Sitting of 12 March 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 11] reported. WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 11] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Heading—Marine Mutiny*; (£7,000,000) Consolidated Fund *; Bishopric of Saint Albans * [95].
Second Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Nos. 1 and 2) * [92–93]; Municipal Elections [63]; Foreign Loans Registration (No. 2) [94], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—(£880,522 1s. 4d.) Consolidated Fund *; East India Home Government (Pensions) * [74].
Third Reading—Epping Forest * [87].

LUNATIC PAUPERS (ENGLAND)—GRANTS IN AID.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN MILNE HOMEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he contemplates extending to England the same relief granted for the maintenance of lunatic paupers in lunatic wards of workhouses, as has been recently promised for similar cases in Scotland?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that it was not quite correct to speak of a provision having been "promised for similar cases in Scotland." There was no similarity between the cases in the two countries. In Scotland the cases were under the direct control of the Commissioners of Lunacy, which was not the case in England. He could not, therefore, undertake to extend the same regulations to the two countries.

EARLY CLOSING ACT, 1864—TEMPERANCE HOTELS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of George Calvert, Temperance Hotel, Gainsborough, who was recently lined £2 and costs for keeping his house open for the sale of coffee after public-houses were closed; and, whether, if such a fine be legal, any alteration will be proposed in the Law?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the case referred to. The house was one which, if it had been in London, under the old. Early Closing Act of 1864, would have been compelled to close at 1 o'clock, and it therefore now came under the general law of the country in reference to houses in which drink might be consumed, though not sold. He had no present intention to alter the law, which had on the whole worked beneficially.

CRIMINAL LAW—PICKING STICKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a decision alleged to have been given at St. Martin's, Stamford, Petty Sessions, by which a number of indigent women were sentenced to a fine of 30 s. each, with the alternative of a month's imprisonment, with hard labour, for gathering sticks in Cliffe Forest, the damage amounting to 6d.; and, if he has seen cause for interference to prevent the carrying out of the Sentance?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that his attention had been called to the matter by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), and upon making inquiries he found that nine women, some of them old offenders, were not taken up for gathering sticks, but practically for breaking down the underwood and selling it. He considered that the justices were quite right in the principle of their decision, for it was quite necessary to put a stop to such a practice; but, at the same time, in his opinion, the punishment inflicted was decidedly too severe, and therefore he had ordered the greater portion of the penalty to be remitted, and the persons to be discharged from custody.

NAVY—PAY OF ENGINEER OFFICERS QUESTION.
CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the condition the the Engineer Officers of the Royal Navy particularly as regards pay, promotion; and retirement, has been considered by the Admiralty; and, whether any and what measures it is proposed to adopt for improving their condition?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, the condition of the engineer officers of the Royal Navy was under consideration; but he was unable at present to say what determination would be arrived at.

ARMY—DIPHTHERIA AT WOOLWICH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SHERRIFFasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to an article in "The Daily News" of the 11th instant, entitled "The Diphtheria Hospital on Woolwich Common;" and, whether

  1695
  the allegations made in such article are substantially correct; and, if so, what action is intended to be taken in the matter?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Mr. Speaker, the Question which the hon. Member has put to me would be repeated, I see, on Monday, with some more particulars, I think, and I have therefore endeavoured to obtain the information sought by the hon. Member, and also by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) at the earliest possible opportunity. The first outbreak of diphtheria at Woolwich began in November, and it was not apparently confined merely to those cottages, but existed even in others in quite another part of the town in a very bad form. I think there were some 8 or 10 cases in Woolwich town itself, nearly all of which were fatal; in those cottages there were, I think, 35 cases, of which only 15 were fatal, so that the proportion was larger in the town than in the country. In the Cambridge cottages there was only one case; but they are very much improved buildings, not on the same common, and some considerable distance from those now in question. These cottages appear to have been built about the beginning of the century, without any due regard to the drainage or to the effect of the proper construction of such buildings. When the first outbreak took place, I directed the Army Sanitary Commission to make inquiries about these cottages, and they recommended a certain number of remedial alterations, such as throwing two rooms into one, draining, cementing the walls, and other things of that sort. Those operations do not appear to have been sufficient to stop the progress of this very severe disease. In consequence of diphtheria having recently broken out again within the last few days, and there being several cases, and in consequence also of my attention having been called to the article in question, I made further inquiries, and directed that the Sanitary Commissioners should again go to Woolwich and personally examine these cottages. They have been there this morning, and their Report is certainly not at all favourable. One of the Commissioners, whom I have seen, says that the article is, to a certain extent, exaggerated in the description, but that these cottages are, no doubt, most unsatisfactory;
  1696
  and, on the whole, they do not recommend that any further progress should be made with those remedial works at first proposed. I intend, therefore, as early as possible—certainly within a week—to remove the brigade depôts of the 49th and 50th from Woolwich to Warley. These latter barracks were meant for the training of the Militia; but in a pressure of this kind, it is better to find room in them for these unfortunate families which have suffered so much distress. I propose, therefore, to remove them to Warley till the barracks are built at Hounslow, and we shall so get accommodation for the whole of these families. Part of these barracks is already occupied by soldiers. I believe the construction of them is very good, and apartments will be at once properly prepared for these families. It will probably be done within a week, and it shall certainly be done as quickly as possible, because the time has come when some very strong measures should be taken to remove these poor people. I may add that they would have been removed to Woolwich, but the disease existed in the town itself, and the dread of it made it impossible to obtain lodgings to which they could be removed with any advantage to themselves.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—THE LIABILITY CLAUSE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ESLINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, now that the Easter Recess will intervene before the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill, If he will inform the House whether the Government have any intention of modifying Clause 41 (the Liability Clause) of that Bill?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Government intend to modify Clause 41 of the Merchant Shipping Bill referred to by the noble Lord as the Liability Clause. They propose to substitute for the provision, extending the unlimited liability of a shipowner, a provision preventing a shipowner from contracting himself out of his existing liability for damage caused by unseaworthiness.

ARMY—MILITIA ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNTZasked the Secretary of State for War, supposing the Adjutants

  1697
  of Militia did not take the retiring allowance before the 1st July, What retiring allowance, if any, will be granted to them?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the time which was proposed, and which was to be limited, was to give an opportunity for adjutants of Militia to choose whether they would accept the retiring allowance offered them, and go or remain, subject to the retiring allowances that existed at present, and subject also to the new conditions to be imposed on them under the new Brigade Depôt system.

FREE LIBRARIES.—QUESTION.
MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can and will make arrangements to have the Public Free Library at Leeds included in the list, if any, of institutions to which the following, or any similar works, are sent gratuitously; the Books and Papers periodically issued by or in connection with the Trigonometrical Survey of Great Britain and Ireland; Commercial Reports from Secretaries of Embassies Abroad; Reports and Tables issued by the Board of Trade; the Census Returns for 1871; and, any Blue Books or Minutes of Evidence issued by Parliament, of which there may be spare copies, otherwise Useless?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, there were no free libraries or other institutions to which Parliamentary publications were forwarded gratuitously, nor was he prepared to recommend the adoption of such a system. Those documents were published at a price which little more than covered the cost of the paper on which they were printed, and it was perfectly open to any gentleman who took an interest in institutions similar to the Free Library at Leeds, referred to by the hon. Member for the borough, to select and forward to them such Parliamentary Papers as he thought they needed.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury with respect to a statement which he made last night relative to some important Public Business, and as
1698
to which some misapprehension seems to exist. I wish to ask, Whether, in the event—possibly not very probable—of the Second Reading of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill being taken on Monday week, it is his intention to propose that the House should meet on the following Thursday; and, if so, what business will be taken on that day?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I understand the noble Lord to assume that the second reading of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill may take place on Monday, and in that case he wishes to know what business we contemplate taking on Thursday.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes.
MR. DISRAELI: Then we may have the Friendly Societies Bill.

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

CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTES.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  MR. RATHBONE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience resulting from the existence, in many cases, of numerous and undigested Acts relating to the same subjects, and to the expediency of making better provision for the consolidation from time to time of such Acts, and to move the following Resolutions:—
  "(1) That it is expedient that when any new Act is passed amending or incorporating any former Acts (other than General Clauses Acts) the new Act and the former Acts should be printed for the House so soon as may he, in such form as to show what parts of the said Acts respectively are in force: (2.) That it is expedient that when any new Act is passed materially amending any former Acts relating wholly or partly to the same subject-matter, a Bill should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the next Session of Parliament, or so soon after as conveniently may be, for consolidating into one Act so much of the said several Acts respectively as relates to the same subject-matter: (3.) That it is expedient that when a Consolidation Bill is introduced into this House it should be referred to a Select Committee, who shall report how far the Bill differs in effect from the Acts or parts of Acts proposed to be consolidated, and that no amendment should be allowed to be offered upon any part of the Bill which, according to the report of the Select Committee, does not differ as aforesaid, except such amendments

  1699
  as may be consequential upon alterations made in other parts of the Bill."
  said, although it was true that a Committee had been appointed that week to consider the subject, they had so often been disappointed by the results of Committees instructed to consider schemes for the improvement of the mode of conducting the Business of the House, which had now largely outgrown its forms, that he had felt it his duty to submit the Resolutions of which he had given Notice, and by which he hoped a remedy might be supplied for at least some of the inconvenience at present experienced. The present was a time peculiarly fitted for the business of consolidation, inasmuch as there was no great public measure to which the House was obliged to devote a large portion of its time. Persons who wanted to know their rights and duties as defined by the most recent legislation had the utmost difficulty in doing so, inasmuch as that legislation was to be taken in conjunction with former Acts. Indeed, he might say that few laymen, and sometimes not even a lawyer, could understand referential legislation—that was to say, Acts of Parliament which incorporated, by mere reference to them, other Acts or parts of them, and some of which were obsolete and others actually repealed. "What he proposed was a work in the character of an editing or publishing of the Acts; and no men of business or lawyers would doubt its great practicability and usefulness. The Local Government Board Act, for instance, enumerated no fewer than 30 Acts, and the Factory and Workshops Act 16. As to the Poor Law Act, it would be dangerous to say how many Acts were not included. Chitty specified 100 Acts dating from the time of Elizabeth down to 1874, and then there were the Licensing Acts and other Acts that were in the same unsatisfactory state. He would also mention the Master and Servant Act, which dealt with a subject on which it was essential to the interests of employers and those whom they employed that the law should be a model of clearness. Digests of the statute law had been attempted, but accurate digests would be impossible until they had so far modified the law as to remove its inconsistencies. He thought it ought to be within the capacity of that House to work his Resolutions, and to publish
  1700
  from time to time revised and corrected editions of the Statute Book. What he practically wished to propose was, that a standing Committee of the most experienced Members of that House should be appointed, to whom all Consolidation Bills should be referred; and as it would be necessary for such a Committee to have the best legal advice, it would be most wasteful and unwise economy to hesitate to secure as the adviser of such Committee one of the very first lawyers who could be found not already on the Bench. This arrangement would give far more time for the consideration of the new matter submitted. The Committee would report how far the Bill differed in effect from the Acts proposed to be consolidated, and his suggestion was, that no amendment should be allowed which according to the Report of the Select Committee did not so differ, except such amendments as might be consequential upon alterations made in other parts of the Bill. It had been almost invariably found that when they attempted to consolidate any great mass of law there were Courts which were inconsistent with other Courts, and many things, especially in the old laws, were altogether obsolete; and, there-fore, it was hardly possible to bring in a Consolidation Bill which had not in it some small portion of new matter. His proposal would not interfere with the right of Members of that House to introduce fresh legislation, but would only rule that the opportunity of so doing should not be taken on the introduction of a Consolidation Law, and that it should be done in a separate Bill. Hon. Members would lose little by such an arrangement, because until some such scheme was adopted by the House there would be rare opportunities of introducing Consolidation Bills at all. He thought that the Resolutions, if adopted, would provide a simple remedy for a great and increasing evil; would remove many contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherences in our legislation, diminish the bulk of that legislation, and make it more clear and understandable, and thus allay the discontent that prevailed, not only among the public, but also among the legal profession, as to the unsatisfactory state of our Statute Book. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved the first of the Resolutions of which he had given Notice.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLS, in seconding the Motion, said, he believed that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) asked the attention of the House to a subject which was well worthy of its consideration. The matter had been thoroughly thrashed out for the last 20 years; first by the Royal Commission on Statute Law Revision which was appointed in 1856, and then by a Select Committee which sat in 1868. The Commission and the Committee had both reported, Departmental memoranda had been issued, and the House had also been enlightened on this subject by the opinion of Parliamentary draftsmen and other distinguished officers who had given their time and thought to it. In an article in The Quarterly Review, attributed to the Parliamentary draftsman, it was truly said that—
  "Parliament will not consent to the passing, without complete discussion and investigation, of Consolidating Bills containing new and disputable matter mixed up with old law."
  It was, therefore, of the highest importance to devise some tribunal, Parliamentary or ex-Parliamentary, which should have the power of eliminating from Consolidation Bills all matters which were in dispute, for thus the cause which at present prevented the introduction of such Bills might be mitigated, if not altogether removed. Hon. Members now avoided Consolidation Bills, because they knew that questions which had already been thoroughly "thrashed out" might again give rise to protracted discussions. He did not say that the proposal of the hon. Member for Liver-pool was one which the House was bound to adopt, although it involved the principle of the very tribunal he referred to, as being required to correct an evil, to which the Judges had over and over again called attention, as the had also done to the mischief which resulted from the confused way in which the law was now consolidated. He admitted that the blame with regard to the language of our legislation was not to be thrown altogether upon the Parliamentary draftsman, and that it rested to some extent with Parliament itself for not taking measures with the view of remedying the existing state of things. He trusted that if the Government should not see fit to agree to the Resolutions which
  1702
  had been submitted to the House, they would take care that the matter formed part of the reference to the Select Committee which the Attorney General had given Notice of his intention to bring forward.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient that when any new Act is passed amending or incorporating any former Acts (other than General Clauses Acts) the new Act and the former Acts should be reprinted for the House so soon as may he, in such form as to show what parts of the said Acts respectively are in force,"—(Mr. Rathbone,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALremarked that on Friday last the House resolved to consider whether any means could be adopted to improve the manner and language of Acts of Parliament, and it would be his duty on Monday next to move the appointment of the Members of the Committee on that subject. The name of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) would be on that Committee. This was a subject which could not with advantage be discussed in detail in a full House—at any rate, not until it had undergone a greater amount of investigation than it had at present received, either by the Royal Commission of 1856 or the Select Committee of 1868. The Resolutions pointed to two things—one, the Amending Bill, and the other the Consolidation Bill. With regard to the last, the consolidation of Acts of Parliament had been under the serious consideration of the Government for some time past. A correspondence upon it had passed between the Lord Chancellor and the Committee for the revision of the Statutes, and within a short time Papers upon the subject would be placed upon the Table of the House. Under those circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Liverpool would feel content for the present with having called attention to the matter, and that as it would shortly come before the Committee, he would withdraw the Resolutions.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, that after the explanation of the hon. and learned

  1703
  Attorney General he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

IRELAND—INCIDENCE OF IMPERIAL TAXATION.—RESOLUTION.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, in rising to call the attention of the House to the unequal incidence of Imperial taxation upon Ireland, and to move—
"That the complaints which have been made that the Imperial Taxation of the United Kingdom presses more severely on Ireland than on Great Britain, and extracts a greater revenue from Ireland in proportion to her actual means, are worthy of the early consideration of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the adoption of measures for the equitable distribution of the pressure of taxation, so that each of the Countries constituting the United Kingdom shall contribute to the Imperial revenue in proportion to its actual means,"
said, he would ask the indulgence of the House, whilst he explained the grounds on which he ventured to submit for their adoption, the Resolution of which he had given Notice. He was quite aware that there was very little beyond forbearance to be expected by a non-official Member of the House, who brought financial subjects under its notice, unless he made it quite clear that the case he had to submit at least required investigation. He ventured to say no hon. Member was less disposed than himself to discuss crude theories of finance in that House or elsewhere, nor was there anyone who would more scrupulously avoid their introduction. He, therefore, pledged himself from the first, that he would not adduce any argument which he had not seriously considered, nor refer to any statistical Returns which he had not weighed and analyzed. Hon. Members for Irish constituencies, who sat on the benches near him, were reproached, not unfrequently, that they did not submit in some tangible shape to Parliament, such measures as their country required. The Home Rule Members were also twitted, because they did not explain in what respect, apart from what was assumed to be a sentimental grievance, Ireland was worse off than England; and because they did not point out adequate remedies other than Home Rule for Irish discontent, it was assumed in that House and in the Press that there was in reality no solid grievance which Ireland had to complain of or to
1704
redress. There was a certain influence, ingenious and active, which conduced very much to that temper of the public mind, if he might so term it. It arose from a certain propagation, which had gone on for years under the auspices of Dublin Castle—a certain dissemination, perhaps, he had better term it, of plausible but illusory evidences of Irish prosperity and progress. He did not for a moment assert or suggest that the authorities at Dublin Castle, under the present or under the late Government, disseminated false information. He was quite sure they did nothing of the kind; but what he asserted amounted to this—that it had been the system to adduce and group certain statistics as evidences of the prosperity of Ireland, whilst certain other statistical items to which he would refer before he sat down, were kept out of view and utterly lost sight of, although these other items were absolutely necessary to be taken into account in any true estimate of the condition of Ireland or of its actual or relative progress in our times. He would illustrate that in a single instance. One item of Irish statistics which had been prominently adduced on some grave and several festive occasions as incontestable evidence of actual progress was, the increase which had taken place since 1841 in the deposits in Irish joint-stock banks. These deposits increased from £6,000,000 in 1841 to £26,000,000 in 1871, and he agreed that such an increase might fairly be taken into account in any estimate of the condition of Ireland in 1871, as compared to that of 1841. But he had to observe, that to the extent to which these deposits might be made up of capital shifted from other investments, whether financial investments or agricultural enterprise, or produce of any kind, or farm stock, they did not represent any addition whatever to the actual wealth of the community; and as they were largely represented by debts due to these banks from individuals and classes in Ireland who were not indebted in 1848, it was to be presumed that the debtors, for the most part, held visible property against their indebtedness, and, therefore, this property was viewed under other heads. He did not assert, however, that actual progress had not been made in the accumulation of capital; and for the purposes of his argument on that occasion, he was willing that the

