Sitting of 27 April 1876

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—James Duff, esquire, for Norfolk County (Northern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Metropolitan Fire Brigade, Mr. Fielden disch., Mr. Hardcastle added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—County Rates (Ireland)* [138].
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (Aldborough, &c.)* [131]; Game Laws Amendment (Scotland)* [123], debate adjourned.
Committee—Merchant Shipping[49]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Publicans Certificates (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [115]
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [122]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [125], and passed.

ROYAL TITLES BILL—NOTICES.
MR. COWENgave Notice that tomorrow he would ask the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) Whether, considering that since the Royal Titles Bill was read a third time information has reached this country showing that the statement of the Prime Minister on the introduction of the Bill that it would give satisfaction to the Princes and people of India was the reverse of correct, he will endeavour to secure to the House another opportunity of considering the addition to Her Majesty's title, which it is most expedient should be assumed before the Proclamation is issued which will give effect to the Royal Titles Bill?
MR. CHARLES LEWISgave Notice that on the 28th instant, or as soon as the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) should be in his place, he would ask, Whether he is correctly reported in The Daily Telegraph of the 19th of April to have spoken at a Liberal banquet at East Retford with reference to the Royal Titles Bill as follows:—
"I strongly suspect that this is not now brought forward for the first time. I violate no confidence, because I have received none: but I am under a conviction that at least two previous Ministers have entirely refused to have anything to do with such a change. More pliant persons have now been found, and I have no doubt the thing will be done."
And if the answer of the right hon.
1758
Gentleman should be in the affirmative, he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will state to which Ministers of the Crown he referred in such speech; and, whether the information upon which he made such statement was communicated to him by any one holding the position of a Privy Councillor?
MR. SPEAKER: I think it right to state to the House that the Question of which the hon. Member has given Notice refers to matters which passed outside the walls of this House, and does not relate to any Bill or Motion before the House, and that therefore it is a Question which, according to the Rules of this House, cannot be put.

EGYPT—PAPERS, &c.—QUESTION.
MR. COWEN (for Mr. J. W. BARCLAY)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Khedive of Egypt in regard to the appointment of a Commissioner on the foundation of a National Bank in Egypt, or as Receiver of part of the revenues of Egypt?
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, all the Papers connected with Egyptian affairs will be laid upon the Table of the House; but it will not be convenient to lay them on the Table immediately.

OWNERS OF LAND (ENGLAND)—THE NEW "DOMESDAY BOOK."

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of the Government to issue a corrected edition of the list of holders of land in England and Wales designated the Domesday Book; and, if not, whether, lest the book should in future years become a reputed schedule of the areas of land held by individual owners at this time in the several counties, he will state that it does not profess to be an authority or any evidence as to the legal title to or ownership of land, and that it assumes to be no more than a compilation from the rate books of England and Wales, has been already found to contain numerous errors?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, there was no intention of issuing a cor-

  1759
  rected edition of the list of holders of land in England and Wales; but a record had been made of the corrections which had been sent in to the office, in case it should hereafter be deemed expedient to issue a supplementary statement. The Return was only a compilation from the various rate books of England and Wales; and inasmuch as they had never been relied upon as evidence of legal title, so far as he was aware, the hon. Gentleman might feel assured that no evidence of title or ownership could possibly be rested upon the statements in this Return.

THE CIVIL SERVICE—THE ORDER IN COUNCIL—CLAUSE 12.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CONORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What steps have been taken to place those writers who are eligible, under the conditions of Clause 12 of the Order in Council of the 12th February 1876, in the new lower grade of the Civil Service; and, whether, in the case of men who have served a number of years as writers, such service shall count towards pay and promotion in the new division?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that applications were in course of being received from the particular Departments in which writers were specially selected for appointment. Several appointments had been made, and others were under consideration. With regard to the position of writers, such as had received more than the minimum would, if advanced, be allowed to begin at the higher salary. Promotion would be regulated strictly and exclusively by merit.

ARMY—MILITIA ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (for Mr. STACPOOLE)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the former Adjutants of Militia who have been gazetted to the honorary rank of Majors, and made supernumerary in their regiments(after having accepted the liberal retirement under the recent Warrant) will be called out to do duty as Field Officers during the training of their regiments this year; if so, will they draw additional pay and allowances during such trainings; in the event of their drawing extra pay, whether
  1760
  having three Majors will not add considerably to the charge for the Staff of the Army; and, what place on parade or in the field is the third Major to occupy?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: In reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that these officers will attend training if not granted leave of absence, and, in accordance with the terms of the Warrant, will receive so much of their pay as shall, with their retired allowance, amount to the full pay of the rank they hold in the Militia. A considerable additional expense is incurred; but this was duly considered at the time of preparing the Royal Warrant, and allowed as being necessary to carry out the localization scheme. The third Major will assist the other Field Officers, in accordance with the orders he may receive from his commanding officer.

ARMY—ARMY AND AUXILIARY FORCES —RETURNS.—QUESTION.
MR. J. HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Return showing the number of Commissioned Officers in the Army and Auxiliary Forces, moved for on the 5th August 1875, will be in the hands of Members?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYI must inform the hon. Gentleman that the preparation of this Return has involved enormous labour, and the labour of printing it is almost equal to that of preparing it. I hope, however, it will be in the hands of hon. Members within a week.

THE VALUATION BILL—SURVEYORS OF TAXES.—QUESTION.
MR. E. HUBBARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the alarm felt at the position of the Surveyor of Taxes in the Valuation Bill, he will state to the House how far the Surveyor of Taxes is paid by a percentage or poundage on the amount of taxes that he pays over to the Revenue; and, if the promotion of a surveyor to new districts of a higher class is influenced by his having been able to raise the amount of the rates in his old district?
THE CHANCELLOROF THE EXCHEQUERI have made inquiry, and the information which has been furnished to me is to this effect:—That Surveyors of Taxes are paid wholly by salary, and do,

1761
not receive any percentage or poundage whatever. Their promotion is governed by the same rule which prevails in other departments—general merit and seniority. If complaints were received that a Surveyor of Taxes had improperly made a new assessment, such conduct would retard and not accelerate his promotion.

THE "MISTLETOE'—THE CORONER'S JURY—QUESTIONS.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will direct an investigation, by a Committee of this House, into the proceedings in connection with the Gosport Coroner's Jury on the "Mistletoe" disaster?
SIR JOHN SCOURFIELDasked If the right hon. Gentleman would also direct an inquiry into the circumstances under which 32 persons lost their lives in Aberdeen owing to arrangements which had been pronounced to be defective by the Government Inspector?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had not been aware until that moment that he had the slightest power to direct an investigation by a Committee of the House of Commons into any matter. The Coroner was not subject to the Secretary of State in any shape. He had consulted the Lord Chancellor on the matter, and all he had to state was this:—He understood that the reference in the Question was to the first inquiry. That ended in there being no verdict; but the second inquiry ended in a verdict, and there was no imputation on the Coroner or jury connected with the second investigation. There was no case for a fresh inquiry. If the first Coroner misconducted himself, he might be removed by statutory proceedings before the Lord Chancellor. In the absence of any statutory proceeding, he thought the case was one in which the House would not interfere.
MR. ANDERSON: In consequence of the reply which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman I will now give Notice that I will on the earliest possible day move for a Committee.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS— LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
1762
ment, Whether it is his intention to introduce during the present Session a Bill to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject during the present Session. A very large amount of evidence had been taken in reference to the question, and he thought it right that the country should have an opportunity of considering it before any measure was brought in to amend the Acts.

ARMY—THE GUARDS—STOCK PURSE FUND ALLOWANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. ARTHUR MOOREasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House what are the "Miscellaneous" expenses, besides hospital and recruiting services, which the allowance of £11,079 15 s. or £158 5s. 6d. per company, given to the Guards' stock-purse, really are; how much of this sum goes to the hospital, and how much to the recruiting services; and, whether he has any objection to furnish a full statement of the appropriation of the allowance during the last year for which the accounts are complete?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, if the hon. Member would move for a Return he would give it unopposed.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE BUDGET BILL.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state to the House the reasons which have induced the Government to depart from the intention which he announced in the House before Easter of taking the Budget on the first Thursday after the holidays; and, whether he is now able to give a definite assurance as to the day upon which the Second Reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill will be taken?
  MR. CHILDERSbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Bill had not been printed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, when he stated that it was intended to take the second reading of the Customs and Inland Re-

  1763
  venue Bill this day, he had hoped that the Merchant Shipping Bill would have passed through Committee on Monday. He was disappointed in that hope, and all he could now say was the reason why they did not propose to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill to night was that they felt it necessary to proceed first with the Merchant Shipping Bill, and as soon as they had passed that through Committee they would take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill as the First Order on the next Government day. He was not quite sure what had been the cause of the delay in the printing of the Bill; he saw it a little time ago, and he believed it was ready for distribution.

