of Commons by a large majority. It would be useless to send such an Amendment down to the other House. But his objection to it did not end there. He thought it would increase the facilities for bribery and intimidation. He believed that those facilities would be increased by any system which would serve to disconnect the voter from his vote, and therefore he opposed the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that while agreeing in the course taken by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) he could not agree in his remarks. He should be sorry it should be supposed that their Lordships were prepared to accept the doctrine just put forward by the noble Marquess. Their Lordships had on former occasions expressed in distinct language their approval of the system of voting papers, and he believed that from that opinion their Lordships had never changed. Their Lordships held that the system of voting papers would prove advantageous to a great many of the constituents who were at present practically disfranchised, and would provide against a far greater amount of real intimidation than any provision contained in the Bill of the Government with that object. In respect to this question, he confessed he could not believe that the opposition of the Liberal party to this system of voting

161
papers was quite free from a touch of selfishness. There were two classes of the people who were deeply interested in the adoption of voting papers—namely, the tranquil quiet people, and those who lived in remote rural districts far from polling places. There was, however, a large party in the other House of Parliament who studiously opposed every proposition to enfranchise these classes of the constituents by the adoption of the system of voting papers. And why? He believed because quiet people, and people living at distances from polling centres, were generally Conservatives. Although, then, he believed that their Lordships had not changed their opinions on this subject, he also believed that the majority of the other House, who had rejected this proposal by a majority of upwards of 40, had not changed theirs. Under such circumstances, he did not think that any useful object could be gained by flashing this Amendment once more in their faces. In his opinion, it would be better for their Lordships to wait until the minds of those who were now averse to this system, had become wiser by experience.
EARL FORTESCUEprotested against the summary condemnation of the proposal pronounced by the noble President of the Council. What the noble Marquess meant by disconnecting the voter from his vote he confessed he was unable to understand.
LORD COLCHESTERadvocated the system of voting papers upon the ground that such a system would cure many evils that now existed. It would prevent the necessity of infirm and timorous people having to travel to the poll and to encounter bad weather and the noise and disturbance of the polling place. Even although the principle of having voting papers was not embodied in this Bill, he trusted that at some future time the good sense of the people would cause it to be adopted.
On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
Amendments made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NAVY—STAFF COMMANDERS AND NAVIGATING LIEUTENANTS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALErose to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, If it is their intention to do away with that
  162
  class of officers in the Royal Navy now called Staff Commanders and Navigating Lieutenants? The noble Lord said that among other changes that had been proposed with respect to the Royal Navy was, to do do away with that most useful class of officers formerly known as masters, now called staff commanders and navigating lieutenants. The question had become one of great importance, because the fact that several of our ships had recently got aground had been, by some, attributed to the navigation having been entirely left to this distinct class of officers. It had been argued that as captains of merchant vessels navigated their own ships, captains in the Navy ought not to be allowed a sailing officer or navigating lieutenant. Now it was the greatest possible mistake to suppose that the captains of the Royal Navy did not navigate their ships; but with the many duties which a captain in the Navy now had to perform, it was impossible that he could personally perform that duty, and therefore a sailing master was appointed to assist him, who acted under the captain's direction and superintendence in the performance of his duties. But the sailing masters had not only the charge of the navigation of the ship but they had to undertake, under the Queen's Regulations, the duty of pilots. Ships of war when near land could not be safely navigated unless they had such an officer as the master on board. With merchant ships it was different. As the usual custom with merchant ships was to trade between particular ports, the officers became to know the course between those ports thoroughly, and were able to act as pilots, so that sometimes there were as many as five or six good pilots on board a merchant ship. Moreover, when merchant ships were insured they were obliged to take regular pilots on board. Now, their Lordships would see the case was quite different with Her Majesty's ships, which went all over the world, and not in regular course between particular ports, and frequently not one of the officers of a ship of war had ever visited the port to which they were bound. Again, in case of war, we should never be able to get pilots for an enemy's coast unless we obtained them from merchant ships. Two hundrd years ago the admirals and captains occupied a position in the Navy somewhat similar to that of our generals in the Army,