1705
increase of capital should be accounted as £50,000,000 in the money values of all items of Irish property. But here again he should observe that the increase of the money, values of stock in hand, or floating capital, did not denote of necessity an increase of actual annual profit to the community in which it occurred. The herd of cattle which one year fetched £20 per head, was not a more valuable item to the community as a whole than a similar herd in another year, which might only command a market price of £15. He would, however, pass quickly over all that, he would pass from arguments, which abounded in conjecture and were subject to a multiplicity of conditions and provisoes, to the analysis of Returns which dealt with ascertained results. He had referred to what he might term the Dublin Castle Statistics, merely that he might assure the House that he had fully considered them. They were not in any moral sense false, but they were insufficient data, and were consequently calculated to mislead, and did mislead, the public, and to some extent the official mind, when they were adduced to justify or to mystify the enormous increase in the amount of Imperial taxation levied off Ireland. For the purpose of his argument, justifying the Resolution he had to move, he was saved from all necessity of disputing the fact of some increase, or of disputing the degree of increase to the wealth of certain classes in Ireland. He did not indulge in sensational rhetoric. He had no interest in disputing, and did not dispute, that in some respects Ireland had progressed in material resources since 1841; but whilst he made that admission with pleasure, he did not apprehend that any hon. Gentleman would contend that Ireland had progressed since 1841 in material resources and in the consequent ability to bear taxation in a greater ratio than Great Britain had progressed within the same period; and if no such contention could be set up, there remained, as he would shortly show to the House, no possible logical ground on which the financial policy which had been applied to Ireland since 1841, could be defended. He did not need to enter upon the wearying task of reading to the House the statistics of Great Britain or of Ireland for the last 30 years. There were ready means at hand to supply information as to the actual and relative conditions of
1706
both countries, and their present actual and relative abilities to pay taxes. He would now refer to the Income Tax Returns for the year ended 5th April, 1872, which hon. Members would find very conveniently set forth for Great Britain and Ireland at Page 739 of Thorn's Irish Almanac for 1875. By those Returns it was shown that the incomes under all heads, subject to income tax, amounted for Great Britain to £455,765,610, and for Ireland to £26,572,707. Hon. Members could easily test those figures; and if they did so, they would find that he was taking up no uncertain ground, when he said that it was fully proved by those Returns that the incomes of Great Britain exceeded those of Ireland seventeenfold; and it was no rash deduction from that fact to say, that the tax-paying abilities of the inhabitants of Great Britain exceeded those of the inhabitants of Ireland in the ratio of 17 to 1. Now in view of those facts, concerning which, he ventured to say, there could be no dispute, he would call the attention of that House to the further fact that the contribution of Ireland to the Imperial Revenue in place of being equal to a seventeenth only of the contribution of Great Britain was nearly to a fraction equal to one-eighth. He held in his hand a Return to an Order of the House, granted on his (Sir Joseph M'Kenna's) Motion of 1st May last, which set forth—
"The gross revenue of Ireland derived from taxation, and excluding casual and miscellaneous receipts, post office and telegraph receipts, Crown Lands, and fees in Courts of Justice taken in stamps, for the years 1841,1851,1861, and 1871, and of the population of Ireland in those years, and a computation of the amount of such revenue in respect to each head of the population;"
and a like Return in respect to the revenue and population of Great Britain for the same years. He ventured to say that those Returns disclosed on their face and as a whole, a system of constant and progressive financial injustice to Ireland such as no people who understood the subject could submit to with patience, and such as no country could suffer without injury. Those Returns showed that whilst the taxation per head on the population of Great Britain had been reduced from £2 9s. 9d. in 1841 to £2 4s.1d. in 1871, the taxation per head on the much poorer population of Ireland had been raised from 9s. 6d. per

1707
head in 1841 to £1 6s. 2d. per head in 1871—that was to say—side by side with an actual reduction of 10 per cent per head in Great Britain the taxation per head in Ireland had been nearly trebled. But how had all that come to pass? "What were the imposts that had squeezed all that money out of so poor a population? To which of them did he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) take exception? He objected to the excessive total which was raised off Ireland—augmented he was bound to admit by taxes which were chiefly imposed at the instance of so called Liberal Governments; but it certainly was not their financial policy towards Ireland which had entitled them to that honourable designation. If he was asked to specify any tax or class of taxes which pressed most unfairly on Ireland, he would specify the taxes on alcoholic liquors of all kinds. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not misunderstand him. He did not complain of there being a tax, nor even a high tax, on alcoholic liquors; but he objected to the inequality of the scale which had been enacted of late years. He objected to the increase of the duty on Irish spirits from 2s. 10 d. the gallon in 1841, to 10 s. in 1871, whilst the duties on malt, and on all the alcoholic liquors which were most in use in England had been enormously reduced within the same period. He ventured to say that there was no instance on the face of the earth, nor in history, of any such overwhelming increase of a single tax on any people as the increase of the amount levied for spirit duties off the unfortunate Irish people between 1841 and 1871. The Return of 7th of August last, which he held in his hand, showed that the tax levied off Ireland under that head alone had been raised from £964,091 in 1841, to £3,469,031 in 1871—an increase of £2,500,000 a-year in that single impost. It was scarcely a figure of speech to say that since 1841—or he would take a later date to mark the epoch and say since the Famine of 1846—the British Finance Minister had caught the unhappy Irish people by the throat, and wrung from them sums which, were they not vouched by the Returns to that House, would seem to all men as incredible as to him they appeared exorbitant and unjust. He did not wish to mix up in this discussion the consideration of questions of
1708
finance and the subject of temperance; but he could not wholly avoid anticipating those who would reply that grievous as the tax might seem, it was not so great an evil as intemperance, and who would add that any law which prevented or even obstructed the consumption of alcohol, should be defended; but to those philanthropists he answered that those Returns showed that the enormous duty had neither prevented nor diminished the consumption. Any hon. Member who would take the trouble of examining the Returns to the House would find that the consumption per head had increased, not diminished, since 1841. The effect of the law had been to render the poor poorer than they would otherwise have been. It was, he ventured to think, because the Irish were worse fed and worse clad than the people of England quite as much owing to the humidity of the climate, that the Irish preferred spirits to beer or porter or strong ale. He was not defending their taste when he testified to the injustice of the tax, and the irregularity and unfairness of its pressure as against the poorer people. The consumption of spirits in England was no doubt considerable; but ale and every species of brewed liquors and wines of all kinds were nevertheless her chief alcoholic drinks. He would now call the attention of the House to the scale of taxation applied to these liquors having reference to their alcoholic strength. Spanish and Portuguese wines paid a duty which was equivalent on every gallon of proof spirits they contained to 6s. a gallon. French wines paid a duty equivalent to a spirit duty of 4s. a gallon, and the consumers of ale, porter, and beer paid a duty equivalent to 2s. a gallon. He anticipated the trite answer, which was no argument however, that the English paid the same duty on whiskey, and the other spirits which they consumed as the Irish, and that the Irish might consume wine or beer which paid a lower duty than whiskey if they chose to do so; but choice was not wholly under the control of the will; they preferred the whiskey—their dietary and their climate rendered whiskey more suitable to them, or at any rate more acceptable, and that almost universal preference had rendered the injustice an easy one to execute. Short and simple as were the Returns

1709
in his hands, they exhibited what he ventured to describe as a positively shocking state of things. They showed that the gross taxation of Ireland had been increased 75 percent since 1841, in face of a diminution of the population; whilst the gross taxation of Great Britain had been increased 22 per cent only. And those two conditions of increased taxation and diminished population had worked out an actual increase of nearly 200 per cent in the taxation borne by each head of the population of Ireland; whilst the increase of population in Great Britain had not only counterbalanced the increased amount of taxation, but had worked out, as those Returns would show, a positive reduction of 10 per cent in the taxation per head on the population of Great Britain. Hon. Gentlemen were, probably, surprised that Ireland was not content with the blessings of the British Constitution, her discontent, they said, took an irrational turn, she called out for Home Rule, she did not, they assumed, know what was the matter with her—her griefs were imaginary. Well, she might not fully understand it; but he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was under no delusion upon the subject. The cry for Home Rule was the call of a people for a just and paternal government. At present, the resources of Ireland—perhaps he would more accurately express it, her annual yield of profit, was disproportionately, inordinately, and, he submitted, unjustly carried off by the Imperial tax-gatherer. Ireland suffered from fiscal injustice, as who would gainsay who reflected that with a population reduced since 1841 from 8,000,000 to 5,000,000, she had to pay £3,000,000 a-year of additional taxation. That sum represented an additional annual burden on Ireland heavier relatively than the annual charge on France consequent on the Prussian War Indemnity—for France had not been mulcted so as to make up an annual charge of five times £3,000,000, and France was seven times more populous than Ireland, and 30 times as rich. However statesmen or political doctors might differ as to the remedy for her complaint, the diagnosis to his mind was clear enough. A country which had to pay in a single tax an annual sum more than equal to a fourth of her valuation rental—and almost equal to the sum total of all the other taxes raised from her on the high
1710
scale of British taxation—and which received no return of any kind for the impost, except permission to consume the produce of her own soil, could never be otherwise than discontented and disaffected. What would have been said to any British Minister in England who, since 1841, had endeavoured to impose an income tax, or any other tax equivalent to an income tax, of 2s. in the pound on the entire income of Great Britain, under all the Schedules? But let him tell hon. Gentlemen that Parliament, under the sanction chiefly, he would admit, of Liberal Governments, had, since 1841, imposed additional Imperial taxes on Ireland to a greater amount than what a charge of 2s. in the pound on her total income, under all the Schedules, would produce. Let him also tell Hon. Gentlemen, who would try to meet the case he put to them by leading forth columns of statistics, brigaded by Dr. Neilson Hancock, of Dublin; that Dr. Hancock's statistics were utterly irrelevant to the issues which he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) now raised. The fair and common measure of the tax-paying power of both countries, under equal pressure, would be found in the amounts of their respective incomes under all the Schedules. The respective totals of the incomes of £100 and upwards for each island might be fairly taken as the measures of the respective abilities of Great Britain and Ireland to pay taxes. These proportions were £455,750,000 for Great Britain, and £26,500,000 for Ireland; but on examination of the proportion of taxes raised, it was found that Great Britain was made to yield £57,000,000 and Ireland to yield £7,000,000; and on examination of the proportion of taxation to income for Great Britain it was found to amount to 2s. 6d. in the pound and no more, whilst the proportion of Imperial taxation paid by Ireland was equal to 5s. 3d. in the pound. These figures carried to his mind, and impressed him with a sense of injustice more forcibly than any language at his command could convey to others. He confidently maintained that it would be impossible to find an instance of any country in the world, other than Ireland, made to pay by a single tax, an annual sum more than equal to a fourth of the annual value of all the houses and lands in the country—but that was the case with Ireland. He also confidently asserted, that there

1711
was no country in Europe, where so large a proportion of the total income of the country was taken up in taxes irrespective of those spirit duties as in Ireland. He had now but few words more to say, and these he offered to the House in loyalty and good faith. If the British Parliament desired that the power, which the Act of Union conferred upon Great Britain, of levying taxes off Ireland, should not be used for the wrong and oppression of that country—and he did believe that Parliament so desired—that House would apply itself, and Her Majesty's Ministers would apply them-selves, as early as possible, to the adjustment of the pressure of taxation, so that Ireland should contribute her fair quota—and no more—to the Imperial Exchequer. He would thank the House for the great indulgence and consideration it had shown him whilst dealing with a subject by no means attractive, and would conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
MR. BUTTseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the complaints which have been made that the Imperial Taxation of the United Kingdom presses more severely on Ireland than on Great Britain, and extracts a greater revenue from Ireland in proportion to her actual means, are worthy of the early consideration of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the adoption of measures for the equitable distribution of the pressure of taxation, so that each of the Countries constituting the United Kingdom shall contribute to the Imperial Revenue in proportion to its actual means,"—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna,)
—instead thereof.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there were no kind of complaints which more frequently reached the ears of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than those relating to the inequality of the incidence of taxation. Since he had the honour of holding his present office, it had fallen to his lot to have a great many representations made to him on the part of different classes and interests to the effect that they were unequally taxed. Such representations had been made to him on the part of different professions and trades, of the landed interest, the possessors of life incomes, and so forth; while he had also been in the habit of hearing it said that the consumers of taxable articles paid an undue
1712
share of the public burdens. He was not, under those circumstances, surprised that complaints of the same kind should come from one particular portion of the United Kingdom; and he might say that the example set by the hon. Member for Youghal had been followed, indeed, he might say preceded by Representatives of other portions of Great Britain. There would, indeed, in his opinion, be very little difficulty in making out a case with respect to many portions of England itself, if the House were to adopt the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman, that the true test of the burden of taxation was the ratio which the income of one part of the country bore to another. But it was impossible to enter into a question of that kind on the present occasion. He was not going to argue the question on what the hon. Gentleman called "Dublin Castle Statistics," and of which he said that they might, in a certain sense, be true, but that they were irrelevant. That was a remark which he thought was true; but it equally applied to the great mass of statistics which the hon. Gentleman had laid before the House. He was not about to go minutely into those statistics, or to endeavour to find out where they might fairly be challenged; but he maintained that they were to a great extent wide of the point, and that the question must be looked at in a different way if the House desired to get at the truth. The subject to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention was, no doubt, one which was worthy of the consideration of the Government, for it was desirable that they should at all times be prepared to review the taxation of the country in order to ascertain, as far as possible, whether taxation did or did not press unfairly on any one class in the country. The subject was one which, however, had not escaped the attention of the Government. Some 10 years ago a Committee had been appointed by the House, which sat two Sessions, and which went very minutely into the circumstances of the taxation of Great Britain and Ireland. On that Committee, which was presided over by his right hon. and gallant Friend General Dunne, who at that time was a Member of the House, he had the honour to serve. He knew, he might add, no man who was more anxious that the case should be fairly considered than

1713
his right ton. and gallant Friend; nor did the Committee spare any pains or labour to get at the truth. Well, if the state of Ireland at that time was compared with its present condition, it would be found, he thought, that she had not been going back, but that, on the contrary, she had greatly improved. How was that improvement to be accounted for? and how was it consistent with the great oppression which as it was asserted had been practised towards Ireland in the matter of taxation? The hon. Gentleman said—"Look what enormous burdens you are laying upon her; I can only compare them with the burdens imposed on Prance by Prussia." That was, however, a comparison which he did not think the hon. Gentleman would persevere in on reflection. What was that taxation which was a burden imposed on France? It was a burden laid upon her not at all for her own benefit, but for the benefit of a foreign country, and it represented money extracted from France and sent to Germany. But did the hon. Gentleman mean to compare the money raised by the Imperial taxation, which fell both on Ireland and England, with taxation levied for the purpose of sending money to a foreign country? ["Hear, hear!"] Did hon. Gentlemen who cheered that statement think the case was parallel with that of Ireland? He was not altogether unprepared for that view of the case; but if they wished to look at the matter fairly, they must consider whether Ireland did not receive her share of benefit from the money which was taken from her in the shape of Imperial taxation. [Mr. JOHN MARTIN: No, no!] What, then, he should like to know, became of the money? It was spent for Imperial purposes, and it remained for the hon. Gentleman to show that those were purposes in which Ireland had no concern. If the money was spent for purposes which were exclusively advantageous to England, there might be something said for the comparison drawn by the hon. Gentleman, but such was not the case; for if the matter was looked fairly in the face, it would be found that Ireland got not only her share of Imperial, but also a large amount in the shape of subvention to her local expenditure. Without going minutely into the matter, he might mention that whereas the taxation
1714
of Ireland had in proportion to that of England might be put at 12 to 100, the proportion of the subventions to the local expenditure of the former as compared with those to local expenditure of En gland was as 100 to 80. That was a fact which the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind, and which made a very material difference, if he wished to establish a comparison between the taxation of France for the benefit of Germany and that of Ireland for the benefit of the British Empire. But the hon. Gentleman went on to devote a great portion of his speech to the discussion of the question of the spirit duties, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not altogether disposed to deny the force of some of his remarks on that subject. He should like, however, to ask whether the whole of the money set down in the Returns before him as derived from Ireland as a tax on spirits was really paid in that country? Did the hon. Gentleman mean to contend that the whole of the home-made spirits in Ireland was consumed there, or did he make no allowance for the quantity which was consumed in the United Kingdom? If Ireland paid so large a sum as was said in the shape of duty, he would merely observe that the Irish people were not compelled to drink spirits, and that they drank them because they liked them. Therefore, the fact that a much larger proportion of Revenue came from that source was a proof that the circumstances of the Irish people were improving, and that they were better able to indulge themselves in those and similar luxuries. When, at the end of the year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated what the Revenue of the country had been, and that the proportion derived from the Excise and the Customs was so and so, and had largely increased, the inference generally drawn—and he thought correctly drawn—from that fact was, that the people must be in a prosperous condition, because they were able to contribute so largely to the Revenue. Well, that argument might be applied to Ireland. He did not say that it held equally good when the increase merely came from raising the duty; but when the duty had been raised, and the consumption still went on increasing, and a greater Revenue was thus produced, that fact, undoubtedly, as far as it went, strengthened the inference that the

1715
prosperity of the country was also increasing. When the hon. Gentleman said that the true test of the proper proportion of taxation between the two countries was the ratio between the aggregate income of the one to the other, was he not considering a very different system of taxation from that which existed in this country? [Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA: I think not.] If they had such a state of things now as they had immediately after the Union, when the Exchequers of the two countries were kept separate, and they attempted to regulate the proportions which each should pay to the joint expenditure, then, no doubt, they must have had recourse to such means as were at their command for ascertaining what amount they should assess on the one country and what amount on the other. If they came forward every year and said they wanted to raise £70,000,000 of taxation, and told England to provide so much, Ireland so much, and Scotland so much, then they would have to take into account those questions which the hon. Gentleman raised as to the aggregate income of those countries respectively. But that was not the system they went upon, or intended to go upon. What they said was—"Here are the taxes which, with some exceptions, are laid on the whole of the Empire, and when they are borne in a different ratio by each part of the country it is not by any arbitrary rule laid down by Parliament or by the Government, but by the self-acting rule of the state of the different parts of the country and their means of paying them." They might roughly divide the taxation of the United Kingdom into two classes—first, there was the taxation which fell on property and income, and where the property or income was large, the revenue derived from it would of course be large in proportion. Second, there were the taxes on articles of consumption; and they would be productive or otherwise according to the means of the consumer to consume those articles. Now, if they were to lay on one portion of the United Kingdom a different rate of income tax from that laid on other portions, undoubtedly they would be placing a burden on that particular portion of the country. If they said that where the one was to pay 2d. in the pound the other should pay 3d.; or where the
1716
one was to pay 2d. the other should not pay anything at all, no doubt that distinction would be an arbitrary one. But if they said that the whole country should pay a 2d. income tax, it could not be said that one part of the country was taxed more heavily than another, if the system of assessment was the same. Well, as between Great Britain and Ireland the system of assessment, if it differed at all, was all in favour of Ireland. He did not make much of that point, because he might be challenged as to what the amount of that difference was; but he might say that if the question was to be settled by Dublin Castle statistics, the amount would be very large. He should say, generally, that, in regard to landed property in Ireland, the principle of levying on the rateable value, instead of on the gross, was a great advantage, while, again, a double advantage was given to the tenant from the mode in which he was assessed under Schedule B. Therefore, the distinction that was made was in favour of Ireland. Then, with regard to other taxes, it was true there was some distinction between different parts of the Kingdom, but it was also in favour of Ireland. Certainly, of late years that distinction had been done away with to a great extent, and Ireland, in consequence, was brought to contribute more equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. It was by a self-acting test that they found what one part of the country and what another part should pay as regarded the great bulk of the Revenue. There were, however, still considerable items of taxation which applied to England and not to Ireland. Among these were the inhabited house duty, the establishment taxes, the railway duty, and he thought some other duties, which were still imposed on England and Scotland, but not on Ireland. Therefore, they were not treating Ireland with rigour. On the contrary, in adopting the system that was thought best for the whole of the Empire—a system which was, to a certain extent, and which was intended as nearly as possible to be selfacting, they had given relaxations to Ireland in consideration of matters which it was not now necessary to enter into. If it were true that since 1841 the taxation of Ireland had been more and more increasing in proportion to that of England, that was due to the fact that