BARBADOES—THE RIOTS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government has received any information to-day with regard to the state of the island of Barbadoes? He asked the Question because a most startling, not to say alarming, statement had appeared in the public Press this afternoon, purporting to be a telegram received from that island to-day.
MR. DISRAELI: I will give such information as I have to the right hon. Gentleman and the House; but, not having had Notice of the Question, I have not had, until the last few moments, time to make any inquiries. I understand, from the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, who sent the paper to me, that an extraordinary telegram, dated April 26th, has been published, saying—
"500 prisoners taken; 40 killed and wounded; riots suspended; position threatening; confidence in the Government entirely gone."
[Laughter.] This is no laughing matter for the people of Barbadoes. There has been a telegram received by us, dated the 25th—that would be rather before this alarming telegram—but it has not been given to the House yet. It is as follows:—"No truth in the private telegram"—this is the answer to the inquiry we made as to the last alarming and mysterious telegram—
"No truth in the private telegram. The island has been quiet since Saturday. Some black troops from Jamaica had left before my countermanding telegram. Will arrive on Friday. A detachment is also en route from Demerara, but they will not be detained."
1764
That is a telegram from the Governor. That is all the information I can give to the House; nor can I throw any light on those mysterious telegrams, which have evidently been systematically forwarded to this country. I must leave it to the House to form their own opinions on this subject. I will, of course, take care that the most recent information is always furnished to the House.

ROYAL TITLES BILL—THE PROCLAMATION.—QUESTION.
MR. ANDERSON: Sir, in consequence of the Question of which Notice has been given to-night by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) as to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition using his influence to secure a day for the further discussion of the title of "Empress," I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he will agree to delay the issuing of the Proclamation of the Royal Title till the noble Lord has had time to answer that Question?
MR. DISRAELI: The hon. Gentleman has given no Notice of the Question.
MR. ANDERSON: Under the circumstances I feel bound, in order to put myself right, to move the adjournment of the House. I do not think, Sir, although it is customary to give Notice of a Question, that the Question I have just asked is one that the Prime Minister ought to have had any difficulty whatever in answering without Notice. It is not a question as to anything which he would have to investigate; but simply a question as to his own willingness to do a certain thing, which must be within his own knowledge at once. It will be in the recollection of the House that during the debates on the Royal Titles Bill, one of those few arguments that had any weight at all with the House was that this title of Empress was to give great satisfaction to the people of India. When I spoke upon this question on the third reading of the Bill I had seen one or two Indian papers, and I said, even then, that it was quite evident that was not the case. Since then a great many more Indian papers have come to hand, and it turns out now, so far as we can judge from these, that almost universally the opinion of the people of India is not in favour of the title of Empress, but is directly opposed to it, Under these cir-

1765
cumstances, Sir, for this is a sort of new revelation come to us, the House has really good ground for re-considering the decision already come to upon that Bill, and in order that the House may have an opportunity for that re-consideration the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) gave Notice of a Motion, and has endeavoured in every way within his power to get a day for its discussion. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was told by the Prime Minister that if he had supported that Motion the Government would then feel bound to accede to it. Now, a Question has been put down for to-morrow when the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is to give us a reply whether he will use his influence to get a day for the discussion of this question; and I think it is not an unreasonable thing to ask that the Proclamation shall be delayed till after the time that the noble Lord, has considered that question and given his reply.
MR. DISRAELI: This shows the convenience of our Rule that Notice of Questions should be given. The hon. Gentleman in the present instance asked me whether I was prepared to advise Her Majesty not to issue a Proclamation in consequence of a Question of which Notice has been addressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I was perfectly ignorant what that Question was until I gathered its purport now from the observations of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson). I never heard the Question—["Notice"]—or Notice; we do not seem to know what the question is. It must have been put at the commencement of Business and just before I entered the House. But it comes to this—whether I will announce that I will delay advising Her Majesty respecting the issue of a Proclamation legally under an Act, which I believe is now passed, in consequence of a Notice which has been given by a Member of this House to address a Question to the Leader of the Opposition to-morrow. I beg to say I certainly shall not allow myself to be induced from refraining to give that advice which I think Her Majesty ought to accept and follow.
MR. CHARLES LEWISgave Notice that when the hon. Member for Hackney addressed the House on his Motion of censure on the Government, he should ask the right hon. Member for the Uni-
1766
versity of London the Question which he had already that evening read to the House.
MR. FAWCETT: Sir, it seems to me that the Prime Minister has hardly dealt fairly with—["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question now before the House.
MR. FAWCETT: I understood that the adjournment of the House had been moved.
MR. SPEAKER: An observation was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) that he would conclude with a Motion—but he did not do so. A Question was then put to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and that Question has been answered. That Question bore upon a Notice of a Question proposed to be put to-morrow by the hon. Member for Newcastle to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I did not at the time gather when he gave that Notice the precise drift of the Question; but I now very much doubt whether a question of that character could, consistently with the Rules of the House, be put to the noble Lord.
MR. ANDERSON: I commenced by moving the adjournment of the House.
MR. FAWCETT: I should like to be in order, and I understand the hon. Member now proposes the adjournment of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member commenced his observations by stating that he would move, but he made no Motion.
MR. FAWCETT: Then, so that I may put myself perfectly in Order, as there seems to be some doubt on the subject, I will conclude with a Motion for the adjournment of the House. It seems to me that although it is very easy on the part of the Prime Minister to represent what has been done by the hon. Member for Glasgow in a ludicrous light, the request he has made is a very reasonable one, and one which will be supported by many hon. Members on this side of the House. I am not going to make more reference than I possibly can avoid to what has taken place on previous occasions; but two Notices of Motion have been given, each of which has been interpreted by the Prime Minister as a direct Vote of Censure on the course of conduct the Government are now about to pursue. The second Motion

1767
was made as strong, precise, and distinct as it possibly could be made in order to give the Government an opportunity of defending their conduct, to which we object. The Prime Minister, adopting a course which I believe is somewhat unusual, said, apparently forgetting that private Members have again and again moved Votes of Censure in this House, that he could not facilitate the discussion on the Motion, which, as I said, he interpreted as a Vote of Censure, unless he received some countenance from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. An hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Anderson) takes what seems to me the straightforward, practical, and sensible course, and asks whether in the present state of affairs he will delay issuing the Proclamation until the Question that is to be put to-morrow to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has been answered. As the Prime Minister did not hear the terms of the Question, I may say it is to ask the noble Lord whether, considering that since the time when the Royal Titles Bill passed a third reading, information has reached this country that the statement made by the Prime Minister in justification of the Bill—namely, that it would give satisfaction to the Princes and people of India, is the reverse of accurate—a stronger word might be used—whether, under these circumstances, the noble Lord will use his influence to obtain a discussion of this question under the entirely new aspect it now assumes? It is quite possible for the First Lord of the Treasury to prevent the noble Lord from answering the Question. ["Divide!] I am quite aware that hon. Members opposite do not like this question; but it is one which we must press, and, if necessary, we will carry the Motion to a division. The First Lord of the Treasury is alarmed at his present position. ["Oh, oh!"] I say advisedly that he is afraid to meet this Vote of Censure. I now challenge him to do so. He is afraid to be pressed with it, and he wants not to give the noble Lord an opportunity of exercising that influence which he knows, if exercised, would secure a discussion on this Motion, because the First Lord of the Treasury knows that he can defeat the Notice of Motion by issuing the Proclamation to-morrow morning. Why does not the Prime Minister answer the straightforward question that has been
1768
put to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow? "Why does he not say "Yes" or "No" to a simple question? This is a question which we will use every power of the House to have considered. Will he or will he not give the House the assurance that the Proclamation shall not be issued until the noble Lord has had an opportunity for conferring with his hon. Friends upon the question? I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
MR. POTTERseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Fawcett.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It would certainly be more convenient that I should have had an opportunity of considering the terms of the Question of which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) has given Notice before I made any statement upon the subject. Like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I did not entirely catch the terms of that Question which I understand my hon. Friend proposes to put to me to-morrow; but as, in consequence of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it appears probable that the matter may by to-morrow have passed entirely out of the control of Parliament, I think it necessary to say one or two words. I cannot altogether agree with the view taken the other day by the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). No doubt it is perfectly true that the Government themselves must be the judges of the importance which they choose to attach to a Motion involving censure on the Government; and it is obviously impossible that every Motion of censure by a private Member can be so treated by the Government as to be allowed to stand in the way of ordinary business. But, at the same time, it does seem to me that when a Motion of this description is brought forward which deals with a matter with which the House has a perfect right to deal—namely, the advice which the Ministers are going to give to Her Majesty with regard to the use that is to be made of an Act that has just passed through Parliament—it seems to me that the Government are taking a grave respon-