  163
  and the men who fought the ships were soldiers—the only sailors on board being the sailing masters and pilots. It had been objected against the sailing masters that they were of no use; but if that charge were true the fault lay with the Admiralty, who failed to give them a proper training. Under the present system, the second masters, who were generally below when a ship entered or left harbour superintending the stopping of the chain cable or paying them into the lockers, were promoted to the office of masters, and yet surprise was expressed that they were entirety ignorant of their new duties. Second masters ought to be thoroughly taught their duties, and every opportunity should be afforded them of becoming efficient pilots. Navigating lieutenants should be appointed as mail agents in all ships carrying mails, by which means they would soon have a large number of them good pilots. He had been induced to bring this question forward in consequence of his having ascertained that the number of navigating cadets had been reduced to 12—a number which was not sufficient to keep up the supply of sailing masters, which looked as if the Government intended to allow the office of sailing master to die out. The noble Earl concluded by asking, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do away with that class of officers in the Royal Navy now called Staff Commanders and Navigating Lieutenants?
  LORD ELPHINSTONE, as a naval officer, wished to express his opinion that the captains and lieutenants of Her Majesty's ships were as well able to navigate their vessels as sailing masters would be. All lieutenants, before obtaining their commissions, had to pass a very severe examination in navigation; and the only reason that captains required assistance in navigating their ships was because their time was so fully occupied by other matters that they had not time to attend to that branch of seamanship. It was not, therefore, from any want of ability on the part of the captains that the class of navigating officers had been instituted. It would be seen from the Queen's Regulations, that the captain navigated the ship, and the sailing master acted under his direction. During the Prussian war the French Fleet, who had no navigating class of officers, were paralyzed for want of pilots, and utterly useless; but when hostili-
  164
  ties broke out between this country and Russia, and we sent a Fleet, to the Baltic, the officers of our ships of war had had such experience in navigation and surveying that scarcely a casualty occurred. It was often said that as the masters of merchant vessels navigated their own ships, why should not the captain of a man-of-war do the same? But the duties of the master of a merchantman were very different from those of the captain of a man-of-war, the former being bound by Act of Parliament, when in certain waters, to take a pilot; if he did not, and any casualty occurred, the insurance was forfeited—and the moment the pilot planted his foot on a vessel's deck he was responsible for the ship, and the master's responsibility ceased. For himself, if he were in command of a ship to-morrow, he would as soon see the devil come on board as a pilot. At present he trusted that the Admiralty would not remove so useful a class as the staff commanders and navigating officers.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, a good deal of the difficulty in this matter arose out of certain political complications. Sometimes the masters had considerable influence in the other House of Parliament, where their case had been frequently brought forward, and the Admiralty made some changes in their favour. Upon the whole, whether the class of masters was dispensed with or not, it was necessary that captains, who were held responsible, should be practically capable of navigating and managing their own ships. That was very much a matter of Admiralty regulation, and a flag officer might attain his flag without ever having taken his own ship out of harbour. Formerly our Admirals wore armour and spurs; and these gentlemen in spurs naturally not being very efficient sailors, it became a tradition that the master should take the whole of the navigation upon himself. The French naval officer, from not having a master to rely upon, was a far better hydrographer than the English naval officer, and if the French authorities wanted a survey they would send to the Admiral on the station and get a very good survey made. Although, however, the French naval officers were better surveyors and hydrographers than the English, yet those English officers who gave their whole time and attention specially to hydrography were, of course, superior to the French.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the subject raised by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Lauderdale) had been a vexed question with successive Boards of Admiralty for many years; and he could hardly give a positive answer on a subject which was still unsettled. From the earliest days in which we had a Navy, and down to the year 1824, it was the custom that the captains, assisted by masters who were frequently taken from the merchant service, should take charge of the navigation of Her Majesty's ships. In 1824 a separate class of officers was established in Her Majesty's Navy for the express purpose of navigation. There were three ways only in which it was possible to navigate a ship—first, by a separate class set apart for the purpose; secondly, that all the officers should be able and ready to assist the captain in the navigation of the ship; thirdly, by setting apart a portion of the officers to confine their attention chiefly to the study of navigation, without, however, constituting them into a separate class. The second of these alternatives was that adopted by the French. It was, however, considered by the Admiralty to be too much to expect that all the officers should be able efficiently to conduct the navigation of the ship without some special study. The masters had long complained of the inferiority of their position to the Executive officers, and also of their pay and want of promotion. Their complaints received attention from the Admiralty, and resulted more than once in an increase of pay and pension, and when the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Somerset) was at the head of the Admiralty he instituted the special ranks of staff captain, staff commander, and navigating lieutenant for navigating officers, who had up to that time been styled masters. The question of the continuance of a separate class of navigating officers had been dealt with in public on more than one occasion. A Committee of Naval Officers inquired into the matter in 1862, and reported in favour of the discontinuance of a separate line, and recommended that a certain number of lieutenants should be set apart to the study of the science of navigation, who should navigate the ship and receive an additional amount of pay. But this was not carried out. Difference of opinion as to which was
  166
  the best method still prevailed; but up to the present time the preponderance was on the whole in favour of a special navigating class. It was contended, and with much apparent force, that the knowledge of navigation possessed by officers whose time was much occupied by other duties could not be so thorough and so practical as that possessed by officers whose whole time was devoted to the practical study of navigation. The whole subject was engaging the serious attention of the Admiralty; but the opinions of the most experienced officers were divided, and the question was altogether in so unsettled a state that it was not at present thought advisable to abolish the navigating class as a separate branch of the service.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought discussion upon so technical a subject would not be very profitable. He had appointed the Committee in 1862 because much discontent had arisen between the masters and other officers on grounds corresponding with the differences existing between the officers of the Line and the Scientific Corps, discussed the other evening. As an experiment the Admiralty had decided to do away with the title of master, and substitute that of navigating lieutenant and staff commander, the ultimate change to be decided by experience. It would certainly be unwise to do away with the special rank and special position of the officers responsible for the navigation of Her Majesty's vessels until they were certain that there were lieutenants sufficiently capable of performing this service. The matter, however, was one in which the Admiralty might safely be allowed to do justice to the officers, having at the same time due regard to the interests of the service.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE, in reply, observed that if Her Majesty's ships were obliged to be insured by the Lords of the Admiralty, very good care would be taken not to buy in-inferior coals or contract ropes, and to provide every vessel with a competent master.

ACROBATS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to prevent the employment of young persons as Acrobats and Gymnasts in certain cases—Was presented by The Lord BUCKHURST; read 1a. (No. 173.)
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.