1717
before that time Ireland was exempted to a much larger degree than at present she was from taxes which were paid in Great Britain; and the only question was, whether, she having had the benefit of that exemption so very long, they were not to come to the time when they should call on Ireland to bear her fair share of the burdens of the Empire, as was always contemplated at the time of the Union. ["No, no!"] He said it was always contemplated at the time of the Union that the period would probably arrive when it would be possible to lay a general system of taxation on the whole of the United Kingdom. But he admitted that the terms of the Union contemplated relaxations to meet the peculiar wants and circumstances of Ireland. Those relaxations had been made, and made most abundantly, and those parts of the country had severally had the benefit of them, and the case of the Government was, that the time had at last come when Ireland had arrived at that point of prosperity at which she was quite able to bear, at all events, the share which she was now called on to pay towards the expenses of the Empire. He would only say, then, in conclusion, that they rested their case on this: That there was no tax imposed on Ireland that was not also imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom; that there were taxes imposed on other portions of the United Kingdom which were not imposed on Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the relative productiveness of taxes in different parts of the United Kingdom, that was a matter which they could not regulate, because it was, in fact, self-regulating and self-acting. If it was said that in consequence of their raising so much of their revenue by taxation on articles of consumption, they bore heavily on the consumers of those articles—he meant in proportion to the charges on property—that was an argument which applied not to Ireland alone, but to the whole United Kingdom, and which must be considered on its own grounds. And lastly, when they considered that of Imperial taxation as now raised, Ireland got her full share and somewhat more, he thought the House could hardly be expected to entertain the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member asked them to inquire into the incidence of taxation with a view to
1718
its equitable distribution, so that each of the countries constituting the United Kingdom should contribute to the Imperial Revenue in proportion to its actual means. He said, that if they were to make such an inquiry, and they were in that inquiry to take into account, as they would be bound to do, the mode in which local taxation was levied in comparison with that of the other parts of the Empire, and also the special distinctions still existing as between one part of the Empire and another, they must come to the conclusion that Ireland, instead of being a gainer, would be much more likely to be a loser by the adoption of the principle for which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Youghal contended.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, the House had probably for 20 years not listened to a more important speech on the condition of Ireland than that which had been made that evening by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). It was much to be regretted that during the delivery of that speech, in which it was essential that the hon. Gentleman should have dealt with the acts of a previous and recent Administration, the front Opposition bench had been conspicuous by its emptiness. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid great stress on the statement naturally and frankly made by the hon. Member for Youghal, that Ireland had made some advance in material progress; and the right hon. Gentleman sought to make capital out of that fair and truthful assertion, and asked how Ireland could be oppressed when even a Home Rule Member admitted that she had grown to some extent? He could only say of that threadbare and well worn argument, that it reminded him of that which was used by the baby-farmers, who referred to the fact of a child's growing, in proof of the excellent treatment it received. A child might increase a pound and a-half in weight in two years, and that small increase might itself be the result of cruel treatment. The question, however, was not whether Ireland had grown in the lapse of years, but whether her growth had been the normal and average growth she would display if she were well managed and well governed. The right hon. Gentleman evaded that point, he had shut his eyes to the striking contrast between

1719
the growth of England and that of Ireland, and unable to grapple with the very serious statements which had been made, had dexterously sought to evade them altogether. Of all men in the House, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the man to be able to give them a "Yea" on the question, if he could not give them a "Nay." What were the broad facts of the question? Was it not proved by the solemn evidence of a Parliamentary Return, that, whereas in England between 1841 and 1871, the pressure of taxation upon the English people per head had decreased 10 per cent. in the case of the Irish people it had increased from 9s. 6d. to 26 s. 2d? No attempt had been made by the right hon. Gentleman to controvert that statement. There was, moreover, a Return which showed that the pressure of taxation in England upon the income of the community was exactly 2s. 6d. in the pound, while in Ireland it was no less than 5s. 3d. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed them, and English Members had cheered him as if their consciences were greatly relieved by the argument—"We pay taxes in England that are unknown in Ireland." ["Hear, hear!"] Would the hon. Member who cried "Hear, hear," say whether those taxes were not included in the 2s. 6d. in the pound which was paid in England, while the Irish taxes came to 5s. 3d? When that test was applied, what became of the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The right hon. Gentleman had said—"In these matters we can take no special note of any particular portion of the Kingdom. We lay down a system of taxation which is self acting, and if it bears unequally on any portion of the Kingdom, that is the misfortune of that portion, not our fault." Surely, that was a powerful argument in favour of Home Rule. What Henry Grattan and the Plunkets had foretold in the Irish Parliament was now fulfilled. They had shown that an incorporation with England would attract the wealth of Ireland to the greater wealth of England, and deplete the former country instead of causing her to prosper. They had foretold that whereas under her own Parliament Ireland had had a comparatively light taxation, if she joined in one system with England she, the poorer country, would stagger
1720
under a weight which was as a feather on the shoulders of the wealthier people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now shown that that was the case, but he had said in excuse—" Ireland is so many shires in the United Kingdom, and we can take no more special note of it than we can take of Lancashire or Yorkshire." Upon that confession, what had Ireland gained by union with England? It would go forth to the Irish people, on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that because of the union they had to pay 5s. 3d. in the pound, instead of 2s., as in earlier days. Some English Member would perhaps argue—" It is all quite fair, for we don't levy upon you any tax which we do not ourselves bear." But that was a sophism. Taxes might be levied over a wide area of Empire which would have a specific effect upon one country and in no way touch another. If, for example, a law was passed prohibiting the growth of peat turf throughout the Empire, theoretically it would apply in the same way to England and Ireland, but practically it would affect the latter only. It was inevitable that a country should look upon this question as a whole and endeavour to strike a balance, in order to find out the net profit or the net loss. Doing that, Ireland found that about £150,000,000 had been wrung from her in taxation within the last 50 or 60 years which she would not have had to pay but for the union with England. Dr. Johnson once spoke of it as the "union of the shark with its prey." [An hon. MEMBER: It was Byron.] Yes, it was Byron. Dr. Johnson, however, said something still more severe. "Don't unite with us," said he, "or we shall rob you as we robbed the Scotch." But when Ireland was concerned, no matter whether it was financial, political, municipal, or the county franchise question, they were always taunted with the one argument—"Oh, that is nothing; why do you not select something practical? "He contended that nothing could be more practical than this question. Why the question of the sovereign was more practical than the almighty dollar. The taunt reminded him of the man who exclaimed, as he applied the lash to the back of a restless victim—" Whether I cut high or cut low, you are always complaining." Before the English community at the tribunal of public opinion,

1721
he would say that if there was any feature in the Irish case that could awaken English public opinion to the solid foundation there was for the Irish impeachment of the Union, it was to he found in the speech of the hon. Member for Youghal and in the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which afforded ample proof of the justice of the tremendous series of startling forebodings uttered by Grattan, Curran, Plunket, Bushe, and Flood, in which they warned Ireland against incorporation with England as an act which would bring upon the former country all the burdens of the wealth of the latter without its sharing in the advantages which that wealth ought to confer.
MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sullivan) with much satisfaction, because, as a Scotchman, he sympathized with the complaint of the Irishmen that their whiskey, which was their national beverage, was too heavily taxed, and he only regretted that the claims of Scotland upon the point had not also been brought before the House at the same time. It was a pity that the hon. Member had not stated distinctly how he proposed that the injustice should be remedied, because if he proposed to meet the case by lowering the duty upon the alcohol in Irish whiskey to the scale of that which was imposed upon alcohol in wine and beer in this country, he could assure the hon. Member that he would not have the support of Englishmen or Scotchmen, or even of his own countrymen. No one wished that the duty upon alcohol in whiskey should be lowered—all they desired was that justice might be done, and that the national beverages of England should be taxed at the same rate as those of Scotland and of Ireland were—according to the amount of alcohol these beverages contained. In his opinion, both Scotland and Ireland suffered great injustice from the manner in which beer was taxed, as the following figures would show. The annual consumption of proof spirits per head by the population in England was 6¾gallons, in Scotland 4½ gallons, and in Ireland 3 gallons. In 1863 the quantity of proof spirits consumed in England was 5 gallons per head of the population, in Scotland 3 gallons, and in Ireland 1¾ gallon; and the increase between that date and 1873
1722
was in England 27 per cent. in Scotland 50 per cent. and in Ireland 59 per cent. The amount of duty on alcohol in beer, wine, and spirits paid annually by the English population per head was 17 s. 5d.; by the Scotch, 26 s. 6d.; and by the Irish, 17 s. 10 d.; whereas, if the English, Scotch, and Irish were made to pay duty on the alcohol they consumed in wine and beer at the same rate as the alcohol in whiskey was taxed, the English would have to pay 66 s. 11 d. per head, the Scotch 45 s. 9d. per head, and the Irish 29 s. 1d. per head. Under the present system, the Scotch and Irish people were told that they must not consult their own taste in the beverage they drank, and that they were not to take that which they believed to be best for their own health, unless they chose to pay a far higher duty upon it than the people of England had to pay on their national beverage. He heartily approved the object the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had in view in inviting the attention of Parliament to the heavy taxation of Scotland and Ireland as regarded their national beverages, with a view to future legislation; but, at the same time, if the hon. Member would not consent to withdraw his Resolution, he should be obliged to vote against it because he was sure that the people of England, Ireland, and Scotland would never be parties to lowering the duty upon alcohol in any form.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that as he was the only Representative from an Irish constituency now in Parliament who had sat on the Committee whose Report the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to, he desired to say a few words on this subject. He quite agreed with the line of argument that had been adopted by the last speaker. Although there was nominally equality of taxation as between Ireland and England on the two great articles of beer and whiskey, yet in reality there was no such equality, because the taxation on the alcohol in the two beverages was very different. He agreed with the hon. Member who had spoken last, that very few Irish Members would vote for a reduction of the tax upon whiskey, because they believed that that would lead to far greater evils than the tax itself; but what they were entitled to claim was that a similar

1723
amount of taxation should be placed upon the national Leverages in England which corresponded to whiskey in Ireland, and if that were done, he believed that an enormous increase would come into the purse of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same time, looking at the result of the last General Election, he feared it was very unlikely that a proposal of that sort would meet with the approval of a majority of the House, because one of the most powerful interests of the country would be opposed to it, although if it were left to Irish Representatives, he believed it would soon become law. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) seemed in doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the fact that taxation in its existing form pressed more heavily upon Ireland than it did upon England, the respective resources of the two countries being taken into consideration. He would, therefore, refer to one of the draft Reports presented to the Committee, which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—
"It is not surprising," the Report stated, "that the large increase in the general taxation of the country should have given rise to complaints, and that louder complaints should have been made by Ireland than Try other parts of the United Kingdom.…. The pressure of taxation will be felt most by the weakest part of the community, and as the average wealth of the Irish taxpayer is less than the average wealth of the English taxpayer, the ability of Ireland to pay taxation is evidently less than that of England. Mr. Senior remarks that the taxation of England is both the heaviest and lightest in Europe—the heaviest as regards the amount raised, the lightest as regards the ability to bear that amount, and that in the case of Ireland it is heavy both as regards the amount and the ability of the contributor, and he adds that England is the most lightly taxed, and Ireland the most heavily taxed country in Europe, although both are nominally liable to equal taxation."
That draft Report was not his Report, but was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: Will the hon. Gentleman read the following paragraph?
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, the next paragraph stated that complaints had been made by the several witnesses examined, to the effect that Ireland had been suffering, especially during the last four or five years, from a diminution of capital, or from emigration.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUER: What I meant to call attention to was the paragraph immediately following that, showing that the same argument applied to the poorer parts of England.
THE O'CONOR DONcould assure the right hon. Gentleman he did not intend in any degree to misrepresent him. In the paragraph to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he stated that it was clear, from what Mr. Senior had said, that that which applied to Ireland applied to the poor parts of Great Britain also; that no system of taxation had ever been devised which pressed equally upon all persons; and that if it were recognized as a sound principle that we should attempt to graduate a tax which pressed upon one part of the United Kingdom, so as to relieve it of some burdens on the ground of poverty, it was impossible to resist the conclusion that we should carry the graduation further, for the purpose of relieving individual taxpayers all over the United Kingdom. He had merely referred to the Report, to show that the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the fact that the present system of Imperial taxation fell more heavily upon Ireland, than upon other parts of the United Kingdom. The simple mode of restoring the balance was that suggested by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing). While he joined in the wish expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Motion would not be pressed to a division, he could not but think that the debate would be attended with beneficial results. It would show hon. Members who were fond of taunting Irish Representatives when asking for aid for works of utility in Ireland, that they did not come as beggars to apply for that to which they were not entitled, and that the right hon. Gentleman who now presided over the finances of the country, having examined the subject carefully in Committee upstairs for two years, had come to the same conclusion as that which was the mainspring of the Motion of the hon. Member for Youghal—namely, that from whatever cause it arose, the existing system of Imperial taxation pressed more heavily on the resources of Ireland than it did on those of Great Britain.
MR. LOWEsaid, he wished to point out that which appeared to him to be

1725
evident, as one of the Members of the Committee referred to—namely, that the arguments which they had just heard rested on a very obvious and gross fallacy. Hon. Gentlemen spoke of the taxation Ireland paid, and England paid, and Scotland paid; but they did not seem to observe that in using those terms, they were using expressions which were merely abstract and metaphorical. Ireland, in fact, paid no taxation, and England paid no taxation. Taxation was not paid by geographical districts, it was paid by individuals. Hon. Gentlemen took the amount paid by the population of a country, and showed the average paid per head. That, however, was not the way to ascertain whether a country was heavily or lightly taxed. The thing they had got to show was, that individuals of one country were more heavily taxed than individuals of like means were in another country. They should compare the individual Irishman and the individual Englishman in similar circumstances, and show that the Irishman was more heavily taxed than the Englishman. That was what they had not done, and that was what he challenged them to do. He would begin with the Irish Duke, and, if necessary, he could go down to the Irish peasant, and ask them to show him any Irishman more heavily taxed than any Englishman of a corresponding class. The Irish Duke paid nothing for keeping his carriages, he paid no duty for his servants, he paid no assessed taxes. The English Duke of similar income was subject to those taxes. Again, Irish railways paid no taxes. He could, in fact, point out numbers of instances in which individual Irishmen and corporations were much less heavily taxed than were English individuals and corporations of like standing. He could show no case in which the Englishman was relieved of a tax which was levied upon the Irishman. They were, therefore, merely deluding themselves with words when they talked about the taxation of Ireland and the taxation of England. Let them go to individuals and show some case in which Irishmen groaned under the burden of taxation which Englishmen of exactly similar means escaped. The case failed entirely through the use of abstract and metaphorical language, as if a country, and not
1726
the individuals of the country, paid taxation.
MR. JOHN MARTINhoped his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would not withdraw his Motion, but would ask the House whether it referred to a subject sufficiently important to be considered with a view to a solemn opinion being expressed upon it. He (Mr. John Martin) had seen some things in the course of the debate which, as a friend of England—although he ought not to be a friend of England; he should only be a servant of his own country and indicate as far as he could the rights of his country, trying to convince the people of England through the House of Commons that the Irish, his countrymen, would never consent to remain the subjects of this country; but, as a friend of England, he had witnessed some things in the course of the debate which were of a hopeful kind. He had perceived that the consciences of some Englishmen were beginning to be touched. He had watched how eagerly they hung upon the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeking for some apology, some excuse, some explanation—anything that would satisfy them that it might be just to tax the people of one country 5s. 3d. in the pound, and of their own country 2s. 6d. only. There was another reason why the inquiry asked for should be granted, and it was this—that the right hon. Gentleman had said—and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer had reechoed his words—that, in fact, Ireland, in the matter of taxation, was unduly favoured. Now, as an Irishman, he said he did not want to be unduly favoured. His countrymen would scorn to be unduly favoured. They wanted to pay their fair and just share, and they called on the ex-Chancellor and the actual Chancellor of the Exchequer to make good their case. He hoped that the two Reports of the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred—that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the minority Report of General Dunne—would be studied by hon. Gentlemen at both sides of the House. In the proceedings of that Committee he took a deep interest, for its leading spirit had been an old and dear Friend of his, the late John Dillon. He recollected well how when that Committee was appointed, care was taken to pack it with English and pro-English

1727
Members, so as to secure a Report in favour of England.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he was satisfied with the discussion, and would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion Cries of "No, no!"]
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MARINE INSURANCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. T. BRASSEY, in rising to call attention to the evidence relating to Marine Insurance taken by the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships; and to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She will be pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of the Law, to report thereon, and to make recommendations with the view to establish the Law and practice of Insurance on the principle of indemnity for losses actually sustained,"
  said, it was a somewhat hazardous enterprise for a layman to bring to the consideration of the House a subject of so much difficulty as the law relating to Marine Insurance. A knowledge of the law was not required in order to be convinced that where great facilities existed for insuring property in ships or goods at full, and in some cases at exaggerated value, such facilities had a tendency to produce carelessness in the management of shipping, with all the attendant evils which sometimes occurred of deplorable loss of life at sea. If he could show that there was a concurrence of opinion among competent authorities in favour of considerable amendment and alteration in the law of Marine Insurance, he thought he should have done enough to justify the Motion which he proposed to make for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he wished to remind the hon. Member that he might call attention to the matter, but could not make a Motion, the House having already affirmed the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid that he could at all events show that the facility for
  1728
  insuring at the full, and sometimes at an exaggerated, value was a primary cause of carelessness and recklessness. For that purpose, he would quote some remarks made by Mr. Harper, the Secretary of Lloyd's Salvage Association, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships. Mr. Harper pointed out that the care of a ship was divided into a hundred particulars—care in the selection of a master, care in the selection of a crew, care in securing that the ship should be in a proper state of repair before leaving port; and that watch fulness was likely to be relaxed when the shipowner knew that if his vessel were lost, he would recover all the money he had invested in the ship, with, in some cases, a large profit in addition. In order to show the extent to which, under the various decisions which had been given in our Courts of Law, Marine Insurance had been allowed to exceed that strict indemnity for loss which it was originally intended to secure, it would be more convenient that he should refer to a case that had actually occurred, and which illustrated the working of the law of Marine Insurance. The case was that of the Sir William Eyre, which was brought under the notice of the Royal Commission by Mr. Cowen. That vessel sailed in 1863 from Glasgow to New Zealand. She was intended to discharge her cargo at Otago, then to proceed in ballast to Calcutta, and there to take in cargo for which a freight amounting to £4,000 was to be paid. The ship was stranded before she reached Otago, but she was temporarily repaired at the cost of the underwriters on the out-ward freight, and proceeded in ballast to Calcutta, where a further survey was made, and it was discovered that the ship was not worth repairing. She was lost shortly afterwards in the Cyclone of October, 1864. The damage which the vessel was found at Calcutta to have sustain-ed having been caused before she reached Otago, the underwriters on the policy to Otago were held liable to pay £6,000. The shipowner had insured in the sum of £4,000 the chartered freight home-wards from Calcutta; and as the ship had become a constructive total loss, the House of Lords held that the underwriters were bound to pay the £4,000. Finally, the shipowner, before he knew that his vessel had been seriously injured, had insured her in the sum of