1769
sibility on themselves if they proceed to give advice without giving a Member of the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney an opportunity of laying before the House the views he wishes to lay before it, and without giving the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon those views. The right hon. Gentleman I understood to say would consider, at all events, the expediency of giving a day to the hon. Member if I or those who sit near me pressed him to do so. Well, Sir, the object of the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle is to ascertain whether I am so prepared to press the right hon. Gentleman. I indicated the other day that I had considerable doubts whether any sufficient practical object was to be gained by again raising the question which I am afraid, as far as Parliament is concerned, has passed, or is very rapidly passing, entirely out of our control. I cannot say, from the communications which I have been able to have with hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, that I have seen any reason to alter my opinion. I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting with many whom I should wish to have consulted. The other House of Parliament, too, is not altogether to be omitted from consideration, and it is only this evening that that House re-assembles after the Recess. So far, however, as I have had communication with my Friends, I see no reason to alter the opinion that I indicated the other day; and if it is necessary that I should give an answer without further consideration, I must say that I am not prepared to take the responsibility of pressing the Government to give the hon. Member the opportunity he asks for. That is my own opinion; but I think the Government are taking a very serious responsibility in pressing this measure forward with what I cannot but regard as unnecessary haste, and not only declining to give facilities, but absolutely preventing hon. Members from obtaining the opportunity which the ordinary Forms of the House would otherwise give them of bringing forward their Motions.
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker—We consider that the question which the hon. Member for Hackney wishes to raise is one on which the House has already given an opinion. We do not shrink from the responsibility of the
1770
course which we shall adopt, and we are not prepared to refrain from advising Her Majesty to issue the Proclamation which Her Majesty will be empowered to issue. But, having made that declaration, I beg to remind the House that it will be open to the House—if it wishes to change the opinion which it has declared, and wishes to censure the Government—it will, I say, be open to the House of Commons to express that censure; and I hereby undertake to say that, if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, after considering with his Friends, and after due reflection, thinks that the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers in this respect deserves the censure of the House, I will take care to give him the earliest opportunity of expressing such an opinion.
MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman seems to seek to evade the question before the House. It is not a proposition made from this side of the House with a view of censuring the Government.
MR. DISRAELI: Yes it is; he says so.
An hon. MEMBER: It is distinctly stated.
MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Not at all. It takes a Parliamentary form which comes under that description. The object of that Motion is to give the House another opportunity of considering the question before it is finally decided. Nobody on this side of the House wants to pass a Vote of Censure on the Government. Everybody knows that would be a very foolish and absurd proposition to make in the present state of the House. But what is the fact in regard to this question? It has been pressed through both Houses of Parliament with a speed and with an urgency which are extraordinary. Why, Sir, when the Bill was before this House in Committee, although there were propositions made of the most reasonable, and I believe most proper, character with a view to certain verbal alterations in the Bill, every alteration, however reasonable, was rejected, and for this purpose—everybody knows the purpose—to prevent the House having an opportunity of further discussion on the bringing up of the Report. When the Bill went to another House, what was the course taken there? Propositions for Amendments were made by the most eminent lawyers in that House.

1771
["Order, order!"] I hope I am not out of Order. What was said by the most eminent lawyer there? ["Order!" "Chair, Chair!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not in Order in referring to the debates in the other House of Parliament.
MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I was not about to quote the words which were said in the other House. What I was going to say is this—that measures have been taken to prevent this House having any further opportunity for discussing that Bill, which we should have had if any alteration in the Bill had been permitted to be made in the other House. Therefore, looking at the whole matter from the beginning, there can be no doubt that the question has been urged forward with a degree of—what shall I say?—compulsion on the part of the Government which is unusual with regard to any other Bill. ["No, no!] I say it is not only unusual, but it is dangerous on so delicate a question as that concerned in the Bill we are now discussing. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to have given the House another opportunity for discussing it. It would have made no difference with what is called the "mechanical majority" which he leads, for there would still have been 100 in support of his views. But whether or not the question would have had another, and on the whole a fairer discussion than it had originally, the right hon. Gentleman in the future would have stood rather better than before, because he would have given the very fullest opportunity for considering the question and deciding finally upon it. The object of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney is merely this—to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion with regard to the addition to be given to the Queen's title. It is not for the purpose of passing a Vote of Censure on the Government, which it is quite obvious in the present state of the House it would not be in the power of this side of the House to carry.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is rather a surprising one. He says the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney was not intended to be a Vote of Censure; but surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot have looked at
1772
the terms of the Notice. The Notice is—
"That this House disapproves of the advice which the Prime Minister has announced will be given to Her Majesty by Her Ministers, advising Her Majesty to assume the Title of Empress of India,"
and if that is not to all intents and purposes a Vote of Censure I honestly confess I do not know what is. But we are not left to draw inferences merely from the terms of the Notice itself. We draw our inferences from the circumstances attending the giving and the change of the terms of the Notice. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the Government using compulsion to force the Bill through Parliament. I really do not understand that sort of allegation. The Bill was brought forward in the most solemn manner; it was read a second time after a discussion without a division; the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition himself brought forward a Motion on the occasion of the Bill going into Committee to the effect that the House, while not opposing the passing of the Bill, and while approving of Her Majesty making some addition to the style and title which belonged to the Crown, prayed Her Majesty not to take any particular title. Upon that Motion being made a full discussion took place; and the House, by a very large majority, consisting not exclusively of Members on this side of the House, but of a large majority of the House, decided against the Motion of the noble Lord. Subsequently to that the Bill passed through Committee. The various subjects which were brought forward were fairly and fully discussed, and the measure was afterwards read a third time in the usual way. We have even had it cast in our teeth as a reproach that so much time has been spent in the passing of this Bill that other measures of importance had to be laid aside. Well, the Bill went up to the other House, and there also, without going into the details of what occurred, we know that it was very fully discussed, and did not pass without much debate and a division. What, then, is our position? As soon as it was known that the Bill would pass the other House of Parliament the hon. Member for Hackney gave Notice before Easter that he would once more renew the question in this House. From the terms in which the Motion was couched it might, per-