  1729
  £8,000 by a time policy for three months after her arrival at Calcutta, and, although the ship, when insured, was a total loss, he recovered his insurance. The total sum thus recovered amounted to £18,000 on a ship valued at only £8,000 by the owners themselves. No doubt, that was an extreme case; but other cases in which underwriters were called upon to pay the shipowners a sum considerably in excess of that which was necessary to provide an indemnity were of frequent occurrence. He would now refer briefly to the various descriptions of marine policies, and point out the anomalies which arose under them. The first was the valued policy, in which the value of a ship or goods was stated on the face of the policy. It might be reasonably supposed that where the value stated was considerably in excess of the real value of the ship or goods, the Courts would refuse to sanction such over-valuation; but that was not the doctrine held in our Courts of Law. Underwriters were not allowed to set aside the value, as stated in the valued policy, except upon plea and proof of fraud. When they turned from the commercial aspect of the question to those larger considerations which had reference to the safety of life at sea, he thought hon. Members would be disposed to agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Willes, in an able Memorandum which he had written upon the subject of Marine Insurance, in which he said—
  "The system of valued policies, whatever its convenience, and it is great, does encourage fraudulently disposed people to put a high value on comparatively worthless vessels, and gives them an interest in the loss of their property."
  Mr. Justice Willes had suggested a remedy for this state of things, and it was approved by the late Mr. Lamport, Mr. Stephenson, some time secretary to Lloyd's, by Mr. Squarey, Mr. Farrer, and other authorities of equal eminence. These gentlemen agreed to adopt this recommendation—namely, that where an underwriter had reason to believe that the value in the policy was excessive, he should be allowed to plead such over-valuation as a defence to an action on the policy; and the late Mr. Lamport, a practical shipowner, gave it as his opinion that the change proposed would not lead to unnecessary litigation, and that in 99 cases out of 100 no dispute would arise; but that, on the other
  1730
  hand, shipowners when they knew that excessive valuations could not be recovered in the Courts of Law, would not be disposed to pay the premiums for insuring their vessels to excessive amounts. The next description of policy was the open policy, in which the value of the ship or goods was not stated on the face of the policy. The principal anomaly in this case arose in connection with the insurance on freight. The doctrine of our law was, that where a loss occurred the amount recoverable from the underwriter should be the gross freight payable by the shipper or merchant to the shipowner. To show how this worked in practice he would take a case put before the Commission by Mr. Farrer. A steamer of 1,200 tons bound for Calcutta and back through the Suez Canal, with a chartered freight on the outward and homeward voyage of £12,000, was insured in an open policy at the full value. Suppose the ship to be lost on the outward voyage, in the Bay of Biscay, the shipowner was entitled to recover the gross freight of £12,000, although by the loss of his ship at the commencement of her voyage he had avoided paying for Suez Canal dues both ways £1,200, for coals at Calcutta £1,600, as well as the expenses for provisions at Calcutta, wages to the crew, and port charges at Calcutta and London. The total saving by the loss of the vessel at the commencement of the voyage would thus amount to £4,500. Now, he asked whether a law could be considered satisfactory which permitted the shipowner to derive such an immense advantage, if his ship were lost almost immediately after leaving port, instead of completing the voyage for which she had been insured. The remedy suggested for removing this anomaly was this—that where a loss occurred, the underwriter should be entitled to deduct from the amount payable to the ship-owner those expenses which he had actually saved by the loss of his vessel. He knew that this rule might be defeated, if shipowners were to insist on the freight being paid by merchants in advance; for it was a rule of our law that if a ship were lost the merchant could not recover the freight he had paid in advance. But that was a doctrine peculiar to our law, and it had recently been disapproved of by the Lord Chief Justice and other Judges. It could not,

  1731
  however, be reversed in an inferior Court, until it was reversed by the House of Lords. The next class of policy was the voyage policy, in which the implied warranty of seaworthiness only existed at the commencement of the voyage. There was, therefore, in so far as the law of Marine Insurance was concerned, no motive acting upon the shipowners or the master to keep the ship in a seaworthy condition; and this anomaly seemed to him to be the more remarkable, because the voyage outward and homeward was treated as one voyage. Mr. Harper, in his evidence, stated that it had happened within his knowledge that a ship from London to Shanghai had received considerable damage on the outward voyage, had discharged her cargo at Shanghai, had not been repaired, had taken in cargo for the homeward voyage, and had set forth in such a condition that there was great risk of her foundering. She had foundered, and because there was no implied seaworthiness on the departure of the vessel from Shanghai, the underwriters had been held liable to pay the insurance to the shipowner. This anomaly of the law might be removed if there was, as he believed there was in the American law, a continued implied warranty of seaworthiness throughout the voyage. He came now to the last form of policy—a time policy. Upon that there was no implied warranty of seaworthiness. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), in his evidence, explained that it might frequently happen that when a shipowner was effecting an insurance on his ship he might not have obtained tidings of her for a considerable period, and, therefore, it would be unreasonable to ask him to give a warranty of seaworthiness. Mr. Butt, another of the witnesses who appeared before the Commission, suggested that the warranty of seaworthiness should commence at the time of the departure of the ship insured from the first port visited after the insurance was effected, where means existed for making repairs, should repairs be necessary. He would now point out the anomalous position the shipowners and the proprietors of goods respectively occupied under the operations of the rules of law relating to voyage policies and time policies. There being no implied warranty for seaworthiness under
  1732
  a time policy, the shipowner could recover even if the ship was not seaworthy. On the other hand, the proprietor of goods could only insure under a voyage policy, and therefore, although the vessel in which his goods were shipped might be unseaworthy, he could not recover. There was obvious inconsistency in this state of things. The shipowner, who had the real control over his ship, and was responsible for her equipment, could recover his insurance, even though he had neglected his duty: whereas the proprietor of goods, who was an innocent sufferer, could not recover, although he had no responsibility for the seaworthiness of the ship. The merchant had a remedy against the shipowners, but the bills of lading were so artfully contrived that the shipowner was enabled to contract himself entirely out of the obligation which would otherwise rest upon him to keep his ship in a seaworthy condition. It had been suggested, and it was well worthy of consideration, that no words introduced into the bill of lading should exonerate the shipowner from the obligation to keep his vessel in safe condition; and that the underwriter should not be held liable for loss, whether under the time or voyage policy, unless it were proved that the shipowner and shipmaster had used all reasonable efforts to make and keep the ship seaworthy. He hoped he had said enough to establish a case for inquiry, with a view to the amendment of the law. Underwriters and Insurance Companies who had the largest and most important business, conducted their affairs not so much in reliance upon the protection afforded by the law, as upon the character of those with whom they did business; and, on the other hand, underwriters in less fortunate positions were exposed to all the evil influences of excessive competition. Many of them, perhaps, were scarcely in a position to refuse to take a risk if a sufficiently tempting premium were offered. No partial measures would suffice to deal with this great question. Juries, as a rule, had been too partial to shipowners. The Royal Commission had recommended that a Judge and two Assessors should be substituted for the present tribunal for the trial of matters of this description; but what he wanted was a revision of the law by a small Commission composed

  1733
  of men eminent for their legal attainments, with whom should be associated persons conversant with the practice of Marine Insurance. The Commission also recommended a complete revision of the whole system of Insurance Law, and, in his opinion, if an international agreement could be arrived at on the subject, it would be for the advantage of the mercantile community. The law of Marine Insurance was composed of materials drawn from the custom of merchants, the Statutes of the Realm, and the decisions of able and impartial Judges, and should not be altered without the most careful consideration of the probable effect of the changes proposed in relation to the seaworthiness of our shipping. Because abuses had grown up in the law, Marine Insurance must not, on that account, be condemned. The Commissioners would have before them a task of great importance, difficulty, and delicacy. He did not urge any hasty action in this matter. He was well aware that a full inquiry was an essential preliminary to legislation, and he ventured to hope that the inquiry might be extended to other countries. He knew how unjust it was to draw up a severe indictment against shipowners as a class. Sometimes they were condemned as men who conducted their business on the most selfish principles. Shipowners, as a rule, made moderate profits, and they had passed through many dark periods of depression. In shipping, as in every profession and every industry in this country, the pressure of competition was keenly felt, and where unjustifiable risks were run, in most cases it would be found that the owners were struggling to make both ends meet. It would ill become the successor of a fortunate man of business to pass a harsh or ungenerous judgment on the conduct of men whose errors were chiefly due to an insufficiency of means. He understood the Government had in contemplation a Committee to prosecute an inquiry into the subject. But no mere Departmental Committee would have the authority which would attach to a Royal Commission, working under the presidency of an eminent Judge. If they could not succeed in compelling every shipowner to be to a certain extent his own insurer; or, if they could prevent excessive valuation, all other legislation with a view to the safety of life at sea would become superfluous.
  1734
  Those who were opposed to load-lines and surveys said truly that the commercial instinct of the shipowner, and the experience of the shipmaster, were the most reliable guarantee for the seaworthiness of shipping, and that Government surveyors could not have the same practical knowledge as persons actually engaged in the trade. But that commercial instinct must be less keen and less acute, when, by the over-valuation of the ship and freight, the owner stood to win and not to lose by the loss of his ship. The aim of future legislation must therefore be to confine Marine Insurance to a single contract of indemnity. Thus limited, it might justly be regarded—to use the language of Jeremy Bentham—as—
  "One of the most beneficial inventions of civilized society. No one will neglect his actual possessions, a good certain and present, with the hope of recovering in case of loss only an equivalent for the thing lost, and even, at the most, an equivalent. To this, let it he added, that the recovery cannot be obtained without care and expense, and that there must be a transient privation."
  In conclusion, he would refer to some personal experience of his own. At the close of last year he spent a month afloat on the Bosphorus, watching day by day busy the traffic in those pleasant waters. The pride an Englishman must feel at seeing the flag of his own country displayed by so many ships; but that feeling was tempered by regret that, amid that fleet, on the whole so admirably adapted to its purpose, there were some vessels of a very different character, bad in design, or more often grossly over-laden. When he compared the buoyant trim which he thought necessary in his little vessel, with the heavily laden steamers in which he saw so many poor fellows starting for their homes, homes which, alas! they were destined never to reach, he made a vow that he would do his best to secure for the British seaman that care and protection which would never be secured until the law of Marine Insurance was reformed.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was sure that every one would admit the great importance of the question before the House. It was a melancholy subject to reflect upon, for the Report of the recent Commission on Unseaworthy Ships showed that in three years 3,300 vessels, representing 1,000,000 tons of shipping, and involving a very large loss of life,

  1735
  had been wrecked. Even, however, as far as the mere destruction of property was concerned, it would he a great mistake to look upon this as essentially either an underwriter's or a shipowner's question. The underwriter covered himself by increase of premium, the ship-owner covered himself by raising freights, and the real loss fell upon the consumer, who had to pay more for the goods he required. That this immense loss was to a certain extent due to preventable causes was generally admitted, and Her Majesty's Government had brought in a Bill upon the subject, which he hoped might do good; but which, after all, did not go to the root of the question. He had not much confidence in Government inspection, as he feared that it would tend to become a form which would give little security to the public, and would tend to relieve the shipowners from responsibility, while inflicting on them unnecessary annoyance and vexatious interference. The only real mode of checking the evil was, in his opinion, to act upon the motives of the shipowner. The House knew what had been done by shipowning companies which took the sole care of their own vessels. One great company had, indeed, landed more passengers than they took on board. They also knew how seldom vessels from Australia with gold cargoes went to the bottom and took the gold with them. It was very far from his wish, however, to make any attack on shipowners. On the contrary, it was certainly their interest that the law should not only be clear and consistent, but such as to offer all possible encouragement to care and prudence. In the present state of the law, however, it was actually in some cases better for the shipowner, in a pecuniary point of view, that his ship should be lost. Surely, such a state of things was entirely contrary to public policy, and the true principles of insurance. Insurance ought to be a contract of indemnity. The present state of the law, however, in regard to it was most inconsistent. A person could not over-insure against fire, and it was contrary to law to insure a life in which the insurer had no pecuniary interest. The compensation awarded to sufferers by railway accidents had a tendency to render the companies more careful. Supposing, however, that a railway company could actually make a profit out of a bad accident, would the
  1736
  public stand such a state of the law, which would be most injurious to the public interest? Even this, however, was hardly a parallel case, but suppose the stationmaster and pointsmen could make a large profit out of a fatal accident, was it not obvious that this would add one more to the terrors of railway travelling, and would certainly not conduce to the safety of passengers? There seemed to be three points which specially required attention—namely over-insurance, insurance of gross freight, and the law as regarded seaworthiness on time policies—that it, when a ship is insured for, say, six months or a year. As regarded the first, Mr. Harper called the attention of the Commission to a case in which a shipowner had insured his vessel for £36,000. She was abandoned by her crew, but subsequently picked up and brought into port. It was found that it would take £16,000 to repair her thoroughly. On that, the shipowner claimed for a constructive total loss, swearing that the ship, though insured for £36,000, was really only worth £15,000. He proved, in fact, that this was the case, and the underwriters actually had to pay £36,000, on the express ground that the vessel was really only worth £15,000. In the case of "Barker v. Janson" a vessel was insured for £8,000, she being at that time, though unknown to the owners, a mere wreck and, in fact, valueless. Yet the Court held that, under the existing state of the law, the insurers were bound to pay. Mr. Stevenson, then Secretary to Lloyd's, truly pointed out that if a vessel worth £20,000 is insured for £30,000, the shipowner virtually insures for £20,000, and then bets £10,000 that she will go to the bottom. Again, in the case of freight, the over-insurance of freight was surely very objectionable. Last year, for instance, a vessel sailed from Quebec for Liverpool. The freight, as per charter party, amounted to £3,500, but was insured and valued for £6,000. The ship was lost in the River St. Lawrence. Now, if she had completed her voyage prosperously, the owner would have earned £3,500, less, at least, £1,000 for wages, &c, so that his net receipt would not have exceeded £2,500, while because the voyage was not successful, because the ship was wrecked, he got £6,000. Another markable anomaly in the present state

  1737
  of the law was, that while the question of seaworthiness could be raised in the case of a policy on goods, or on a ship if insured for a voyage, it could not be opened on an insurance for time. As regarded the sailors, the law only allowed them their wages up to the time a vessel was lost, and had always held that a seaman could not insure his wages, for it was obvious that if he could, you would weaken his motives for bringing the voyage to a successful termination. It was stated in evidence that all the mutual insurance clubs forbade over-insurance. Surely that was a very remarkable fact? The present state of the law was condemned by the highest authorities. Benecke, in his great work on Insurance, said—
  "The consequences of over valuation are so dangerous that they deserve the attention not only of underwriters, but even of the Legislature."
  Arnould, another standard authority, truly said that—
  "The very essence of the contract of Marine Insurance is that it is a contract of indemnity.… And its whole spirit is violated if the insurer can make the occurrence of such casualties a means of gain, for this would give him an interest in procuring sea losses, which would be opposed to every principle of commercial policy."
  The Committee of Lloyd's also unanimously passed a resolution, calling the attention of the Commission to the anomalous state of the law in reference to unseaworthiness of ships as applicable to policies of insurance for time, compared with policies of insurance on voyages. Chief Justice Best said, in the case of "Murphy v. Bell," the temptation to fraudulent insurances thus given was very great. Chief Justice Cockburn, in the case of "Byrne v. Schiller" said our Marine Insurance law was founded on principles which were erroneous and directly opposite to those on which the laws of America and of every country in Europe but England was founded. Mr. Cohen, one of our highest legal authorities, and Mr. Justice Keating entertained the same view. From this it appeared that the unsatisfactory state of the existing law on the subject had been pointed out over and over again by the Judges in our Courts; and the Duke of Somerset, as Chairman of the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, had summed up the matter by saying that, in the opinion of the Judges, not only did our law
  1738
  differ from that of every other country, but that the law of other countries was right, and ours was wrong. It was true that the Commission did not feel itself able to recommend any particular changes in the law; but they expressed themselves strongly in favour of extended examination, such as was recommended by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey). Of course, he (Sir John Lubbock) did not deny that in some respects the present state of the law had its advantages. For instance, it was convenient to settle the value beforehand in the case of freights; but if the insurance were to be on the real value, he believed there would be no practical difficulty in arriving at the amount, and it must be remembered that the Admiralty Court constantly had to do so in cases where one ship had been run down by another. It was alleged that such a change would increase litigation, but both Mr. Hollams and Mr. Walton, the two solicitors selected by the Commission to give evdence on that part of the subject, believed that, on the contrary, it would actually have a tendency to diminish law suits. In tire insurance there was very seldom any litigation about the value of the property insured. Moreover, in Marine Insurances, the value had to be considered in all cases of average—that was of damage—but, practically, that rarely led to litigation. Moreover, though it would of course be very undesirable to do any thing which would tend to increase litigation, still they must remember that they were here dealing with a case involving not only property, but life; and a state of the law which tended to diminish the motives for prudence on the part of shipowners, which made carelessness in some cases advantageous, and wrecks profitable, could not conduce to safety at sea, or to the public advantage. That was really not an underwriters question. It was a question not only for honest ship-owners, who suffered from the law as it now stood, because they had to pay higher premiums than would otherwise be necessary; but also for the public, on whom, in reality, these losses ultimately fell in the shape of increased prices. "When there had been so decided an expression of opinion on the subject from those best qualified to judge, he could not help thinking that there was a strong case at any rate for inquiry.

  1739
  The question was, no doubt, one of much difficulty. But he thought there were strong grounds for considering that the law with regard to ships should be assimilated to the law with regard to fire and life; as anything which enabled persons to make a profit out of the losses of others, though it might not lead to conscious fraud, tended to weaken the incentives to care and caution, on which safety at sea so much depended.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY, who had given Notice of an Amendment to the Motion to leave out all the words after the word "law," and insert—
  "And to consider and report whether Marine Insurance on ships and freights should be established on the principle of indemnity for loss, or whether the amount covered should not be limited, so that the shipowner should have in every case to bear some portion of the loss arising from any disaster to his vessel,"
  said,: I think I ought to explain to the House that, as member for some years of a Local Marine Board, and engaged to a limited extent in underwriting and shipowning, I have had some experience on the subject now before the House. I may add that I have devoted some consideration and inquiry to the question. In giving Notice of the Amendment, I did so in no spirit of hostility to the Motion of the hon. Member, but because I thought that the Committee which he intended to move for should embrace a somewhat wider scope, and, instead of confining itself to the question of indemnity, should inquire whether it would not be advantageous and also practicable to establish Marine Insurance on such a basis that the ship-owner would in every case have a pecuniary interest in the safety of his vessel. So far as Marine Insurance concerns underwriters and shipowners, the principle on which it is based may be that of indemnity for loss; but as between the shipowner and the public, a broad question of public policy is involved. The shipowner is engaged in a hazardous business, in which not only his property is concerned, but also the property, and, above all, the lives of others. He undertakes to convey the lives and property of others safety through the perils and dangers of a voyage, except only such as cannot be avoided or over come by human ingenuity, forethought, and care. The public are entitled to assume that a shipowner exercises
  1740
  all possible precaution and forethought to accomplish the contract which he has undertaken—that is, to carry, so far as humanly possible, the lives and property entrusted to him safely to their destination. But, Sir, shipowners, it is admitted, do not exercise all the diligence and care which the public have a right to expect. It is unnecessary for me to argue in support of this, because all our legislation referring to the Mercantile Marine is based upon that assumption, and the question now really before us is—How can we best ensure that the shipowner shall take all the forethought and all the diligence which the public are entitled to expect of him? Parliament has attempted to accomplish this hitherto by legislation; but it is admitted that the legislation, while very harassing to the business of the shipowners, has failed in its objects. Casualties on our coasts seem to be rather fewer than they were some years ago, but those in the over-sea trade are considerably more numerous. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the enormous loss of life which from year to year takes place, because that has been very ably and persistently brought before the public by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). But, in a national point of view, these losses are a subject for grave consideration. During the last two years the value of the ships and property lost at sea has probably been considerably over £10,000,000; and although, in the first instance, this loss is a question between the ship-owners and the underwriters, the £10,000,000 are nevertheless so much loss to the wealth of the nation. Now, Sir, our legislation being admitted to have been so far unsuccessful, it is to be considered whether some other means cannot be devised to ensure that the shipowners shall exercise all the care and attention humanly possible to prevent this great loss of life and property. It will be generally admitted that the most certain way of ensuring the discharge of duty is to make it the interest of the individual that the duty be well and faithfully performed. Now, the Amendment of which I gave Notice indicates how this interest is to be secured. If the shipowner in every case had to bear a certain proportion of the loss arising from any casualty to his vessel, and that proportion were of such an adequate

  1741
  amount that it would be greater than any saving he could make by improperly conducting his business, it would ensure the shipowners' necessary care and attention to do his best in securing the safety of his vessel, and to carry on his business in as efficient and proper a manner as the public can expect. But what is the present state of matters? The shipowner may not only insure his ship to the full value, but even over that amount. He may insure not only the freight which is in the ship's bottom, but also the amount of all the prospective freight which he is to earn for the coming 12 months; and, beyond that, he may insure outfits. The consequence is, that under the existing law there is the anomaly that everyone interested in the adventure may have a risk except the shipowner himself. Now, can a shipowner who has already perfectly secured himself of the success of the adventure, whether his vessel accomplish her voyage in safety or not, be expected to take the same care to make the adventure successful as if he had money at stake on the issue? So long as such a state of matters is allowed to exist, can other results be expected than what have actually taken place? I do not think that many vessels are wilfully lost. Such cases are rare; but I do think that many losses occur which increased care on the part of the shipbuilder, the shipowner, the captain, or the crew might have prevented, and what we want is some mainspring or motive which will exert a wholesome influence, either directly or indirectly, on all engaged in the construction, management, or navigation of a vessel. In support of these views, I shall refer only to one paragraph of the Report of the Royal Commission, though the same view was supported by many witnesses. The Commissioners say—
  "The system of Marine Insurance, while it protects the shipowners against losses which would otherwise he ruinous, tends to render them less careful in the management of their ships."
  But, Sir, I have made certain inquiries in order to satisfy myself how far it might be practicable to carry out the view indicated, and what results might be expected. As I had the opportunity of making myself best acquainted with matters in Aberdeen, I investigated the state of the shipping at that port in regard
  1742
  to insurance. The tonnage belonging to the port consists of about 195 ships, of together over 100,000 tons. Now, 38 of these ships, altogether 37,000 tons, more than two-thirds of the whole belong to three firms, and are practically uninsured. Well, the result of their experience of maritine casualties, extending over a period of 10 years, and in some cases very much longer, has been that the loss arising from casualties to their vessels did not exceed one-third or one-fourth of the premium which would have been charged for insuring these vessels in the open market. I might refer also to eases of a similar character which are well known in Glasgow, Leith, Liverpool, and London. One of the witnesses told the Commission that he had only lost 2 out of 21 vessels in 20 years, and that was by collision. The case of one firm largely engaged in shipping in the East has been specially brought to my notice. This firm own vessels to the value of nearly £250,000, trading in the India and China seas. These vessels are only partially insured. The premium for what is insured is about £7 7s., but the portion uninsured has cost the company only about 4½per cent. In this case I am informed the captains are highly paid, that they never leave the service, and that they are unrestricted as to the number and quality of their crew. To this last more particularly the owners ascribe their freedom from casualty. Two years ago they sold one of their steamers, and that vessel has since been once ashore, once put into port in distress, and has since been abandoned. Other two steamers which they sold were lost shortly afterwards. Now, these cases indicate that more than three-fourths of the casualties for which underwriters are called upon to pay are casualties which it is possible to avoid. I do not see that there are exceptional circumstances in the cases to which I have referred beyond due care and diligence which could have reduced the loss so much. But, assuming that only one-half of the casualties could be avoided, we see to how great an extent the loss of life and property would be avoided if the same care and diligence were exercised by all as are exercised in the cases of which I have spoken. I think that the probability of accomplishing so great a result fully justifies the

  1743
  appointment of a Royal Commission, as it is proposed by the intended Motion of my hon. Friend. Sir, it will doubtless be admitted by many that the principle which is recommended would have the effect which I anticipate, provided it could be carried out; and I may be expected to indicate how the plan may be put in operation. I propose that insurance both of ships and freight should be so limited as to bring on the owner himself what may be considered an adequate portion of the risk. As regards freight, there does not appear to be much difficulty. There is always the evidence of the charter-parties and the bills of lading of the vessels; but as regards the value of the ship, there is doubtless considerable difficulty. If it was necessary to determine the value of the vessel as closely as if she were passing from one owner to another, I think the proposal would be impracticable; but it is to be observed that any error in the value of the vessel by estimating her too high or too low merely makes a difference in the amount which the owner will have to risk. I think the value of the vessel may be ascertained with sufficient approximation for this purpose. I do not think it would be practicable to carry on the business of underwriting under policies which could be opened, and therefore the value of a vessel ought to be determined at the time or before the insurance is effected. In order to carry out this view, as well as to exercise such control over the shipping as may be found necessary, our Local Marine Boards ought to be reconstructed on a wider basis. If at the various ports where such Boards are necessary they were of a representative character, representing all the interests concerned—the public, the shipbuilder, shipowner, and the crew—if these Boards were authorized to employ a surveyor and legal assessor, and if their meetings were open to the public, I should expect to see them exercise in the best manner possible what supervision may be necessary and advisable for our Mercantile Marine. When a shipowner desired to insure his ship he would apply to the Local Marine Board to value her. That valuation would go before a committee of the Board, at which the shipowner should be allowed to express his views, and so the value of the ship would be ascertained with sufficient
  1744
  closeness for the purpose required. When a casualty occurred to the vessel the surveyor of the Local Marine Board would give a certificate of her value and of the ownership, which would be presented along with the average statement to the underwriters, and they would mark on the certificate the amount which they had respectively paid to the various owners. It may be objected that this system would be evaded by what is known as honour policies; but I think a simple provision might obviate this difficulty. In the first place I think, if the amount of risk which the owner would have to bear was a reasonable and fair amount, the underwriters and others interested would support the laws, and not insure beyond the legal proportion; but if honour policies were still attempted, they should be made illegal, and provision made that the ordinary policies should have the benefit of any amount which was covered by honour policies. For instance, if £5,000 were the proper amount to insure upon a vessel, and the shipowner endeavoured to cover £6,000—£5,000 by an ordinary policy and £1,000 by an honour policy—the lawful underwriters could be called on to pay only £4,000, leaving the honour policy underwriter and the shipowner to settle the remaining £1,000 as they pleased outside the law. I may say in passing that I would not interfere with these associations which at present exist for covering risks outside those covered by ordinary policies, because I should consider it sufficient to have the certain definite risk I propose. The principle I recommend is not altogether exceptional. According to the law, the sailor cannot insure his wages for the voyage, on the ground that he would have no interest in doing his duty and completing the voyage. But I do not see any material difference in principle between the position of the sailor and that of the shipowner. I shall only notice some of the objections which may be urged to this proposal, because I consider it unnecessary to establish the whole case, but simply to bring forward sufficient evidence to justify inquiry by a Royal Commission. It is unnecessary to reply to the argument that it is an interference with freedom of contract, because the same argument applies to all our shipping legislation. This proposal is recommended on the ground that under

  1745
  it a great deal of legislative interference at present existing might be dispensed with. I shall doubtless be told that it will seriously affect the small shipowners. That was the view which occurred to myself at the first aspect of the proposal, and in order to satisfy myself as to this, I made inquiry as to the insurance effected by the small shipowners in Aberdeen. There are belonging to Aberdeen 37 vessels under 200 tons register, and I made special inquiry of the managing owners as to the proportion of insurance upon each vessel. The result of the inquiry was, that 9 were totally uninsured, 19 insured not exceeding half their value, 8 insured to a higher amount, and 1 fully insured. This last belonged to a wealthy company. It may also be objected that this proposal would drive some shipowners out of the business; but, Sir, I do not consider that any objection. It will be admitted, I think, that if the class of shipowners who do cause the enormous losses of which I speak were excluded from the business, it would be a great benefit not only to the Mercantile Marine, but also to the nation. The advantages which I should expect to arise to the shipowner apart from those to the nation are that he would be relieved of much vexatious and harassing legislation which presently exists, for we might very safely trust to the selfinterest of individuals if that selfinterest could be fully secured. In addition to that advantage the portion of the vessel which is insured would be insured at a cheaper rate. At present I am informed that underwriters will take vessels at 1 or 2 per cent less if they know the shipowner runs part of the risk. The great recommendation to the proposal which I have submitted is, that it would influence the conduct of the shipowner from the beginning to the end of his business. If the owner knew that he could not cover all his risk in the vessel he would be more careful to see that the framing of the ship was sufficiently strong, that she was well built, well manned, and fully equipped for the voyage on which she was entering. Were this motive acted on from first to last it would do more to insure the safety of our Mercantile Marine than all the legislation which it is possible to devise.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, he was aware that they could not come to any
  1746
  decision that night on that most difficult and delicate subject, and the only result of the conversation would be some suggestions, which he hoped the Government would take into their careful consideration. He must begin by explaining that the gentleman to whom reference had been made (Mr. Cohen) was a Royal Commissioner, and not a witness, and the evidence which had been attributed to him, was elicited in answer to questions put by him to witnesses. The first suggestion he would offer to the House was the necessity of the greatest possible caution in dealing with or legislating upon this subject. The Royal Commissioners themselves had proceeded with very great caution. They felt that Insurance was the basis of the vast mercantile fabric which had been built upon it in this country, and there was danger in touching any of its great foundation stones. He therefore hoped the House would also show, not timidity, but reserve in forcing on the Government any specific propositions. The Commission felt that before that difficult question could be solved, a further investigation was absolutely necessary, and that it should be conducted by one or more Judges and by the ablest lawyers in London, assisted by a person practically conversant with Insurance. He was not there to say that what was the theory should not be the practice of Insurance—namely, that it should be an indemnity only against loss; but the question what was the value of a ship was more easily asked than answered. There were peculiar circumstances of time and locality attending the sending to sea of every ship known, only to the owner at the particular time, and which when taken fully into consideration, made a material difference, and put a special value on a ship. If they limited the insurance to three-fourths of the value, what was to prevent the owner from making a contract to protect him in respect of the margin uninsured? Many ships had undoubtedly been overvalued; but he had come to the conclusion that over-valuation was the small exception to the general rule. The reckless and improvident shipowner undoubtedly gained from over-valuation by the loss of the ship; but the prudent ship-owner gained in the lower premium he had to pay by under-valuation; and in his case the amount of premium was a consideration as to whether he should

  1747
  insure his vessel or not. He entirely agreed in the opinion expressed by the late Mr. Justice Willes, that any change in the law would be abortive, unless underwriters were seriously disposed to aid in giving it effect. If serious obstacles were imposed on Insurance, the business would inevitably be driven out of the country into the hands of foreigners. One of the greatest dangers to be apprehended was over-competition. Competition tended to relax surveys, and the rules of construction as to the strength of the vessels. Before he sat down, he should like to make one observation. He did not know whether "coming events cast their shadows before" in the announcement made by an hon. Member opposite of an intention on the part of the Government to appoint a Departmental Commission to inquire into this question, but he trusted the Government had not formed such a determination. As representing a mercantile community, he said such a Commission would not give satisfaction. The subject was full of difficulties which the greatest lawyers might hesitate to confront, and if a Departmental Commission were appointed, it would be known perfectly well that the persons forming it went into the inquiry with biased minds and a foregone conclusion. He wished the field to be perfectly clear, and the inquiry to be conducted by the ablest and most experienced men in the country, because they would have to perform a difficult and delicate task, on the execution of which would depend the attainment of a just and equitable solution, uninfluenced by sentimental considerations. He hoped the Government, if they had formed any such conclusion, would reconsider it, because a Departmental Commission could not carry on the inquiry satisfactorily to the country.
  MR. A. W. PEELsaid, he was well aware of the great difficulties of the question, and that it was possible for underwriters and insurers to evade any legislation, unless it met with their approval; and unless Parliament gained the assent of the underwriters to legislation, it was liable to become waste legislation. The subject was so full of intricacies and delicacies that it was extremely difficult for an Act of Parliament to follow them through all their labyrinthine windings. In his evidence before the Commission, Mr. Harper
  1748
  spoke strongly on the question, for he said that if insurance were done away with, the business of the country would be at an end. That might be an exaggerated way of putting it; but, at all events, it showed the feelings which actuated him. The Motion asked the House to assert the principle of "indemnity" as the principle of the contract of insurance, and the hon. Mover of the Amendment suggested a limitation insurance to two-thirds of the value; but that only shifted the difficulty, for the same conditions applied to the two-thirds as to the full value. While he would urge the granting of a Commission, he would say it would not be wise to limit it or shackle it in any way by assuming any principle, for the Commission ought to go into the whole question fully determined to see how it bore on all points. Indemnity might be an excellent principle to arrive at; but, judging from the Report of the Royal Commission, they were not yet in a position to say that indemnity and nothing more nor less, should be the principle of our legislation. Several witnesses before the Royal Commissioners were emphatic on this question. Mr. Stephenson, late secretary to Lloyd's, was asked by Mr. Cohen whether he would allow overvaluation—whether, if a policy were filled up at five times the real value of the ship, he would allow it to hold good—and he said—
  "No, certainly not; if £20,000, for instance, is the absolute settled value of the ship, and if she is insured for £30,000, what practically happens is that you make two contracts; one is to pay £20,000 if the ship is lost, and the other is a bet of £10,000 she will not get home."
  Mr. Stephenson, therefore, argued that no over-valuation should be allowed. Then a difficulty arose as to what overvaluation was, for what was over-valuation to one man was not over-valuation to another. The man who had embarked his whole on one vessel was entitled to say she was worth more to him than was a vessel of the same intrinsic value to a firm, who had a line of vessels employed in an established trade, because the loss of one of those vessels would be a far less serious matter to the firm than would the loss of one vessel to the single owner, who would suffer incalculable injury as compared with his more wealthy rivals. Therefore such a man was entitled to say that the vessel

  1749
  was worth to him more than the market price, and that, if he could effect an over-valuation on that account, he did not see why anybody should interfere with him so long as he paid the premium. It must not be supposed he was arguing that any amount of overvaluation should be allowed as between insurer and insured. Under the French law, while valuation was allowed, valuation was presumptive evidence of the value of a ship, which was liable to be rebutted by extrinsic evidence. So, under our law, everything might be vitiated by fraud. He would give the underwriter, if he supposed an excessive value was put on a ship, the opportunity to try the question in a Court of Law. Another reason why he would ask that the scope of the proposed Commission might be enlarged was, that other matters were involved; there were absurdities existing in our laws which it would be well worth the while of a Commission to inquire into if they bore on this question of indemnity. One of these related to the differences between time and voyage policies. In the case of a voyage policy seaworthiness was implied at the commencement of the voyage; but if the vessel, two days after sailing, put into another port and there became unseaworthy, she might leave that port with-out any obligation or responsibility attaching to the owner, although the un-seaworthiness of the vessel might be notorious. In time policies there was no warranty of seaworthiness at all, and the reason of the law was, that on insuring a vessel in a distant part of the world it would not be right to the owner to make him responsible for that which he could not know. Could not these things be put on a proper footing, and seaworthiness implied both in time and voyage policies? Following the lead of the Royal Commission, he had sketched out clauses which he thought might be considered, providing—
  "(1) That whether in a time policy or in a voyage policy there shall be an implied warranty on the part of the shipowners that the ship be and continue seaworthy; and (2) that in the case of any valued policy it shall be competent to the underwriter to plead that the sum claimed is in excess of the loss suffered, and that in open policies there shall be deducted from the value of freight claimed to be earned at the due termination of the voyage, such expenses as by reason of the loss of the ship have not been incurred."
  1750
  These points might be discussed in Committee. He hoped it was not true that the Government would be satisfied with a Departmental inquiry. The subject was beyond the capacity of the Department to master, and required the services of practical men and of lawyers able to take a survey of the whole legal bearings of the question. Last year he opposed the Bill introduced by the hon. Member (Mr. Plimsoll), on the ground that the Royal Commission had not yet reported, and that it was unfair to prejudge the question. Although the question stood now in a different position, he was still strongly of opinion that it was not by a universal survey, or by legislation of the nature indicated by the hon. Member, that you would touch the acknowledged evil of the unseaworthy ships. He looked to other causes for the correction of this evil, and if the question of Insurance could only be probed to the bottom, he believed that more would be done to put our Mercantile Marine on a sound footing than by any other remedy that could be applied. If a Commission were appointed, he believed that evils would be exposed which would show we were at last on the right track in dealing with this question; but it must not be a Departmental inquiry.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he differed from the conclusions which had been arrived at by the noble Lord below him the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington). The Royal Commissioners had issued two Reports, the conclusions of which were timid and diffident—the first gave no opinion whatever on the subject, and the second merely reechoed the evidence of the officers of the Board of Trade. These officers were most able men, but the duties thrown upon the Department had increased so much that they could no longer be satisfactorily discharged. The question before the House was not, however, in reference to that Board. It was one of insurance. Several hon. Members had referred to the disasters which took place at sea, and he considered that they had in no degree exaggerated the evils arising from over-facilities in regard to marine insurance. There was no doubt that preventible disasters existed to a very considerable extent; and if the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had made some mistakes, and exhibited indiscretion in making charges he could

  1751
  not substantiate, yet the general scope of Ms allegations was perfectly true. He (Mr. Maclver) was no advocate for relieving shipowners of proper responsibility; but he thought that the responsibilities recommended by the Board of Trade and by the Royal Commissioners were a mere shadow that never had been, or could be, enforced. Under Clause 11 of the existing Act, it was already a misdemeanour intentionally to send unseaworthy ships to sea, and he (Mr. Maclver) asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions had taken place under the Act? The man who sent ships to sea intending to lose them, deserved to be hung; but, in truth, legislation failed because it aimed to remedy that which was not the disease. Ships were not, unless in the rarest instances, lost intentionally, or from anything that could constitute misdemeanour; but rather because it was nobody's interest in particular to make sure that they would go safely. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had told the House that there had been four or five prosecutions, but with what result? Substantially none, and why? Not merely for the reasons stated, but because such legislation must nearly always necessarily fail. Dead men told no tales, and when ships went to the bottom, nothing could be proved. The only case he knew in which any real result had come of such a prosecution was one instituted against a Belfast firm, which despatched a miserable little coaster called the Nimrod from Belfast to the Clyde. If the Nimrod had foundered, the firm would have got free; but the vessel reached a port where the Board of Trade managed to stop her under their survey clauses, and the owners were now in gaol. The law, however, could be evaded, if owners took good care not to know that their ships were unseaworthy; and so it was not of the slightest use. The best passenger vessels in the country sailed under a very stringent survey, and that survey, though not as good as it might be, was a great source of safety to travellers. The question before the House, as he had said, was one of insurance. If it could be arranged that disasters at sea should be made unprofitable, a large class of preventive losses would practically cease. He could tell the House that over insurance
  1752
  at Liverpool was exceedingly rare; indeed, so far as the great towns on the banks of the Mersey were concerned, it was utterly unknown, and underwriters there would look very coldly upon any owner who wanted deliberately to insure vessels for more than they were worth. There was certainly nothing in the nature of habitual or intentional over insurance amongst shipowners in his part of the country; but there might sometimes be reasonable difference of opinion in regard to the value of a vessel, and even, in his own experience, he had seen builders of equal reputation tendering to build at figures varying as much as £10,000 or £12,000 from each other for the same article. He referred to passenger steamers; but even in regard to sailing vessels the varying value was in a different way almost equally marked. Vessels which were worth £7 per ton some years ago had since become worth £17, and at present were valued at £14 per ton. It would be seen, therefore, that it was very difficult to fix any definite and exact proportion in regard to value. There was, however, no such difficulty in the case of cargo; and over insurance in regard to cargo happened to be the rule rather than the exception. The custom of trade, and especially in regard to bulk cargoes such as grain, coals, or iron, was for owners of cargo to insure a 10 per cent profit. Vessels so laden were those which most frequently went to the bottom. The merchant, broker, or character, were all insured, and their profits in each case were safe to them, provided only the vessel was lost: and it was not a question of only one, but frequently even of two profits, because if one cargo was lost there was another to replace it. The shipowner was, no doubt, also insured. Nobody meant the vessel to be lost; but, practically, it was not the interest of those persons to see that the vessel was not over-laden. It would certainly occur to them to do so, if the loss of the vessel meant a loss of money to them. Something might be done in the way of remedying the evil in the direction of controlling insurances; but he did not think the appointment of another Royal Commission was the right way to set about it. Whilst giving all credit to the recent Commission for their honesty of purpose, he thought that the results of