1773
haps, bear the construction which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon it. But what happened? The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition went so far that he deliberately asked the Government if they would not appoint a day for the hon. Member to bring his Motion before the House. The Government naturally supposed that it had been adopted by the Opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate, as I am sure he would like to be. I simply asked a question as to the progress of Business during the week, and I called the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that an important Motion stood upon the Paper, and inquired what was the intention of Her Majesty's Government with reference to it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for having unintentionally—speaking entirely from memory—misrepresented what passed; but the impression which was erroneously received on this side of the House was that the noble Lord, speaking for himself and his Friends, expressed the opinion that it was a question on which the Government ought to give an opportunity for discussion, and the Government understanding, perhaps erroneously, that there was an intention to challenge their conduct in a manner so serious, endeavoured to make an arrangement which, unfortunately or fortunately I do not say, but for some reason or other, did not take effect. That was not through any laches on the part of the Government. The Government did all that lay in their power to get the Motion discussed, and the opportunity might have been availed of before Easter for a full discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney. Well, then, the Motion stood over until the House met after the Easter holidays, and it was still in the power of the House, if they had chosen, to take the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition whether it was a case in which it would be right to challenge the conduct of the Government, and to move what in the ordinary sense is called a Vote of Censure. That has not been done. The circumstances are fresh in the recollection of the House. The noble Lord, in what I think was a most reasonable and sensible manner, said that there would be no practical
1774
good to be got from a further discussion of the question—that it was not a matter that he and his Friends took up or pressed the discussion of; and thus we were left in the presence of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney. Under these circumstances, my right hon. Friend stated that it was impossible for the Government to suspend the ordinary and pressing Business of the House by giving up a day to a discussion which could lead to no practical consequence, and could only be productive of painful feelings at both sides of the House. Well, having arrived at that stage, suddenly, without any Notice whatever, an hon. Member gets up and says he will tomorrow put a Question to the noble Lord which is virtually to ask him whether he will change the sentiments he expressed the other day, and we have heard the answer of the noble Lord; and now we are told that we ought ourselves to interrupt the Business of Parliament and advise Her Majesty not to exercise her Prerogative in order that the hon. Member for Hackney may bring forward his Motion of censure. I do not think that is a reasonable proposition. However desirous the Government may be not to shrink from the fullest discussion of any question affecting their character or conduct, the House will feel, I think, that a line ought to be drawn, and that the Government have taken the proper course in this matter.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had stated that after the issuing of the Proclamation the House would still have an opportunity of questioning the conduct of the Government. But what would be the use of doing so then? They were told that the Bill had not been pressed through Parliament with undue haste, and if it only referred to people in this country, that might be urged; but what time had been afforded to the House to ascertain the feelings of the Colonies in reference to it? They had been assured that a strong feeling existed in India in favour of the measure. Where was there any evidence of such feeling? Surely under such circumstances some opportunity should be given even to those who might have voted for the measure to re-consider the subject. The opinions of Englishmen in other parts of the world might then be ascertained; and he therefore appealed

1775
to the Government to enable the House to discuss the question still further.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERobserved, that at the request of the Prime Minister he and other hon. Members who had Motions on the Paper agreed to give every possible facility to the hon. Member for Hackney to bring forward his Motion of censure. The right hon. Gentleman had hardly resumed his seat when, one after another, the Notices were withdrawn. But what occurred at the other side of the House? He did not know what were the political relations between the noble Marquess and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham (Major Beaumont); but this was certain, that their Motions were not withdrawn. While one hon. Member was addressing the House 30 Members were present, and while the other hon. Member rose to bring forward his Motion the only other occupants of the House, were the junior Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) and the humble individual who was now addressing them. However important might have been the subjects such was the condition of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had been pleased to refer to the majority at the back of the Prime Minister as a "mechanical majority." The right hon. Gentleman, as representing Birmingham, was probably a judge of mechanics; in any case, his constituents were; and he fancied the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him in thinking that the construction of such a majority showed that its inventor possessed great patience, power, and statesmanship; and that it was likely to last for many years, notwithstanding the amiable efforts made on the other side of the House to dislodge it from the position it held.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down dwelt too much on the generosity of Conservative Members in withdrawing their Notices of Motion to make way for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney; whereas the fact was their own Notices were so low down on the Paper that there was not any possibility of their being brought on. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
1776
the Exchequer had referred to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney as a Vote of Censure upon the Government. In its present form the Motion might be so described; but it was only just to his hon. Friend to say that he had endeavoured to induce the Government to give an opportunity for discussing a proposal which, instead of censuring the Government, would have given the House an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question. It was only at the last moment, and with great regret, that his hon. Friend was compelled to alter the terms of his Motion in order to give it some kind of urgency and to force it upon the attention of the Government. The Prime Minister had declined to give facilities for the discussion of the Motion of his hon. Friend, on the ground that it had been laid before Parliament by a Gentleman whom he chose to describe as an "irresponsible Member of the House." It was certainly new to him to hear it stated that any Member of the House was an irresponsible Member, and he was at a loss to know what was the new rule under which private Members were to be treated with contempt. The right hon. Gentleman in his own Parliamentary experience must have known of Governments being turned out of office on Motions brought forward by those whom he was pleased to call irresponsible Members. His hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Roebuck), an irresponsible Member, had brought forward a Motion on which a Government had been turned out of Office. The late Mr. Joseph Hume had done the same thing; and the noble Marquess when an irresponsible Member had on a Motion of his turned out a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman himself had been a Member. All that was now asked was a short delay, and he could not see where was the urgency for the Proclamation. Besides, the House should recollect that this was a question which did not concern the people of England. By them it was regarded with disdain and disgust. It did, however, interest the people of India, and it was only now they were beginning to learn what was the opinion in respect to it, and he was sure if hon. Members opposite were only true to the principles they expressed in the Lobby the Bill would never have passed into law. ["Oh, oh!"] He repeated that it was a surprise to him

1777
that, knowing what were the real opinions of the Conservative Members of the House, they had not been more faithful to themselves, and voted against the Bill. By doing so they would have spared themselves much humiliation, and it was, therefore, in order to give them an opportunity of re-considering the subject that he thought some further opportunity should be given for discussing this question.
LORD ELCHO: The hon. Gentleman opposite who has just spoken has only followed the lead of the late Prime Minister when he assumed that the Members on the opposite side of the House had voted conscientiously with reference to this question, while those on this side have not. Now, Sir, the question is whether the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney is intended for a Vote of Censure or not. I can only say that when the hon. Member for Hackney was speaking I sat near to him, and although from the interruptions it was difficult to hear his remarks, I certainly understood him to say that he had specially drawn his Motion as one of censure, and therefore whatever his original intention was the Motion as framed was a Vote of Censure on the Government. The Prime Minister said that if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition wished to move a Vote of Censure he would see that he had a day placed at his disposal for that purpose; but the noble Lord did not avail himself of the offer, and here let me say that, as an independent Member, I have viewed with the greatest possible satisfaction the course which the noble Lord has taken and the way in which he has used his great influence with reference to this question. Not one single word has been used by him in the course of these somewhat excited discussions which could have given the slightest offence to, or roused in any way the susceptibilities of, the native Princes of India, and this is more than can be said of the language of some of his right hon. Friends who sit near him. He deserves credit for the example he has set to his followers, and I regret that some other right hon. Gentlemen have not thought fit to follow it. I ask the House, is it wise that any more time should be wasted in this matter? Why should we delay the progress of Public Business in order to give the hon. Member for Hackney
1778
an opportunity of making a speech, for that is now what it all comes to?
MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he should like to put a practical question to some Member of the Government with respect to this matter. The Prime Minister had told them that even after the Proclamation had been issued it would be competent to any Member to move a Resolution condemning the Government for having advised Her Majesty to issue the Proclamation. He wished to know whether, in the event of any such Resolution being carried, it would be competent to Her Majesty to issue a second Proclamation recalling or revoking the one that had been already issued, so as to take a title that would be more in accordance with the opinion of the House?
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that he did not wish to put the House to the trouble of dividing; but he wished to advert to what had been said by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) that his (Mr. Fawcett's) sole object was to censure the Government, and that it was therefore that he had brought forward the Motion. The noble Lord was perfectly well aware that this was not the case. He had brought forward his original Motion after consulting with many hon. Members of great experience in the House, and he put his Motion in such a form that he thought if the Government accepted it, it would make its acceptance easy; for he never said a word about the conduct of the Government, and simply asked the House to pass an Address to Her Majesty, praying that She would be pleased not to adopt the title of Empress of India. The Motion stood in these terms on Monday last, and he only made it more distinct and more reflecting upon the Government simply because they would not give a day for the discussion of his original Motion. He put his Motion in more drastic terms simply to avail himself of almost the only chance of obtaining a discussion on a subject which, rightly or wrongly, he conscientiously believed was of the utmost importance should be discussed.
LORD ELCHOwished to explain, with reference to what the hon. Member for Hackney had just said, that he referred not to the Motion as originally drawn, but to the Motion in its present form.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 16 (Entry of deck cargo in official log.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose for the purpose of moving the postponement of this clause for the following reasons:—In the course of the discussion that occurred the other night on Clause 15, which related to the same subject as the present clause, that of deck cargoes, much misapprehension appeared to have prevailed among the Members of the Committee as to the purport and object of that clause, and, indeed, as to the general intention and scope of the Bill with regard to the question of deck cargoes and of the lading of vessels. He wished, therefore, before the Committee proceeded, as he hoped they would speedily do, to the consideration of the remaining clauses of the Bill, that they would carefully and candidly consider what the exact scope and intention of the Bill on these points was, and that they would thoroughly understand what the measure proposed to do and what it did not propose to do. He was also desirous of taking that opportunity of giving Notice of his intention to move, on behalf of the Government, the insertion of an additional clause in the Bill. It was necessary, in the first place, to point out that those who imagined that the two clauses having regard to deck loads and to grain cargoes were the only ones in the Bill which dealt with the dangerous stowage of cargoes altogether omitted to consider what the character of the legislation which the Government proposed was. The Government, after very mature consideration of the subject, had come to the conclusion that the proper, and, indeed, the only effective, way of dealing with this question of safe stowage was to throw as much as possible the responsibility upon the shipowner, who, after all, was the only person who could secure with certainty the safe loading of his ship. If that were the case, then what they had to look at was not an isolated clause, regulating the stowage of the cargo, but the general provisions and character of the Bill. Under the provisions of the
  1780
  Bill the Government took power by their surveyors to stop British ships which were improperly or excessively laden, and this covered the question of our ships going out from this country; and without any special provisions as to grain or deck cargoes, or anything else, he believed that it would be in the power, and that it would be the duty, of the officers of the Government to stop and detain any ship which on any account was improperly laden. There was also machinery provided for an appeal in cases where that power might be exercised improperly. But, in addition to the provisions in this Bill which rendered it highly penal for persons to send unseaworthy ships to sea, there was another measure before the House relating to marine insurances, which would throw upon the owners of the ship very great responsibility if they should send ships to sea in an unseaworthy state or improperly laden, and thus would render it their interest as well as their duty to be very careful in the matter, or their insurance would be void. Taking these two measures together, therefore, he thought that ample provision had been made, as regarded outward-bound British ships, for preventing the evils which had been complained of. There remained, however, to be dealt with two other classes of ships—that of foreign ships outward bound, and that of foreign ships, and in some instances British ships, inward bound. With regard to British ships carrying grain cargoes coming inwards, the Government had made certain definite propositions, which the Committee had approved, and they had now to consider the question of deck loads. The latter question was a more difficult subject and required that any provisions relating to it should be expressed in the most precise and distinct terms; indeed, so difficult had this subject appeared to the House last year that it was altogether passed over in legislating on the general question. The Government, however, had endeavoured in the present Bill to deal with the matter, although he confessed that they had done so in a limited and, as had been truly said, in an imperfect manner. They had, however, endeavoured to deal with the subject, having careful regard to all the difficulties which it involved. The danger arising from deck loads was principally confined to cargoes of one