  1753
  their enquiry offered little encouragement in regard to the appointment of a second Royal Commission upon what was practically a branch of the same subject; but in justification of the eminent men who composed the late Royal Commission, he would point out that they had many formidable difficulties to contend with. How could they get at the truth? Was it reasonable that the owners or builders of unseaworthy vessels, or any other interested persons, would voluntarily come before the Commissioners and give them information, or that the men who were obliged to make their living by going to sea in such vessels would tell them what they knew? The Commissioners sat in London; they had no power, so far as he was aware, to compel the attendance of witnesses, and there was no cross-examination of witnesses before them by counsel. No doubt, many valuable witnesses, who were anxious to tell the truth, appeared before the Commissioners; but others, he believed, attended for no other purpose than to throw dust in their eyes. On the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill, he hoped to give his reasons why the House should heartily support the President of the Board of Trade in his honest endeavour to bring about a better state of things, which, however, could only be done by referring the Government measure to a Committee of earnest men possessing such technical knowledge as would enable them to make its clauses effectual for the purposes intended.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had somewhat wandered from the question before them, and had accused the Board of Trade of not prosecuting in cases in which, unfortunately, there was no evidence available to enable them to do so. He (Sir Charles Adderley) thought the question a very narrow one. It was not so much whether the House was satisfied with the existing state of the law, as of the mode in which reform should be made. He took a deep interest in the subject of Marine Insurance, because he believed it lay at the foundation of the amendment of the law which he had in hand at that moment, relating to the safety of our merchant ships, and the prevention of recklessness in our Mercantile Marine. The House could come, on the present occasion, to no issue upon
  1754
  the Motion; but he was very glad that it had been raised by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), who was in every way most qualified to bring the subject before the House, not merely by reason of his own practical acquaintance with it, or the weight he had in that House, but also because he was a Member of the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships which had lately reported. Every one would agree that the state of the law of Marine Insurance was not satisfactory, and that preparation should be made to deal with such an unsatisfactory state of the law. It could hardly be satisfactory that a law of any kind should be absolutely conflicting with its own avowed principle; and yet that was the case here, because the principle of Marine Insurance, as laid down by all recognized authorities, was the principle of indemnity for loss, and yet the decisions of the Judges had from time to time widely departed from that principle to meet the case of contracts voluntarily entered into. The practice of the law was such as to make it in many instances a gain to the shipowner to lose his ships; there were cases of actual intentional over insurance; and he maintained that over-insurance differed only in name from a wagering policy, which was distinctly illegal under the Act of George II. Not only might shipowners gain by the loss of their ships, but others might recover less than they ought to do under the Principle of indemnity for actual loss, for there were cases in which the underwriter was discharged from his liability owing to some latent defect for which the shipowner was not responsible, and of which he knew nothing. In every way, therefore, the law in practice contradicted its theory. Against a revision of the law it had been argued, in the first place, that it was dangerous to disturb the commercial usages of a country like this. But the marine laws of the country must, of necessity, be in perpetual change more or less to meet the many changing requirements of the times; and when he considered that what was under consideration was not a change, but simply a restoration of the principle of the law, he could not admit the objection to be valid. Another objection was, that the market value of a ship might not be the virtual value to its owner. It was perfectly true that its value might be greater

  1755
  to one man than to another, or greater at one time than at another, but no principle of law could meet such accidental circumstances. There must be some definite and fixed principle. There could be no insurance of fancy value, no insurance of adventitious advantages or of an indefinite or accidental proprietary stake. If there was to be a clear principle of insurance, there must be a definite test of value. It had been argued, further, that Parliament had nothing to do with the matter—that it was a question between the underwriters and the shipowners. But surely the fact that the public safety was concerned gave Parliament a right and obligation to interfere. As long as a total loss might be more lucrative than a partial loss, or than actual safety, it was not in human nature for the shipowner to take as much care in the selection of master and crew and in attending to the general condition of his ship as he would do if he felt that he incurred a risk by any casualty. In the interest of the public safety, therefore, Parliament had not only a right, but was under a duty to interfere. It was not to be expected, considering the keen competition that existed between insurance offices, that the underwriters would take it upon themselves to keep down policies to strict indemnity, and there was a diversity of interest among the shipowners also, which made it unlikely that the needed reform would come from them. The Royal Commission to whose Report so much reference had been made entered vary fully into this question of Marine Insurance. They regarded it as of great importance in connection with the subject they had in hand. They declared that it ought to be dealt with, and that it called for careful consideration. He deferred very much to that Report, and the only point on which he differed from the hon. Member for Hastings was as to the mode of dealing with the subject. Unless it was desired to postpone a settlement of the matter, there was no need for another Royal Commission. The evidence of the men best acquainted with the subject in this country had been obtained. It was no longer a question of facts, but a question of policy; and, that being the case, he thought the Government ought to take it up themselves. He did not mean to say that
  1756
  the Government was ready to propose a measure at once. Had he when introducing the Merchant Shipping Bill brought in a measure with it on Marine Insurance he should have been precipitate. Consultation, and important information from men eminent in the law and others, as well at home as from foreign countries, was essential to sound and durable legislation on the subject. He did not propose, however, to wait for an international measure, although it would be advantageous to get other maritime nations to agree with us. In passing, he would say that he did not fear legislating separately for this country as likely to drive men to foreign insurance—he did not think English ship owners were likely to show an excessive desire to insure abroad. The fear that they would was only a bugbear in the discussion, for Englishmen knew their advantages in insuring here, and how difficult it was in some cases to recover foreign insurances. What he wanted was, to ascertain the experience of other maritime countries as to the different systems prevailing among them; and with that object he had ventured, in conjunction with the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, to circulate a list of questions which would serve to elicit the desired information. These questions had been forwarded to the Governments of maritime countries some weeks ago, and he would place a copy of them forthwith on the Table of the House. He hoped the House would share the views he had expressed, and be of opinion that no second Commission was required; but that the Government should take the subject into their own hands, and collect such further information as they thought necessary to enable them to deal with it. In that way, he believed the views put forward by the hon. Member for Hastings would be more effectually met than by the adoption of any Resolution such as the one which had been placed upon the Paper.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, the subject had been too often treated as a shipowners' question, whereas not one-tenth part of the insurances applied to ships. The great bulk of the insurance business was done on cargoes, and thus it materially affected the whole trade of the country. He must assert, in opposition to a remark of the right hon. Gentleman

  1757
  who had just spoken, that a very large proportion of the insurance of this country was at this moment done with foreign insurance companies. He was inclined to think that there ought to be some limitation placed upon the amount the shipowner should receive in the event of the loss of his ship, which would prevent him receiving more than the actual amount of damage he had sustained. Shipping property was very different from other kinds of property. Its market value was subject to fluctuations of various kinds. It was not bought for the purpose of sale; it resembled real property. A ship contracted for when the average cost of iron was £9 a-ton would increase in value when the average cost of iron was £ 16 or £ 17 a-ton, while the original cost of insurance would remain the same. The value of a ship at the time of her sale might greatly differ from what it was at the time of her construction; and care must, therefore, be taken that in regulating the insurance of vessels a premium was not offered upon cheap and bad ships to the discouragement of good and honestly built vessels. He trusted, therefore, that this subject would not be legislated upon in a hasty manner without taking the advice of practical and experienced men.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he wished to point out that a distinction ought to be drawn between insurance proper and underwriting. He should have no objection to the shipowner insuring his vessel for any amount he could procure, provided the person who took the responsibility retained it in all its integrity; but he did object to large policies being underwritten for small amounts, which did not give the parties sufficient interest to make the necessary preliminary inquiries. Such a course would not induce them to prosecute in the event of manifest fraud having been committed.
  MR. MACGREGORsaid, the port he had the honour to represent contained a large number of seamen and of boys who went to sea, and he felt persuaded that the House was moving in the wrong direction on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had spoken of the evil effects of having a large number of underwriters for small amounts. As a shipowner, he might inform the House that he had had no trouble whatever with the large companies,
  1758
  but he had had a great deal of trouble with the small underwriters. He appealed to the shipowners throughout the country to say whether this was not their experience, and whether they would not pay more to the large companies to avoid them. Take, as an illustration, a vessel built in 1872, when iron and wages were very moderate. The vessel would be insured for 12 months at 8 per cent. and underwritten at 4 per cent. that would be a sum of £4,000. By 1873, through the advance of wages and material, the vessel could not have been replaced for £20,000. If insured again at the expiration of 12 months at a cost of 8 per cent. it would amount to a sum of £5,600; but during the currency of that policy the price of labour and material went down again, and if lost, the underwriters would only have to pay the original sum for which the vessel was built. He was perfectly sure that any disinterested Commission or Committee which sat upon the question would come to the conclusion that the proper time to value a ship was not after the vessel had become a loss, and could not be seen by anybody, as in the case of an insurance of a man's life, they might just as well hold an inquest after he was dead to ascertain whether he had ever been worth that money to anybody. He hoped great care would be taken in regard to this matter. He did not shrink from the fullest inquiry, and if it was to be held, he hoped it would be with a full determination to do right and justice to everybody, and that nothing would be done to injure the great Mercantile Marine of this country.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, if he understood the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) rightly, he had brought the matter forward not so much in regard to the value of the ship, as with a view to promote the safety of human life. That being the case, the House ought to view the question not so much as one between underwriter and owner, as one affecting a large portion, and perhaps the least cared for portion, of the community—namely, the seamen of the Mercantile Marine. The time for legislation had undoubtedly arrived, and the Government was the proper party to deal with it. He was glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken out in the manner he had done to-night. They had had the red rag of foreign

  1759
  competition put before them once more; but they had heard the same thing in respect to factories and agricultural fields, when Bills in relation to them were before the House of Commons, and the fears entertained with regard to it had proved groundless. At the present moment what was our position in the world as a Maritime Power? Our flag was upon every sea and in every bay, the silly cry of foreign competition was absurd in these circumstances.

THE IRISH STATE PRISONERS.

  OBSERVATION'S.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER, who had a Notice on the Paper to call attention to the case of the Irish State Prisoners, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable to continue the incarceration of persons who are now, and have been for many years, imprisoned for political offences,"
  said, it was not, he could assure the House, his desire to oppose himself to the general current of public opinion within its walls; but the question he had to consider was not what the majority would do, but what, on a full and fair examination of the subject, the majority ought to do. Representing, as he did, one of the largest counties in Ireland, he did not hesitate in the name of his constituents to say that the continued incarceration of the Irish political prisoners was both impolitic and unjust. It would be desirable to know something more of the treatment of these persons while in prison, and he regretted to find so much of Party feeling manifested in treating on the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said the other evening that they were not political prisoners; but that was not the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman last year when, on a Motion for Returns as to the treatment of those prisoners, he said that some of them were being punished for offences which were not political. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman had degraded all of them to the level of felons—in accordance with the invariable policy of the British Government, which was to lower the character of those who were their opponents in Ireland. In 1848 the then Viceroy of Ireland acknowledged that he employed a venal Press man to assail with every opprobrious epithet the
  1760
  parties to whom he (Lord Clarendon) was politically opposed. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) would scorn to adopt such a line of conduct to wards the unfortunate Irish prisoners. The Returns to which he had referred stated the number of the prisoners in question as 18; whereas, the Amnesty Association stated the number to be 54. That, however, was a point he would not discuss. But, taking the number as 18, he was prepared to show that the offences of the prisoners were of a political character. Two of them, Edward Shore and Patrick Melady, were convicted in 1867 of being accessory to the murder of Sergeant Brett, in Manchester, and had been in penal servitude for eight years. Two others—Michael Davitt and John Wilson—were convicted in 1870 of treason-felony, and had been five years in prison. Colour-Sergeant M'Carthy was convicted with 13 others in 1866 (with the exception of John O'Brien, who was convicted in 1867) of various breaches of the Articles of War. With reference to the affair at Manchester, Sergeant Brett had nobly lost his life at the post of duty, and it was no reflection on the memory of that gallant officer that his death had been avenged. In November, 1867, three young Irishmen swung on the gallows at Manchester on account of his death, and five or six other persons had since endured penal servitude for their participation in the attack on the prison van, whereby Sergeant Brett had lost his life. In the abstract it appeared to him excessive cruelty to punish men whose offence had been expiated by three deaths and five years' penal imprisonment of five or six others. But he maintained that the offence was decidedly political. Two Fenian leaders, Colonel Kelly and Captain Deasy, came over from America to organize an insurrection in Ireland. Failing in the attempt, they took refuge in Manchester, where they fell into the hands of the police. A number of their followers, young, brave, patriotic, and enthusiastic, determined to release them. They attacked the police van in which the two leaders were being conveyed as it passed a railway bridge, in broad daylight, and to force open the door, fired a bullet into the lock which most unfortunately, and as he believed accidentally, wounded the sergeant

  1761
  and caused his death. To his mind, it was apparent that the men—however criminal their act, however gross a violation it might he of the law and Constitution—were acting from motives clearly and distinctly political. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) had had no communication with any of the prisoners except one, and he was an upright and disinterested man. Was it right now, after the vengeance already taken, to waste away the flower of that man's youth in a prison? Then with respect to Michael Davitt and John Wilson the Return described the offence as being treason-felony. On what ground was the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary entitled to call the offence felony and not treason, and not, therefore, a political offence? Then as to the manner in which those prisoners had been treated; he had letters in his possession which showed that they had been treated with unexceptional severity. If he were to read these letters he doubted very much whether their authenticity would be accepted. The Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations as to the ill-treatment of the Fenian prisoners had no doubt reported that such allegations were unfounded; but it should be recollected that all the prisoners with, the exception of O'Donovan Rossa, had refused to give evidence, and he had only done so because when he (Mr. O'Connor Power's) predecessor, the late Mr. Moore, referred to the case of that prisoner, the predecessor of the present Home Secretary rose on that bench and denied in the most emphatic manner that O'Donovan Rossa had been handcuffed with his hands behind him for 35 days. He went further, and, however unintentionally, became the means of circulating an atrocious calumny, that O'Donovan Rossa had attempted to carry on a surreptitious correspondence with the wife of another man, for the purpose of carrying on a political intrigue. Yet when a special investigation was held into the circumstances of that case the assertion was proved to be a calumny, and O'Donovan Rossa was acquitted of it, and complimented by the Commissioners upon the manliness and uprightness with which he had acted in the matter. As regarded Davitt, he had himself applied to the former Home Secretary to be allowed to visit Davitt, representing to him that he had not received a single
  1762
  visitor for five years. His request was refused by the Home Secretary in a very curt letter. He was unable, therefore, to judge for himself upon the merits of Davitt's case; but if a letter he had seen in The Irishman, purporting to come from him, really came from him, he would stake his life on the veracity of his statements. He trusted he need not stop to point out to the House the relevancy of his remarks on the subject of prison treatment, for he wished to show that it had been very severe in the case of these prisoners; and he thought the fact that they had been subject to it—some for five or six, and the greater number of them for a period of nine years—supplied in itself a sufficient reason why they should now be restored to liberty. There was a suspicion in the public mind in Ireland that discipline was still enforced with exceptional severity in the case of political prisoners, and he must say the manner in which the Government met his Motion for Returns last year, had not been calculated to allay those suspicions. It might be admitted, perhaps, that Davitt and Wilson were political prisoners, but that the same description did not apply to the soldiers who broke their oaths and abandoned the standard of the Queen in order to join the ranks of the conspirators. He was not there to defend soldiers who broke their oaths, but were they the only soldiers who had done so? Had not Churchill broken his oath to his Sovereign James and gone over to the King whom hon. Gentlemen opposite delighted to honour; and did not the pious and immortal William, Prince of Orange, make him Duke of Marlborough as a reward for his perfidy? In fact, historians referred to that very period as that at which was first to be noted the rising greatness of the British Constitution. The ranks of the British Army were principally recruited from the class of young men who, suffering under the pressure of hard circumstances, make a virtue of necessity by adopting the soldier's glorious trade, and of all the servants of the Crown who might be expected to know the value of an oath, the class of Army recruits was certainly the last. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) could never understand how a civilian could be in any appreciable degree bound to be less loyal than the military subjects of the Crown. Loyalty must surely be traceable to higher sources to be