  1781
  particular kind, that of timber, which undoubtedly at certain seasons of the year, and on certain voyages, did involve much risk to those engaged in navigating the vessel carrying it, and the Government had to consider whether anything could be done by way of legislation to prevent life being lost through such cargoes being carried. Several hon. Members had assisted the Government in the matter by making suggestions and by proposing clauses. In the few words which he said the other night he took notice of the clause introduced by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), which he then said would no doubt be discussed with his customary ability when it was brought on. It was, however, a clause of a character which could not be proposed by a private Member, for it would impose a Customs duty. There were also other objections to the clause which would have rendered it impossible for the Government to accept it as it stood, although it contained the germ of the proposal which the Government intended to adopt. He now begged to give Notice that it was the intention of the Government to propose an additional clause with regard to deck loads, and to state that such clause would apply, not only to British, but also to foreign ships. It was, however, important that any provisions affecting foreign ships should be most precise in their terms; because, although it was possible in dealing with British ships to allow a certain latitude to the Custom House and to the Board of Trade officers in exercising supervision over them, when they came to deal with foreign ships the only chance they had of being able to deal unobjectionably with them was to deal with them upon such certain proposals that the foreign shipowner should know distinctly what was prohibited and what would be the position in which he would stand when he brought his ship into one of the ports of this country. It was a serious and difficult matter how to deal with foreign ships, in consequence of the questions that might arise in connection with International Law from British shipping going into the ports of all the nations in the world, and that the same rules and laws this country might lay down for the treatment of foreign ships in our ports might be applied to British ships in foreign
  1782
  ports. They must, however, run the risk of having to contend with these difficulties, and not be deterred from attempting to deal satisfactorily with this important subject from fear of the lion that was always in their path. At the same time it was necessary that they should move with care and caution in a matter which vitally affected the shipping interest all over the world. The real difficulty arose in the carriage of timber across the Atlantic in the winter months coming from various ports in North America and from our own possessions. The real safeguard for the protection of life and shipping was to be found at the port of departure, where the most effective means could be taken to prevent overloading. The Dominion of Canada had studied this subject with very great care and attention, and had passed a law which was admitted to be a good and effective law on this subject. He thought it was generally admitted that timber cargoes came straight, on the whole, from Canadian ports. What Her Majesty's Government proposed, therefore, on the question was to adopt that provision of Canadian law and make it the basis of our own legislation by setting forth the substance of that law with regard to the loading of timber, and providing that any ship, British or foreign, coming into our ports with timber on deck during certain months of the year across the Atlantic should be subject to a penalty, unless that timber was laden in accordance with that law. The substance of the clause which it was intended to propose on the subject was that in the case of any ship, British or foreign, arriving at any port of the United Kingdom, and which had sailed from North America between the 1st of October and the 16th of March in any year laden with timber to a height exceeding 3 feet above the deck, the master or owner should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 for every 100 cubic feet of timber so carried; the whole penalty, however, not to exceed £100. The penalty might be recovered on summary conviction. There would be a certain exemption to meet the case of ships peculiarly circumstanced by damage which they might have sustained or otherwise. He thought it would be convenient to postpone the deck-load clause, No. 16, until the Committee reached the end of the Bill, when they

  1783
  could take up also the clause which would adopt the provision of the Canadian law with reference to cargoes of timber. He was, however, unable to place before the Committee the exact words of the clause it was intended to introduce with regard to foreign ships going outwards; but the Government thought they did see their way to make a proposal that would substantially meet the objections that were urged on a former occasion. But as it was a matter of exceeding delicacy and difficulty from its having a considerable bearing on our Treaty relations and of International Law, he would not then mention the terms of the clause which the Government had under consideration upon the subject.
  Moved to postpone Clause 16.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had heard with satisfaction that, in spite of the solemn assurance given the other night by the President of the Board of Trade, enforced by the Attorney General, after all, the Government had found it possible to deal with this question of deck loading, and by a clause almost precisely in the same terms of that which was proposed two days ago by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson). It was the simplest course, and the one which he had thought would have been obvious to the Government before now as the proper one, to adopt the Canadian law on the subject. There was another matter, however, on which he must ask for some further information from the Government. He had not quite gathered what was the view they had taken of the question of dealing with foreign ships generally. He should like to know whether the Government had made up their mind definitely on the policy of dealing with foreign ships on the same footing as British ships, because he ventured to say that the whole question whether this Bill was to be efficient or not depended on the decision upon that point. If they were not going to deal with foreign ships as they dealt with British ships they would drive the whole trade out of British ships into foreign ships. He had had sufficient communication with shipowners in the House to know that they would be the first to support stringent regulations in these matters, if they
  1784
  were assured that foreign ships were to be dealt with on the same terms, and it was the feeling that they were to be handicapped in the race which made them timid in respect of this legislation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Government had only partly made up their minds on that subject. How they could think of introducing and passing such a Bill without having settled that which must be the capital and fundamental portion of the measure he could not understand. What had they been doing for the last 12 months that they were still considering this question, upon which everybody must see that the whole importance of the measure depended? He was astonished that the Papers which were delivered to the House yesterday with reference to this Bill had not been presented before. Those Papers showed that there was open war between the Board of Trade and the Colonial Office with reference to the vital principles and framework of this Bill. A despatch of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada expressed an opinion—he might almost say a determination—wholly inconsistent with what had been hitherto done in the Bill and what the Government proposed to do. This despatch referred to the discontent which tad been caused among Canadian ship owners by recent Imperial legislation upon merchant shipping, which included Canadian ships. What Canada required was that Canadianships, while competing in the carrying trade, should be placed in as favourable a position in British ports as foreign ships; Canadian vessels carrying grain cargoes were now liable to penalties from which foreign vessels were free, and Canadian ship owners asked that in any future Imperial legislation either Canadian ships should be treated as foreign ships, so as to be free from such restrictions, or that foreign vessels, when in ports of the United Kingdom, should be subject to the same restrictions and penalties as British ships. The latter principle had been in full operation for some time in Canada in respect of vessels loaded with grain or carrying deck cargoes. The Canadians argued that, Tinder existing legislation, a discriminating difference was made in favour of foreign ships as against Canadian ships; and they mentioned cases in which merchants had

  1785
  chosen foreign in preference to British or Colonial ships for freight, on account of the certainty that no detention would arise through alleged unseaworthiness or overloading. The preference thus given to foreign ships was as unsatisfactory to Canadian as it was to British shipowners; and the Minister of Marine said that some solution of this difficulty must be found before Canadian ship owners would cease from agitation. This despatch was sent on February 8, and Lord Carnarvon forwarded it to the Board of Trade on February 26, calling attention to the very important question raised by the Canadian Government, and stating that it might become a matter for serious consideration how far Her Majesty's Government might be in a position to maintain the principle of subjecting Canadian vessels to restrictive measures from which the United States and others were to be exempted by the 15th clause. What Canada asked, in effect, was this—"Either exempt us from your Merchant Shipping Bill, or place all foreign ships on the same footing as British vessels. We shall be satisfied with either course." On the 1st of March, the Board of Trade, that great non possumus Department, replied in a letter signed "Edward Stanhope," showing how impossible it was to exempt Canada from the Bill, and pointing out that to do so would be practically to hoist a separate flag for Canada, and would be a first and disastrous step towards separating the interests of Canada from those of Great Britian. He quite agreed with this reasoning, and thought, with the Board of Trade, that Canadian shipowners must stand or fall with British shipowners in this matter. The Colonial Office returned to the charge in a letter to the Board of Trade of the 4th of March, saying that there was another aspect of the case which the Canadian Government appeared to have more directly in view—namely, that they would assent to whatever restrictions the Imperial Parliament might think fit to place on shipping in English ports, but they would ask that the same restrictions should be imposed on French and German vessels lying in an English dock as were placed on English and Canadian ships. A more just and reasonable proposal never was made, and it seemed that Lord Carnarvon entirely approved of it. The
  1786
  Board of Trade took 12 days to consider this letter, and then wrote a long reply rejecting the second alternative of the Dominion Government. When the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) proposed an Amendment to this very effect, demanding on behalf of the British shipowners the same thing which the Canadian shipowners had demanded, the President of the Board of Trade got up and quoted this letter against the Amendment and defeated the proposal. They had received no intimation, however, that this was a matter in which the Government were not vitally at issue with the Canadian Government. On March 22, after many clauses of this Bill had been passed, the Board of Trade received another letter from the Colonial Office, enclosing a Resolution proposed in the Dominion Legislature. The Resolution was as follows:—
  "Mr. Palmer.—On Monday next, in Committee of the whole House, to move, 'That, in the opinion of this House, the right of legislation to affect Canadian ships and the rights and liabilities of the owners thereof, belongs exclusively to the Parliament of Canada, and that any legislation on these subjects by the Imperial Parliament, except so far as it may equally affect Canadian ships with the ships of all other countries in the ports of Great Britain, would be inconsistent with the exclusive rights of the Canadian Parliament."
  Therefore, the position the Canadian Parliament took was this. They said—"We are perfectly willing that you should legislate for us and for the rest of the world. Make your own rules; but if you claim to legislate for us as British subjects, we say we have a Parliament of our own; and you must not interfere with us as British subjects, apart from legislation affecting foreign subjects also." On the 24th of March the Colonial Office, adhering to their text, as the Board of Trade did to theirs, said—"We cannot exempt Canadian ships, and we cannot include foreign ships." On the very last day on which the Government and the Board of Trade invited the House of Commons to reject the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, there came enclosed to the Foreign Office the following extract from the Votes and Proceedings of the Dominion House of Parliament—
  "Resolved, as the opinion of this House, that any legislation affecting British merchant shipping which may be adopted by the Imperial

  1787
  Parliament should not include in its operation Canadian tonnage, or if such legislation were applied to Canadian tonnage it should also include foreign tonnage, in order that no advantage should be given to the latter over the former by the effect of such Imperial legislation."
  The debate to which this Resolution gave rise was adjourned on the Motion of Mr. Mackenzie. What answer, he should like to know, had been sent to Lord Dufferin, who had forwarded this extract? He thought the Committee ought to know what was the position of Canada on this matter; and what were the relations of the Imperial Government with the Government of Canada in respect to it. The Government had known for months that Canada took this view of the matter, and yet they were now going to postpone until their Report was received their determination on the vital question as to whether foreign vessels should be placed on the same footing as British shipping. They had had 12 months to consult Canada on the subject and to communicate with foreign States. He wished further to ask whether the Board of Trade had consulted the Foreign Office on the subject? They ought to have decided at first to have treated foreign ships on the same footing as English ships. Canada had done so, and no harm had come of it. The success of any Bill of such magnitude as the present must depend on its promoters having a clear view of the principles on which they intended to act. The Government talked of "retaliation," and the Board of Trade were frightened, as they always were; but he supposed Canada had a different kind of Board of Trade. The policy of Canada was a complete answer to this bugbear of retaliation, because no one had retaliated upon her for what she had done. The Government could not carry out anything, unless they had a little more boldness and pluck than they had shown on this measure. Relying on the justice of their policy, they might be sure they would only set an example which other nations would carefully follow. They had already legislated in the case of foreign emigrant ships. Every hour expended on this Bill without dealing with foreign ships was simply wasted, because there was no clause of any importance which, if it were to be applied to foreign ships, would not require to be entirely re-
  1788
  modelled. The Government must, he ventured to say, change very much the details of this Bill if they wished to apply it to foreign ships, and it was absurd of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to suppose that it could have passed through Committee on Monday, seeing that the Government had not made up their minds on some of its most vital principles. The best thing, in his opinion, which they could do would be to re-commit the Bill to-morrow with the view of making its provisions applicable to foreign as well as to English vessels. The moment the shipping interest felt that they had been placed on a fair footing with their foreign competitors they would be found to be the strongest supporters of the measure. We had at the present moment the command of the carrying trade of the world to an extent which we had not after the battle of Trafalgar, and that House, while it was anxious to protect the seamen, had no wish to ruin the shipowner. But if restrictions were imposed on English ships, from which foreign vessels were relieved, the result would be that the English trade would be destroyed, unduly handicapped as it would be in the race. He was anxious, therefore, to hear from the Government what was the course they proposed to take in the matter, and whether they were prepared to yield to the arguments of Lord Carnarvon.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYretorted upon the hon. and learned Gentleman that every moment spent in arguments to induce the Government to make up their minds upon the two great questions of dealing with deck cargoes and foreign vessels, after it had been announced to the House that they had done so, was positive waste of time. Some Gentlemen were anxious to promote objects in view, and there were others who were more anxious to make speeches about them. It was clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman had prepared a speech, which was anticipated by the announcement made by the Government of their intentions; but he was nevertheless not to be deprived of the speech, though it had become absolutely unnecessary. The hon. and learned Member had said the whole Bill would have to be re-modelled if foreign ships were dealt with. He begged leave to tell the hon. and learned Member that not one single word in it