  1763
  binding on the conscience of an honourable man. He remembered that in 1848 Mr. Smith O'Brien took the oath of allegiance at the Table of the House; but though he subsequently broke that vow he was, three years after conviction, pardoned by the Crown and allowed to return to Ireland. Why, then, should not similar clemency be extended to the soldier M'Carthy? There were many such cases, and he did not see, therefore, why these military prisoners should be treated with so much and such continued rigour. Did not Marshal Serrano and the officers who acted with him in overthrowing Queen Isabella of Spain break their oaths, and yet had not our Government recognized the Administration of which he had been the head? It might be said that the condition of Ireland at the present day did not permit of that; but he wished the House, in considering the question, to agree with him that the motives for insubordination were of no ordinary character, and that the whole circumstances of the case were political in their character. Without doubt the military authorities would regard Colour Sergeant M'Carthy, who was now under penal servitude for life on account of his connection with the Fenian conspiracy, as one of the worst of offenders. Yet of that man there were proofs that in him were united some of the highest traits of character, and that on several occasions he had risked his life in the service of the Queen—not only that, but it stood on record on the authority of the hon. Member for Donegal, who knew the man, that he was one of the most upright and brave of soldiers, and that he was certainly not one of those who had joined the Fenian conspiracy from sordid motives. In England there existed a settled Government and Constitution under which the nation had grown rich, powerful, and contented. The English people had a holy horror of rebellion or of anything that could disturb the existing order of things. He must candidly admit that that was not the case in Ireland. Ever since the Union, the history of Ireland had been a history of Government repression and popular resistance. And it was a fact to be remembered that the Irish rebel, holding in his hand the declarations of Plunket who was made Lord Chancellor, Bushe who was made Chief Justice,
  1764
  Saurin who was made Attorney General, and Grattan whose remains were honoured by interment in Westminster Abbey, could establish before the world his constitutional right to resist unconstitutional laws. That the Irish State prisoners were not regarded as ordinary criminals was proved by the fact that Boards of Guardians and mass meetings had expressed sympathy with them, and that last year some 70 Members of Parliament urged upon the Chief Minister of the Crown the propriety of giving them their liberty. If, then, the incarcerated men were political offenders, their continued imprisonment was a stain on the character of the British Government. The Canadian House of Representatives had recently passed a resolution in favour of an amnesty being extended to political prisoners, and was it to be said that the Parliament of the United Kingdom was afraid to do likewise? The British Government had been accused of cringing to Russia and America, and if they wished to retain any shreds of reputation he called upon them to set the Irish State prisoners free.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he must remind the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that he was entirely mistaken in his reading of the history of the first Duke of Marlborough. The hon. Member had stated that Churchill was rewarded for his treachery by having the Dukedom of Marlborough conferred upon him by the Prince of Orange. Now, as a matter of fact, the so-called treachery of Churchill was one of the most disputed historical questions, whereas the treachery of these soldiers was not disputed. The Dukedom was not conferred as the reward of treachery, nor was it conferred by King William, but by Queen Anne, as a reward for his services at the victory of Blenheim. He took that opportunity of advising the hon. Member for Mayo to inform himself of the commonest facts of history before again aspersing the character of heroes whom the country revered.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he felt assured that in the observations made by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), regarding the Duke of Marlborough, he in no way meant to detract from the honour and glory of his illustrious name, whose victories on many a field so justly endeared his

  1765
  memory to the English, people. He only, for the purposes of his argument, stated a fact historically true that the Duke of Marlborough, having been in the service of James II., within 24 hours was in the camp of William III. After the able and eloquent speech which they had just heard, he should not have risen were it not that he intended to present some considerations in favour of the Motion different from those they had heard from the hon. Member for Mayo. Apart from the principle of Fenianism, he had always thought that it would end in disaster, and that the many honest, unthinking, and enthusiastic men who joined in the movement would find so to their cost. But how different was the situation in 1864 from the present. Then America had just been terminating a fierce contest, and American politicians, anxious to catch the Irish vote, would be ready to grant the Irish anything. Now, were aid required from them—the pure Americans—they would snap their fingers at the Irish, conscious that within 10 years the German emigration would create a great preponderance in that country. Again, in 1864, in Ireland, he knew that among large numbers of the people an undefined idea of obtaining French assistance prevailed. The late France Prussian War had rudely dispelled that idea. In short, nobody could dream now of creating an insurrection in Ireland. Then, was not that the time for clemency? Not one word had been, or could be said against the moral character of these men. When hon. Gentlemen discussed the actions of men in former times, who were influenced by similar motives, much as they might differ with their principles, they were often objects of their admiration. Well, God knew, these men had suffered enough. Nine years' incarceration with common felons, the scum of English society! At another time it might be urged the Government could be said to be thought afraid; but that could not be imputed to them were they to exercise clemency. The hon. Member for Mayo had alluded to Marshal Serrano being admitted to the Government of Spain; but the case of the Hungarian Army which fought against the Kaiser at Comorn, was even stronger, for they were now received into the special favour of that very Emperor against whom they had rebelled. He believed there
  1766
  were but few in that House who did not feel for these unhappy political prisoners, and he hoped, if not on that occasion, in obedience to the hon. Member's Motion, that very shortly they would be liberated.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would also ask the Government to accede to the Motion. He cordially concurred in the observations which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), and thought the time had come when bygones might fairly be considered bygones, and that great sore might be removed in accordance with the wishes of the people of Ireland. That step on the part of the Government would give the greatest satisfaction.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that he could not support the spirit of the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). Whilst he felt much sympathy on behalf of these unfortunate men, he felt more sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman opposite who had to answer this charge. There was an old saying—
  "Oh! what a tangled web we weave
  When first we practise to deceive,"
  and that was the case with the present Government and their Predecessors with regard to the question. The Government, influenced, he believed, by what could not be better expressed than by the term cowardice, had refrained from tracing Fenianism to its source and to grapple with it. They had not dared to do that, but had seized the men who murdered Sergeant Brett at Manchester and had punished them. And what for? No doubt, it was a political offence. No doubt, these men were actuated by what they believed to be the interests of their country. But who taught them that? Who were the originators of Fenianism? Who was it held up before these men not merely all the ordinary influence of leaders, but also the high sanction of religion in chapel, in school, and in every form and shape the treason of which these unhappy men were the victims? It was permissively taught and supported by public money in the schools of Ireland, and yet the Government had not dared to grapple with the evil at its source. How long were we to act the part of national Jesuits, pretending to be a Protestant nation, and yet for our own petty convenience ignoring the fact

  1767
  that this treason was organized systematically? Fenianism was undoubtedly nothing more nor less than one of the manifold chameleon-like developments of that organized conspiracy which priests—he had almost said parsons, too,—were ready, to the extent of their power, to bring against society and against the welfare and happiness of the people amongst whom they lived. The contest between the priestly and civil power of the State was unequal, and would have to be fought out now, or at some future day it would have to be fought out under greater disadvantages. He appealed to the Government on behalf of these unhappy Fenians, who were energetic and patriotic, and entitled to sympathy, and asked them to trace the evil to its true source. He had over and over again implored the Government to afford facilities for investigation, and of bringing before the House by means of a Committee the evidence which he had from time to time been able to produce to show that Fenianism was in its origin sustained by the devices of the priesthood of Home. Let them seek out the imperium in imperio, the fountainhead of the organized system of treason and opposition to the civil government. They knew what was passing in Germany just now, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who now so worthily presided over the Government of this country to place England on an equality with other States and enable us to do our duty. He thought that the hon. Members who talked about the sufferings and wrongs of their country could not really believe anything of the kind——
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that such an observation was not in accordance with the usages of the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had not finished the sentence—they did not believe anything of the kind in the sense which their words conveyed to the House. There was no desire on the part of Parliament to oppress Ireland, which was more highly favoured in many respects than other parts of the Kingdom. He had some claim to speak on the subject; for years ago, he did as much as any Englishman could do amongst the Irish people in mitigating the evils of the Famine, and then it was he learnt the lesson that the people themselves felt the crushing influence of the tyranny
  1768
  of the priesthood. Therefore it was that he pleaded on behalf of the people for protection against their priesthood, against the tyranny under which individuals and the interests of their country were ground down. He trusted the Government would even at this late hour investigate the origin and nature of Fenianism, and trace it to its source; and if they did, they would find that that same malignant power which was imperilling and destroying, and had destroyed for generations, every true interest in Ireland, was still imperilling the interests and the safety of the land.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he gave every credit to the hon. Member for Mayo for his motives and feelings in introducing the subject which he had so very ably brought before the House. He could assure the hon. Member that there was not the slightest wish or desire on the part of the Government to throw either disgrace or dishonour upon any Irishman from one end of the country to the other. In considering this matter, however, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that there was one point connected with the Fenian conspiracy which had not been named by him—namely, that the Government of the day, when they thought they could safely do so, drew a broad line of distinction between the several classes of prisoners convicted during the Fenian outrages, and gave a large amnesty to those who were simply convicted of political offences. There was, however, a class of prisoners—and he regretted to say they were a large class—imprisoned for crimes and offences committed about that time which, in the opinion of the Government, were not political offences. The first two prisoners in the list were those connected, he was sorry to say, with what he had before, and what he must still call, the Manchester murder. Whatever might be the political feeling of those persons who attempted the rescue, and who really caused the death of the policeman, they were living at that time under the protection of the laws of this country, and they attacked the van with such violence that they deliberately killed the constable; by the law of England they were convicted of the crime of murder, and for that crime three of those persons, in his opinion, most justly suffered the punishment of death. It was in connection with that crime that

  1769
  two of the first persons on the list were still kept in prison. Of the next two persons on the list one took an office at Birmingham for the express purpose of buying arms and of providing with arms those who were contending at the time against the English Government, and the other man was a gunmaker, who was employed to make up the arms. They were living at Birmingham at the time. They were convicted for acting in contravention of the laws of the country, and not for committing political offences. The next class were the soldiers. Now, the hon. Member had said that everybody owed allegiance to the Crown. That was true, but a soldier entered upon a special duty; he owed a separate allegiance, and a breach of that separate allegiance by a soldier was a special danger to the country which must be avoided. It would be perfectly intolerable that a person who had taken the oath of allegiance and joined the British Army should when any danger pressed upon the country go over to the enemy and then be held irresponsible for that act. He (Mr. Cross) was bound before he sat down shortly to remind the House that this matter was brought before the House when the late Prime Minister was sitting on the Ministerial Bench in 1873, and the words which he then used seemed so entirely to apply to the present case that, with the permission of the House, he would read one extract from them—
  "I am sorry to say, Sir, that there is a strong and most conclusive reason, one which over rides every other reason, for not extending this amnesty to the men referred to, and for leading us to conclude that these men are not political prisoners at all in the sense in which indulgence might be extended to prisoners of that character. It is a sound principle of modern administration, that when there has been a convulsion in a country and the contagion of strong' feelings has led men to join it—when it is put down by the arm of the law, the individuals who were parties to it should be dealt with very leniently. But, Sir, I know no reason why single individuals, who, without the apology of contagion, have endeavoured to bring about bloodshed, should be so treated."—[3 Hansard, ccxvii. 997–8.]
  Therefore, it was not from any feeling of terror, but with the deepest regret, that he (Mr. Cross) had still to announce that it was the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government not to release the prisoners referred to.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

EAST INDIA HOME GOVERNMENT (PENSIONS) BILL.
(Lord George Hamilton, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
EAST INDIA HOME GOVERNMENT (PENSIONS) BILL.

  [BILL 74.] COMMITTEE.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill, explained that its object was to place servants who were in the employ of the Home Government of India under the Superannuation Act of 1869. The Bill would apply to two classes of persons—first, the Auditors of the establishment, and, secondly, certain Members of the Council. The Act constituting the India Council provided that all who were appointed Members of that Council should be appointed for life, and it enabled them to retire after 10 years' service with a pension of £500 per annum. In 1869 the Duke of Argyll brought in a Bill by which their tenure of office was reduced to 10 years, but the Secretary of State had power to grant them, if he thought fit, a further term of office—namely, for five years, but under that measure they were not entitled to any pension. The present Secretary of State thought it was advisable, in order to get men of the highest calibre to serve, that power should be given him to grant them pensions if he thought it right to do so. The object of this Bill was to place them under the Superannuation Act of 1869. If the Secretary of State gave them pensions, he would be bound to lay before Parliament the Warrant or Minute by which he granted such pensions, and, therefore, if any abuse were committed in that respect, the House would have ample opportunity of discussing the matter.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
(Mr. Dodds, Mr. Gourley, Mr. Callender, Mr. Rathbone.)
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.

  [BILL 63.] SECOND HEADING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. DODDS, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was substantially the same measure as that which had been considered by a Select Committee, and that its provisions

  1771
  had received the sanction of the Association of municipal corporations. It proposed to give an increased time formating the needful provisions for a contested municipal election, and also to assimilate the law relating to municipal elections with respect to nominations with the law relating to Parliamentary Elections, and thus to prevent the nomination of bogus candidates. Besides these two main provisions, there were a number of smaller details, the substantial effect of which would be to assimilate the laws governing municipal and Parliamentary elections.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  MR. WHEELHOUSE, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that whilst admitting that it was high time to put a stop to what were commonly known as bogus nominations, he considered that the Bill interfered much too largely with the present provisions of municipal elections. He should be quite willing to read the Bill a second time if it were understood that it would be open to him or any other hon. Member to object to going into Committee upon it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would agree to that arrangement. So far as he could see there was no principle whatever in the Bill, partaking as it did rather of the character of an omnibus measure, and he objected to certain clauses.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he would agree to the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday, 14th April.

BISHOPRIC OF ST. ALBANS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READINGS.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and enable them to carry into effect a certain proposal for the rearrangement of the Dioceses of London, Winchester, and Rochester, and the erection of a new Bishopric of Saint Albans, said, that as the matter was of some public interest, he should state very shortly what the proposition was which the Government had to make upon the matter, and how they had been enabled to make it. Hon. Members were quite aware that the dioceses of London, Winchester, and Rochester had, in the opinion of all men who had thought about the matter, and who were competent to judge, largely outgrown the dimensions of such a diocese as one Bishop could practically do the duty of. But in all these matters, the first great difficulty, however much it might be wished to subdivide a diocese, was the question of funds. In considering the question, the Government had come to the conclusion, first of all, that it must not be held to be a necessity in the Church of England that every Bishop who might be created in future should have an income of £5,000 a-year; and, in the next place, they took it as a maxim, that in the formation of any new dioceses no money was to be taken from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Having stated that, he would now explain that the reason which had induced the Government to introduce this Bill was the very generous offer made by one of the Bishops concerned. The Bishop of Winchester had an extremely large diocese, extending up into a very crowded part of London; his episcopal residence was at Farnham, and up to the present moment he had also one of the largest houses in St. James's Square, Winchester House. It struck that Bishop that that House was hardly wanted by the Bishop of the diocese. It was an extremely large and valuable property, and the rent would no doubt be very great. The Bishop conscientiously felt that his residence in London was not so long as to require such a residence, and the rent, he thought, could be put to a much better purpose. He therefore came to the Government

  1773
  through him (Mr. Cross) with what he might call a most generous and noble offer, placing that house entirely at the disposal of the Government on only one condition—that whatever money could be obtained by its sale should be devoted to the foundation of the new See. He must tender his thanks publicly to the Bishop for that generous offer on behalf of the Church. When the matter came to be considered, several proposals were brought before them. Eventually, the Bishops of London, Rochester, and Winchester, and the Archbishop, together with some other person, were formed into a Committee, and a scheme was the result, which had been modified, but eventually assumed the form he was now about to state to the House. He would state the limits of the diocese of St. Albans, and the territorial rearrangement of Winchester, Rochester, and London consequent on its formation. The new See would take Essex and Hertford from the diocese of Rochester; Rochester, therefore, would have considerable relief, and would take from Winchester East and Mid Surrey, and from the Bishopric of London St. Mary, Newington. There would be ample work for St. Albans, and they would also by this means be able to provide for the spiritual wants of a great part of the south of London—he believed to the satisfaction of every one concerned. The next question was how the funds should be provided for the new Sec. Whatever might be the produce of the sale of Winchester House, it would be entirely devoted to the endowment of the See of St. Albans. He would now state the income of the three different Sees, as they would be on the first avoidance of the present Bishops. The arrangement after the avoidance of the Sees of Winchester and Rochester would be this—Winchester would have £6,500 instead of £7,000; Rochester would have £4,500 instead of £5,000, and the £500 to be taken from Winchester and the £500 from Rochester, would be added to the sum to be gained by the sale of Winchester House, to form an endowment for the See of St. Albans. That sum would be augmented most probably by certain funds not legally attainable at present, but which eventually would be appropriated to this purpose. They were of opinion that they could now present this Bill to the House, and request
  1774
  its sanction to the formation of this new See, with a complete scheme to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to sell Winchester House, and to devote the sum realized to the foundation of the See of St. Alban's. As soon as a sum was obtained which would produce £2,000 a-year, the Bishopric would be founded. The Bishop would be in possession of the See, and on the avoidance of Winchester and Rochester, he would have £500 from each added to his income. The probable result of the arrangements would be to secure for the new Bishopric an income of between £3,000 and £4,000. As to the other arrangements, of course everything must be done with the consent of the Bishops of London, Rochester, and Winchester, and the consent of all had already been amply obtained. In the most generous way all the Bishops had given up all their patronage in the parts of their dioceses, which they were consenting to give up. The Bishop of Rochester would during his lifetime continue to receive the same income as at present; but he had come forward to say he gave his consent to the sale in his lifetime of Danbury, and the devotion of the proceeds to the erection of two residences, one for the See of St. Albans, and the other for the See of Rochester. The Bill was simply a Bill for the rearrangement of the three dioceses of Winchester, Rochester, and London, and he presented it to the House without asking for a farthing of money from any one, only desiring that they would authorize the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to carry the scheme into effect. He presented it really as a gift offered to the Church by the Bishops concerned; and he tendered them thanks for the sincere and earnest liberality with which they had come forward to make the offer. It could not be made in any way with a view to their own advantage, and it was dictated solely by the wish to devote their means, as far as they could consistently with their duty, to the sole good of the Church. [Mr. WHITWELL: Will the new Bishop have a seat in Parliament?] With regard to that, the precedent of Manchester would be followed exactly. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, there was no doubt that the Episcopate ought to increase with the growth of

  1775
  the population, and he therefore had great pleasure in thanking the Government for the introduction of the measure, for no one could have heard the statement that had been made without the greatest gratification. While desirous of expressing his sense of the great generosity which the Bishops of these dioceses had shown, he trusted it was not intended by this Bill to shut the door to a larger measure, whatever form it might take. For his own part, he could see no incompatability between a general measure and a specific one like the present. He must also state that at St. Albans there was a magnificent Cathedral, but a Bishop without a Chapter was like a military commander without a staff, and he therefore trusted that a Chapter would be provided for this Bishopric. He would also like to know what was going to be done with the parishes of Addington and Croydon?
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and enable them to carry into effect a certain proposal for the re arrangement of the Dioceses of London, Winchester, and Rochester, and the erection of a new Bishopric of Saint Albans, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir HENRY SEWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 95.]

  MARINE MUTINY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill for the Regulation of Her Majesty's Royal Marine Forces while on shore, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. HUNT, and Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolutions [March 11] reported and agreed to.
  Instruction to the Committee on the Consolidated Fund (£880,522 1s. 4d.) Bill, That they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the First Resolution.
  Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the Second Resolution, and that Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH do prepare and bring in the same.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment* (37); Agricultural Holding's (England) (39).
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND).