  1789
  need be altered in consequence of the introduction of the two clauses, which his right hon. Friend near him had promised an hour ago to bring forward, and which would only cause a further extension and application of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member had also alleged that the Government, in legislating on this subject, without dealing with foreign ships, had shown the greatest possible incapacity. The fact was that the Bill now before the Committee had been drawn exactly on the principles of measures drawn by the hon. and learned Member's own Colleagues—measures which, for three successive years, up to the advent of the present Government, they had endeavoured in vain to pass through Parliament. The difference in incapacity was that they had failed in the same undertaking. The hon. and learned Member had complained that he had been kept in the dark as to the intentions of the Government on this question. The reason why the hon. and learned Member had been kept in the dark was that last Monday was the first time he had taken any part in these debates, or begun to express any opinion on this subject. On that occasion he certainly did make a speech five times over, and almost in the same words, and after all that speech was based on a mistake as to the intention of the 15th clause, which it was meant to criticize. The hon. and learned Member took it for granted, by reference to the marginal heading simply, that that clause was prohibitory of deck loading, and his speeches proceeded on that assumption, notwithstanding that he (Sir Charles Adderley) repeatedly assured him that the clause had really no such intention. The Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman now undertook to move would have made absolute nonsense of this clause. He had again omitted to read the clause in hand, and as he would have amended it, it would have enacted that foreigners should report to our Customs, and in Colonies to Colonial authorities, and in foreign ports to English Consuls. One word with regard to the Correspondence quoted by the hon. and learned Member, and on which he had based a great attack upon the Government. The hon. and learned Member alleged that there was an internecine controversy between two De-
  1790
  partments on this question. There was, in fact, no such controversy. Following the usual practice, the Colonial Office, on receiving communications from Canada about this Bill, had forwarded them to the Board of Trade, as they related to matters which came within the province of the Department, and on which their opinion was desired. The Correspondence had been produced as soon as ever it was sufficiently concluded to admit of its being presented to the House; and he had omitted no opportunity of stating to the House that such a Correspondence was going on, and that the Canadian Government resented our legislative over-interference with private mercantile shipping interests involving theirs. It was pointed out by the Canadian Legislature that there were only two ways out of the difficulty; either that the Canadians should be treated as foreigners, or that foreigners should be treated as British. The answers from the Board of Trade were, he considered, very good answers. On the first point, the hon. and learned Member had himself admitted that the letter of the Board of Trade was unanswerable; as to the second, he had not ventured to cope with the argument, and he would find it difficult to do so. It was perfectly true that the Government, when they first drafted the Bill, did not see their way to deal with foreign ships; but when the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) raised the question, they had declared their intention of adopting the evident wish of the Committee, so far as they thought they fairly and safely could. He could not bind the Government yet as to the exact form which this proposed Amendment would take; but the Committee ought, he thought, to be satisfied with the assurance given on the subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The interests of our shipowners demanded that something should be done, but it would be a fatal step to do anything of the sort in a hasty or inconsiderate way. If definite proposals and mutually satisfactory arrangements could be carried out by Treaties, that would be the best way, and that he himself suggested to adopt from the proposal of the hon. Member for Liverpool at the outset. But if we were at once to assert a general jurisdiction it would not do to adopt an arbitrary, indefinite, interference with foreign ship-

  1791
  ping, or to rush into any careless and loose legislation. He implored the Committee not to proceed with a discussion which had now no point whatever, and which would be a mere waste of time. The great speech was happily delivered, and he hoped the Committee would proceed to business.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he did not consider the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was a waste of time. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated the decision of the Government on the point at issue. What was that decision? According to it, the clause was the most impudent forgery ever offered to the House. ["Oh!"] It was a perfect counterfeit. What was wanted was to stop the practice of deck loading. The Canadian Government had already stopped it from Canada; but all that the clause proposed was, that they should stop it from Canada, where it was already stopped. No reference was made to any other places, such as Sweden, America, or the Baltic. The clause was an insult to the intelligence of the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is expressing his views in a manner not customary in this House.
  MR. PLIMSOLLwithdrew any expression which was considered to be improper for the occasion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: explained that what he had said had been misunderstood. The proposed clause would not be confined to Canada, but would apply to the whole of the Atlantic.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, no doubt; but there the principle was operating already in a satisfactory manner. Why did it not apply to the Baltic and to Sweden? He would rather go to the shipowners than to the Board of Trade for justice in this matter. The proposal seemed to give something when it gave nothing whatever. When the President of the Board of Trade taunted the Members of the late Goverement with having proposed Bills similar to this Bill, he seemed to forget that the Bills were all taken from the same Mint. They would never get a good coin from that Mint. Both parties went to the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, and the Bills produced, of course, bore a family likeness. He should like to tell the
  1792
  Committee the result of the Canadian legislation in 1873. In that year the British ships posted as missing numbered 32, with a loss of 504 lives. In 1874, when the Act came into operation, 16 ships were missing, with a loss of 228 lives, and in 1875, when England dealt with the matter partially, the ships missing were reduced to 7, and the number of lives lost was reduced to 123. These were grain-laden British ships, and he had the satisfaction of stating that it was his firm conviction that they might wipe out this source of loss altogether by proper legislation. Canada had done so.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the Committee that the Motion before it was to postpone Clause 16.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, when they were talking about Canadian legislation and thought of following it they ought to be careful in describing it. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had fallen into an error about the Canadian Act. The provisions of that Act, now in full operation, regulating the timber cargoes to this country did not apply to the timber trade to the South American ports. And why? Because they saw that there would be a very severe competition, if they did so, between the American ships trading from Boston and New York with Cuba, Demerara, and the River Plate, and that the effect of imposing those restrictions upon their own ships would lead to the handing over of the trade to their foreign competitors.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERcontended that the Canadian Act did not apply merely between Canada and this country, but between Canada and Europe generally. He earnestly hoped the Government would reconsider the propriety of dealing with the Baltic as well as the Atlantic trade; for, unless it could clearly be shown that the Baltic trade was free from danger, the clause proposed would place the Atlantic trade at a most unfair disadvantage. He did not share the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade that no further information on the subject was necessary. The Committee had not yet been told the words of the clause in which foreign shipping was to be dealt with; and until they were enlightened on that most important point it would be impossible for them to discuss the details of the Bill satisfacto-

  1793
  rily. As it was, they had been very improperly kept in the dark with regard to the Canadian Correspondence.
  MR. RITCHIEalso hoped that the clause would apply to the Baltic. Unless that were done the Committee would have very little satisfaction in their work. While not agreeing with all that had been said as to the conduct of this Bill, he thought the Canadian Correspondence ought to have been in the hands of Members sooner, and that for the great waste of time that had taken place in discussing the Bill no one was more responsible than the Government themselves. They had committed the mistake of introducing the Bill before they had made up their minds on the subject. Every concession had been wrung out of them bit by bit, and not a little of the blame which the Ministry had incurred was due to the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, who refused to look at things in the light of common sense.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, the shipping interest had serious grounds for complaint as to the delay which had taken place in pushing forward the Bill, in consequence of the indecision of the Government. He thought it very desirable that the Committee should know the exact terms of the clause which the Government proposed to apply to foreign ships. For his own part, he felt that this was a subject which ought to be approached with considerable caution. He recollected that in 1871 and 1873 that question was not taken up by the Government of the day because they felt the extreme difficulty of it. He did not say that the time had not now come for dealing with it; but both sides of the House ought to discuss it with great caution and a large sense of responsibility. He would remind his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. Forster), that he was a Member of a former Cabinet which introduced a Bill drawn on the very lines adopted in the present measure. As to interference with foreign ships, he maintained that our interference ought to be confined to foreign ships in our ports and loading in our ports. We might legitimately adopt certain municipal regulations for the safety of life and property, and enforce them against all vessels using our ports for the purpose of loading; but he did not go so far as to lay down the doctrine that we were to interfere with the way
  1794
  in which cargoes were brought into British ports by foreign vessels. That would be attempting what they had no right to do, and it would be dangerous. If we did that, we might find by-and-by that British ships which had cleared out of our ports under our regulations might not be admitted into foreign ports, because some petty States wished to annoy us, or said they took a different view of these matters from ours. He, therefore, protested against any hasty decision as to interference with cargoes brought into this country in foreign bottoms. He did not think the Canadians themselves—who had been so often alluded to—took the extreme ground which some hon. Gentlemen held on that point, for their regulations only applied to cargoes loaded outwards. On the other hand, it was a crying injustice that a foreign vessel loading in our docks and competing with a British vessel lying side by side with her might load as she pleased, whereas the British vessel must be subject to those very severe regulations. That debate had been an instructive one, and he hoped it would result in a clear and definite policy on the part of the Government. Such a policy from them the shipowners of this country had a right to demand, because the Bill passed last year was only a stopgap Bill; and the Prime Minister had promised that a well-considered and comprehensive measure, which the Government had since had eight months to prepare, would be brought in this Session.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would be sorry if the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) were accepted by the Committee as those of the general body of ship owners of this country. They were all naturally influenced by their associations, and the hon. Member for Hull was, no doubt, in friendly association with foreign houses which imported timber from the Baltic. He (Mr. Mac Iver) was in similar friendly association with British houses which imported timber from British North America, and saw the other side of the picture; and he confessed that the course of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade left these important questions in a most unsatisfactory state. As far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned he ap-