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, on rising to call attention to the law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England, and to present a Bill on that subject, said: My Lords, probably some of your Lord-ships may have remarked by the Notice Paper circulated this morning that an alteration has been made in the precise terms of the subject which I shall have the honour to bring before you, and that, instead of dealing with the law relating to agricultural holdings generally, the Bill which I shall lay on the Table of the House will apply only to the law relating to agricultural holdings in England. This is not because I wish to evade dealing with the matter as it regards agricultural holdings in Scotland; but there is a difference in the circumstances and laws which prevail in the two countries respectively, and for this reason, while it would not perhaps be quite impossible, it certainly would be very difficult to combine the cases of the two countries in one and the same Bill. While in Scotland, for instance, the lease will only pass to the hereditary descendant of the lessee, in England a lessee's interest will pass to his executors, administrators, or assigns. In Scotland no one can assign a lease without the consent of the lessor; but suppose a

  1681
  lease there is granted for 19 years, at the expiration of that term, unless notice is given to the tenant, he continues on the same terms by what is termed tacit relocation, until a fresh arrangement is made. Your Lordships will, therefore, understand why we have thought it more advisable not to attempt to legislate for England and Scotland in the same Bill; but I purpose to present before long a Bill to do for Scotland what this measure will do for England, and, as far as possible, to assimilate the laws of the two countries in respect of agricultural holdings. I may, however, observe that what I have to say on this occasion will apply equally well to Scotland as to England. And here, my Lords, I would observe that there is a topic intimately connected with the one on which I am about to address you—I mean the power of limited owners and ecclesiastical corporations and incumbents in respect of the making of leases; but the Acts of Parliament relating to this branch of the subject are so various, and the details connected with it so numerous, that we have found it impossible to master them sufficiently to enable us to include this portion of the subject in the Bill which I shall this evening lay on the Table; but we do purpose, by a separate Bill, to give power to limited owners, ecclesiastical corporations, and incumbents to grant leases, in order that their tenants may be put in the same position as that held by the tenants of other owners. My Lords, I am sure I need not apologize for bringing this subject under your Lordships' consideration. It is in the highest degree important, because it has a very close connection with the production of food for the consuming millions of this country. It has a great importance and interest for your Lordships and all other land-owners; it is obvious that it has not less importance and interest for those who cultivate the soil, and all with whom landowners are brought into intimate relations; and if it is important and interesting to those two classes, it is not of less moment to the community at large, who, as consumers, must be exceedingly desirous that the producing power of the agricultural districts of the country should be brought to such a pitch that it will go as close as it can possibly be made to go towards meeting the requirements of the country. My
  1682
  Lords, this is not a new subject. It is one which has long occupied much attention out-of-doors. At almost every agricultural meeting held for some time past it has been the theme of discussion—and not recently for the first time—because some years ago it was the topic of speeches and inquiries. I am not going to weary your Lordships by taking you very far back; but I think it will be necessary to ask you to bear with me while I refer you to something which occurred in 1848, when the subject was brought more particularly and distinctly under the notice of the other House of Parliament by a Gentleman as competent to give an opinion on it as any one who could have been named—Mr. Philip Pusey, the Member for Berkshire, and Chairman of the General Committee of the Royal Agricultural Society. He endeavoured to deal with the subject in the manner he thought best; and in doing so he was assisted by the late Mr. Evelyn Denison, the Member for Nottinghamshire, a practical agriculturalist of great knowledge and experience. On the Motion of Mr. Pusey, a Select Committee was appointed—
  "To inquire into the law and custom of different parts of England and Wales as between outgoing and incoming tenants, and also as between landlord and tenant, in reference to unexhausted improvements or deterioration of land and promises occupied for agricultural purposes."
  When I read the names of the Gentlemen who served on that Committee, which was presided over by Mr. Pusey himself, I am sure your Lordships will be of opinion that a better selection could not have been made, comprising, as the Committee did, men of all shades of political opinion, who came from all the various parts of the Kingdom, and who possessed a personal knowledge of the subject which they were called upon to consider. My Lords, on that Committee were Mr. Pusey, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Mr. Egerton Tatton, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Mr. Henley, Mr. Bouverie, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Moody, Mr. Sotheron, Mr. Colvile, Mr. Burroughes, Sir John Trollope, and Mr. Hayter. My Lords, that Committee sat for three months and examined something like 52 witnesses; and the general tenour of the evidence of those witnesses was to show

  1683
  that what was the complaint then is the complaint now. The complaint is, that there is insecurity to the tenant for the capital he has invested in the soil, which insecurity prevents the tenant from investing as largo an amount for agricultural purposes as he otherwise would, and which therefore results in the producing power of the country not being brought up to the pitch to which it might be raised if the tenant had security for that capital. So much was the want felt in what is called "high farming," that it became necessary where this description of farming was desired, to provide some security for the capital invested in the soil by the tenant; and consequently "customs" grew up. And, my Lords, no doubt, custom is important in considering this case and in arriving at a conclusion as to what we ought to do. It is not my intention to go through the list of all the customs that exist in this country with reference to these matters. To do so, even if my lungs did not fail me in the task, would occupy a longer time than I should venture to trespass on your Lordships, and than, probably, your Lordships would be inclined to grant me; but it may be taken generally that, in respect of compensation, customs attach to the preparation of the soil for crops by tillage, to the hay and straw and dung left on the farm, and to growing underwood. In some places the customs are very good. In Lincolnshire the custom is about as good a custom as any one would wish to live under. I have had the Lincolnshire custom before me in preparing the Bill, and I should have liked to embody it in the measure, but I found it impossible to do so, as it would have made it in some respects imperfect. In the part of the county in which I live the customs are rather loose; but in the northeast part of the county, towards Surrey and Kent, they are extremely onerous on the incoming tenant, putting him in pecuniary difficulties at a time when he wants as large a command of capital as possible. On one occasion a friend of mine took a farm in that part of the county and found himself charged, according to custom, with 19 harrowings for one field. He went to his lawyer, but was told that there was no other course for him but to pay it. I was told of another case, in which an incoming tenant was charged
  1684
  £200 for a remarkably bad field of turnips. Your Lordships, at a later period, will see how by this Bill we propose to get rid of bad customs; but I may at once indicate it, by saying that a man will not be able to claim both under custom and under this Bill. Before the Committee of the House of Commons it was stated that, in many cases, customs led to fraud by the outgoing tenant taking up manuring before giving up his holding. The first paragraph in the Report sets out:—
  "That different usages have long prevailed in different counties and districts of the country, conferring a claim to remuneration on an outgoing agricultural tenant for various operations of husbandry, the ordinary return of which he is precluded from receiving by the termination of his tenancy. That this claim, which is called 'Tenant-Eight,' ordinarily extends to one or more of the following objects:—To the crop which the outgoing tenant has sown and leaves in the ground; to remuneration for the preparation of the soil for crops by tillage, for the straw, hay, and dung left on the farm, and for growing underwood. That these local usages are imported into leases or agreements for the letting and occupation of land between landlord and tenant, who are presumed to contract with reference to such usages, unless the terms of the agreement, expressly or by implication, negative such a presumption. That in some parts of the country a modern usage has sprung up, which confers a right on the outgoing tenant to be reimbursed certain expenses incurred by him in cultivation other than those of the ordinary husbandry, above referred to. That among such expenses are included, the purchase of food for stock, the purchase of certain kinds of manure, and the draining, chalking, and marling of the soil; the result of all which outlays is to effect an improvement of the soil, more or less lasting, and requiring more or less time to elapse before the increased productiveness thereby obtained, reimburses the expenditure incurred. That, except in the districts where this usage prevails, unless by express stipulation, the outgoing tenant cannot claim compensation for any of those improvements, however short may be the time between their completion and the termination of his occupancy."
  I think, my Lords, that is a state of things which does require a remedy; because it amounts to this, that as the law now stands—in many places there being no custom—the tenant may put his capital in the soil, and so increase the value of the soil, the benefit of which is unexhausted at the termination of his tenancy, and yet reap no benefit whatever from the investment of his money, but the whole goes into the pocket of his landlord. I think that is a state of matters which its not at all satisfactory,

  1685
  and that the Committee were perfectly right in the opinion stated by them at the close of the passage which I have just quoted from their Report. In another part of their Report the Committee, after referring to certain customs of compensation, state—
  "That this wider system of compensation to the outgoing tenant seems to be highly beneficial to agriculture, to the landlord, and to the farmer; to lead to a great increase in the productiveness of the soil and to extended employment of the rural population. That the benefit arising from this system appears to be gradually becoming more extensively known and appreciated, and the system itself seems to be finding its way into other districts than those; where it has hitherto been in force. That the improvements abovementioned, which are very generally required throughout the country in order to develop the full powers of the soil, are greatly promoted by this system of compensation, and therefore it is highly important that all difficulties should be removed which stand in the way of its extension by the voluntary act of landlord and tenants. That any attempt to make its general introduction compulsory would be met by great practical difficulties, and your Committee rely for the general and successful adoption of the system on mutual arrangements between landlords and tenants. That it seems very desirable to your Committee that estates under settlement should be endowed with every practicable privilege for their advantage which is attached to absolute property, and that persons having limited estates, in addition to the ordinary leasing powers generally conferred on them, should be enabled, under proper precautions, to enter into stipulations of the nature of those above referred to, which at present it appears they cannot do. That the power to enter into such stipulations, binding on subsequent interests, might be advantageously made a general incident to leasing powers of land in settlement, by the aid of Parliament; and also be conferred on persons having certain limited interests in land."
  Your Lordships will perceive that the Committee did not recommend at that time that there should be any compulsory legislation on the subject. They proposed to leave it to such general agreement as might be come to between the landlord and the tenant. They point out the great difficulty existing as to settled estates, in the case of which limited owners have no power to charge the estate with compensation. They may agree with the tenant to pay him money for improvements; but if the limited owner should die before the compensation comes to be paid, the charge is merely one on his personal estate, which of course makes the security much less than it would be if the compensation
  1686
  were a charge on the estate. Among the witnesses examined by the Committee was Mr. Wren Hoskyns, and certain opinions given by him are worthy of your Lordships' attention. In the notes of his examination in this passage—
  "To take another case: if a landlord in Leicestershire signed an agreement to give five years' compensation for lime, the custom of the country being only for one year, would he be safe as to his personal representative after his decease in so enlarging the existing custom?—I think that it would not charge the estate; the claim would be against his personal representatives. So that if the landlord, desirous of improving his property, were to sign those agreements to a large extent, and the property were to descend to the minor, a distant relative, the guardians of that minor would, in your opinion, not be justified in paying that compensation to the tenants out of the income of the minor?—I think not, as claimed of right. Therefore their legal course would be to throw the claim upon the legatees of the deceased landlord?—Upon the personal representatives. The personal representatives of the deceased landlord?—Yes."
  My Lords, I doubt whether any one in this House will say that is a condition of things that ought to be allowed to continue longer. I think public opinion has been sufficiently roused and that Parliament is now competent to deal with it. After 25 years of agitation this matter has been amply digested, and the feeling now is in favour of legislation. No doubt the subject is a difficult one: but at the same time when we look to the increase of the population of the country, it will be seen that it is necessary to do something. According to the Census Returns in 1851 the population of England and Wales was then 18,054,170; in 1871 it was 22,712,266, showing an increase of 4,658,096 between the two periods. At the former period of 37,324,915 acres of land. 24,905,758 were cultivated. Of course, the total acreage was about the same in 1871, but the cultivated portion was 26,322,477, showing an increase of only about 1,000,000 acres. So that the increase of the population has gone on much faster than the increase in the acreage of cultivated land. My Lords, under these circumstances the Government have thought that a measure should be brought in to secure to the tenant the capital he has invested in the soil. I myself am much in favour of leases. Though I know that is not the common feeling South of the Tweed, I propose in this Bill to deal with yearly tenancies

  1687
  and also with leases. Of course, it is open to any owner of land to grant leases or not as he may think fit, but I am in favour of granting leases. I think that where you give a lease you are almost certain of a good tenant, and any one who has got a good tenant will not want to get rid of him. It is a great mistake to suppose that a landlord wants to change his tenant if he is a good tenant. I never in my experience knew an instance in which the landlord did not lose money by a change of tenant. Therefore on a selfish ground, if not on any higher principle, I like leases. My view is that where a lease is granted there is security—to the holder for his improvements—that is for his unexhausted improvements—and in my view it is a satisfactory arrangement between landlord and tenants. I have heard it stated that leases are objectionable, and especially leases which are put up to auction. Well, I think putting them up to auction is objectionable, for though you get the highest bidder you may probably get the worse farmer. The highest bidder is, perhaps, a man who does not look very far ahead—all he would want would be to get upon your farm, and he would chance whether he would have a good or bad time. I repeat that, to my idea, the best arrangement for both parties is a lease on fair terms; and I believe that if this were offered tenants would accept it in 99 cases out of 100. No doubt the general rule of English tenancies is a holding from year to year, with six months notice to terminate the tenancy. Tenancies at will are seldom found to exist now in respect of land. They are tenancies in which either party gives the other 24 hours' notice; that being the difference between tenancies from year to year and tenancies at will. My Lords, the principle of the Bill which I intend to lay before your Lordships is that where the tenant on his holding makes improvements of a certain kind, which I shall specify, he shall be entitled to compensation in the manner which I will describe to your Lordships. I am very unwilling to enter too much into details; but I am afraid I must do so, my object being that before I sit down your Lordships should understand everything in the Bill. I propose that the improvements shall be divided into three classes—

  FIRST CLASS.

  Drainage of land.

  Making or protecting of fences.

  Erection or enlargement of buildings.

  Planting of orchards.

  Making of gardens.

  Reclamation of waste land.

  Making or improving of roads or bridges.

  Warping of land.

  Making or improving of watercourses, ponds, wells, or reservoirs.

  My Lords, for so much of those improvements the tenant shall be entitled to compensation under the Act and subject to its conditions on the termination of his tenancy by reason of effluxion of time or for any other cause—that is for so much of them as is unexhausted. I propose that as regards the first class no claim is to be allowed unless the improvement has been made within 20 years before termination of tenancy, and with the previous consent in writing of landlord. As regards the second class, no claim to be good unless the improvement has been made within seven years; and as regards the third class, no claim to be good unless it has been made within two years. There is to be some check to prevent unfair outlay on artificial manure towards the end of the tenancy. Your Lordships will observe that the second and third classes of improvement may be made without the consent of the landlord in writing—such consent is required only in the case of the first class. I propose that the tenant should be compensated in this way. The amount of compensation to be a capital sum representing the unexhausted addition—as at the termination of the tenancy—made by the improvement to the letting value of the holding. The amount of the tenant's compensation shall be subject to the following deductions:—(1.) For I taxes, rates, and tithe-renteharge due or

  1689
  becoming due in respect of the holding to which the tenant is liable as between him and the landlord: (2.) For rent due or becoming due in respect of the holding: (3.) For the landlord's compensation under this Act in respect of waste. And in the ascertainment of the amount, there shall be taken into account in reduction thereof any benefit which the landlord has given or allowed to the tenant in consideration of the improvement. On the other hand, when a tenant commits waste, diminishing the letting value of the holding, the landlord will be entitled to receive, on the determination of the tenancy, compensation in respect of the "waste," and I propose that the following acts and things shall be deemed waste diminishing the letting value of the holding:—Breaking up of old grass without the written consent of the landlord; causing or permitting of land to be foul or neglected; damage to plantations, coppices, or timber included in the holding; loss of manure by hay, straw, roots, or green crops removed off the holding without the written consent of the landlord; loss of manure not returned to the holding in lieu of produce sold off subject to the manure being brought back; mowing of meadows, other than water meadows, without manuring; mowing of old pasture; neglect of drains, out-falls, or water-courses; neglect of gates or fences; neglect of ordinary repairs of buildings for which the tenant is liable; neglect of roads; over-cropping by the taking of too many successive white-straw crops; over-cropping without manuring; but nothing in the Act shall prevent any act or thing not specified in this section from being deemed waste diminishing the letting value of the holding. All these things are to be regarded as "waste," and are to be matters of setoff on the part of the landlord as against the tenant's claim for compensation; and the amount is to be a capital sum representing so much of the diminution of the letting value as continues at the termination of the tenancy. Now, my Lords, as to procedure. This is the mode in which I propose that the arrangements between landlord and tenant are to be carried out under this Bill. Notices of claims are to be given by tenant or landlord to the other of them three months before the end of the tenancy. The landlord and tenant may
  1690
  agree on the amount and mode and time of payment of the compensation. Of course, if both parties agree, there is an end of the matter. In case they do not so agree, the difference is to be settled by a reference. Both parties may agree to appoint a single referee. If they cannot agree upon such a referee, each appoints a referee, and the referees appoint an umpire. If they cannot agree, I propose to give the selection of the umpire to the Judge of the County Court. In such cases I think he would be a very competent person to make the selection. The amount agreed to or awarded, as the case may be, will be recoverable by summary process. I propose that there should be an appeal in cases where the amount of compensation is £100 or over; but that there should be no appeal where the sum awarded is less than £100. One must fix some limit, or otherwise there would be vexatious claims which would put the parties to considerable inconvenience. You want to give the tenant security for the compensation to which he is entitled. I propose, therefore, that a landlord, on paying compensation to a tenant, may apply to the County Court for a charge on the holding in respect of the amount so paid.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: To what tribunal is the appeal, where an appeal is given?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: To the County Court Judge. If the owner is an absolute owner, of course he can charge the property for any time he pleases; but in case of limited owners, where the Court is satisfied that compensation has been properly paid in respect of something that will add to the letting value of the farm, I propose that he may make the amount so paid a charge on the estate for 20, seven, or two years from the time the improvement was executed, according to the class of the improvement. These terms are proposed, because in the case of improvements of the first class, the claim for compensation must be made within 20 years from the time of the execution of the improvement; in the case of the second class, it must be made within seven years; and in the case of the third class within two years; or, in other words, the improvements, according to their respective classes, must have been made within those limits of years

  1691
  previously to the termination of the tenancy. The instalments payable out of the estate in discharge of the compensation shall be charged in favour of the landlord, his executors, administrators, and assigns; and, my Lords, for the purposes of this Bill, the title "landlords" is to mean the person entitled to possession of land subject to a contract of tenancy, or entitled to receipt of rent reserved by a contract of tenancy. It follows, therefore, that the limited owner is brought within the four corners of this Bill, and that any compensation which he shall have to pay the tenant will be legally chargeable on the land. With regard to leasing power to limited owners, that, as I have already intimated to your Lordships, will form the subject of another Bill. As to notices to quit, under the present system, in the case of yearly tenancies, the notice is half-a-year. I propose that in future that the notice shall be increased by half-a-year—that is, that there shall be a year's notice to quit in the case of a farm. The Bill contains a provision with respect to the taking of land for cottages and gardens; but with the details of this I need not trouble your Lordships. Existing leases are excluded from the operation of the Bill; but as it is perfectly clear that some machinery is necessary in order to bring it into operation as regards yearly tenancies—for otherwise that provision would be a dead letter—I propose that the Act should come into operation within three months from January, 1876; and unless within two months of that time either party—the landlord or the tenant—intimates that he does not intend to come under the Act, it will come in force as regards all yearly holdings. There is one other point. We do not propose to interfere with freedom of contract. I think your Lordships will see the force of this. If the Bill is wanted at all, it certainly is not wanted for small men, because they have no capital wherewith to make improvements on the land—they have nothing to put in the soil. But we are told that there are men of means and intelligence who desire to put capital in the soil for the purpose of increasing its productive powers, and my knowledge of that class of farmers certainly leads me to believe that, as a rule, they are perfectly competent to enter into agreements with their land-lords
  1692
  if they are assured compensation for unexhausted improvements. For that reason I should be one of the last to interfere with freedom of contract. On the contrary, I think it should be maintained; and hence it will not be affected by this Bill. My Lords, I am not vain enough to think that this Bill will satisfy every one; but I think it ought to satisfy every moderate and reasonable man; for while, on the one hand, it gives to the tenant that protection to which he is entitled, on the other hand it does not invade those rights of the landlord which in this country have always been held sacred. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  EARL GRANVILLE: When does the noble Duke propose to take the second reading?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: As to that, I am quite in the hands of your Lordships. My object is not to press the Bill on unduly, and of course I should not think of moving the second reading till after Easter.
  LORD REDESDALE: As to the power of appeal, why should you limit it to cases in which the compensation will be £100 or over, and in which the tenant holds, perhaps, 500 acres? Why should not the tenant with 20 acres have an appeal?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: Because the man with 20 acres would never lay out a shilling that would entitle him to compensation.
  LORD REDESDALE: But he might; and suppose he did? I think the noble Duke ought to reconsider that point.
  Motion agreed to; Bill for amending the Law relating to Agricultural Holding in England, presented by the Lord President; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 39.)
  House adjourned at quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.