  1795
  peared to be in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) so far as it could be practically carried out, but he (Mr. Mac Iver) could not understand the traditional policy of the Board of Trade. The President, no doubt, meant well; and every blunder he had been led into was by copying the mistakes of his Predecessors. Instead of fairly facing the difficulties and dealing with them, the Government were seeking a way which had not "a Lion in the path." There was no such way; but if they would cast aside the old policy of the Board of Trade, and come forward with a reasonable scheme for dealing equally with British ships and their foreign competitors in British ports, they would have the support of shipowners in all the great seaports in regard to any conditions necessary to attain the objects of the Bill.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Committee ought to have the clause before them as soon as possible. It would be impossible to discuss the question fully until they had the clause on the Paper. He thought the President of the Board of Trade had hardly dealt fairly with the House in not laying the important Correspondence from Canada sooner upon the Table. He joined with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) in urging prudence on the Government in dealing with foreign ships. It might be strictly within the limits of International Law to place foreign vessels loading in our ports under the same regulations as British vessels; but it would be very difficult to apply penalties to foreign ships coming to our ports for loading in foreign ports contrary to our regulations. He did not think that such a course could be sustained according to the law and practice of nations. He could not join in the censure passed upon the Board of Trade for their reluctance to apply our regulations to foreign vessels. The Board of Trade had for many years past impressed upon foreign Governments the policy of not applying their regulations to British ships, and had maintained that every country should deal with its own ships, and it was very questionable whether it was wise in the interest of our commerce to change their policy and to apply our regulations to foreign vessels. In doing so we should no longer be able to protest against foreign countries ap-
  1796
  plying their regulations to our ships. The Government would have acted wisely in avoiding the question, which was one, not of saving life, but of competition. It was because the shipowners in the House had urged their views with regard to competition on the Government that they had found it necessary to deal with the question.
  MR. STEVENSONdesired to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity for extending their new clause to the timber trade of North Europe in the winter months, for it should not be forgotten that Canada had to compete in that trade with the Baltic. Of the three proposals on the Paper for the prevention of timber deck loads—namely, the imposition of a heavy pecuniary penalty, as proposed by the hon. Member for Poole; heavy duties, as proposed by the Government; or absolute prohibition and liability to seizure by the Customs authorities, as suggested by himself, he thought the last far the most effectual.
  MR. CHILDERSrose for two purposes, the first was to add his request to that of other hon. Members that the Government would, with as little delay as possible, lay the clause with respect to foreign ships on the Table; and the second was to state the view of the Canadian Government as to the policy of putting foreign and colonial ships on the same footing. There was an exceedingly able debate on the subject in the Canadian Parliament on the 13th of last month, while he (Mr. Childers) was at Ottawa; Members of the present Government as well as ex-Ministers, especially Mr. Smith and Mr. Mitchell, both of whom probably knew as much about the question as anyone on either side of the Atlantic, took part in it, and the feeling was absolutely unanimous of the necessity of putting colonial and foreign ships on the same footing, although there was a difference of opinion whether it would be better to except Canadian registered ships, or to apply the Act to foreign ships. The majority at Ottawa, and he was strongly of the same opinion, took the latter view; and he could only say that unless it should be adopted he looked forward with grave alarm to the consequences.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should be happy to promise that the clause relating to foreign

  1797
  ships would be laid upon the Table as soon as possible. He was anxious to explain what the Government had undertaken to do; because when they were told that every clause in the Bill would be affected by the decision which the Government might announce with regard to foreign ships, hon. Members were probably expecting something different from what the Government had promised or meant to undertake. The point really arose in the discussion on the 5th clause, when the question was raised whether the power of detention ought not to be extended to foreign ships. It was pressed on them, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), that they must, at all events, deal with the question of applying the rule of detention to foreign ships proceeding to sea after taking in cargo in British ports. He thought that was a reasonable contention; he promised that the subject should be considered, and that a clause would be brought up on the Report. It seemed at the time the promise was given that it was a reasonable and fair one. The question was, to a certain extent, new; because they had hitherto dealt with British ships only. The question that arose as to foreign ships was of a very nice and difficult character. Now, after further consideration on the subject, they had been enabled to see their way to bring forward a clause having generally the effect he had indicated—to give power to stop foreign ships having loaded in a British port and being about to proceed to sea. Then the question arose as to the precise mode in which an appeal should be given in cases of detention. [Mr. SAMUDA asked if the power of detention would affect deck loading.] He considered deck loading improper loading. [Mr. SAMUDA: Certainly not.] It was with regard to the loading of ships that they proposed to interfere; and with reference to the appeal to be given if a ship were detained, it might be right to provide that the Consul of the State to which the vessel belonged should have a locus standi on the question. They wanted carefully to draw the clause. The subject involved foreign relations and International Law, and they were not ready to put the clause on the Table at once. They were not going to propose any general assimilation of the law applicable to British and foreign ships. He did not say it might
  1798
  not be in future an object they should aim at—to bring foreign countries into an understanding with us on this subject, and it might be found possible to induce foreign nations to go much further than was at present indicated. At the same time, they must keep their primary object in view. He hoped, after the discussion, valuable but desultory, which had taken place they would now be able to make some progress with this Bill. This was not a matter in which the Government took any exclusive interest. The measure was desired by the House and the country, and it was not an object to gain Party triumph upon it. He would say it ought to be approached very much in the spirit in which the right hon. Member for Bradford's (Mr. Forster's) Education Bill of 1870 had been treated by those who were politically opposed to him.
  SIR JOHN HAYcomplained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted to touch on the question raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) in respect to dealing with all timber-laden vessels in the same way, whether they came from Norway or from America.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he did not think that English shipowners would be prejudiced by the overloading of foreign vessels, because excessive loading meant increased wear and tear and increased risk, and he thought we should do well to leave foreign vessels alone. Our legislation was being watched closely by Sweden and Norway; and if it commended itself to the judgment of the shipowners of those countries, there was no doubt they would readily adapt themselves to it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS MR. ASSHETON CROSS made an appeal to hon. Members on the Opposition side to let the Committee proceed to the next clause. If the discussion was not confined to the particular clause, it was most difficult to make perceptible progress with the Bill.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSbelieved that in the end it would economize time if the Government were at once made aware of the opinions of those who had studied this particular question. He sympathized with the President of the Board of Trade on his being compelled to see the Bill progress so slowly; but, at the same time, he looked on this proposal as deficient and unsatisfactory.

  1799
  No measure of this sort could be satisfactory unless it proceeded on the fundamental principle of putting foreign shipping on the same footing as British shipping. He would throw all sorts of difficulties and impediments in the way of foreign ships, and thus compel them, in their own interests, to adopt the principle we adopted. He believed, however, that that would be unnecessary, and that foreigners would adopt with readiness any rules for saving life which we might lay down. He would suggest that the Bill should be reprinted with the fresh clauses and adopted alterations in it, and that it should be re-committed, in order that they might consider it from this new stand-point. As a lawyer, he must confess he did not understand where they were. They had got into such a state of inextricable confusion that he did not think the House would be able to pass the Bill at all.
  MR. GOURLEYsaw no difficulty in making the provisions of the Bill applicable to foreign as well as to British ships. At the present moment foreign ships in our ports were subject not only to our Imperial, but to our municipal laws. They paid our pilotage dues, light dues, and other charges; and in some ports there were municipal byelaws to which they were subject. For instance, in some ports they were not allowed to heat pitch and tar on board; and if they broke the law they were, equally with British ships, liable to be brought before the magistrates and dealt with accordingly. Foreigners dealt with us in their ports exactly as they dealt with their own ships. If they did not wish to see the whole of the trade thrown into foreign ships instead of British, they must enact the same laws for the one as for the other.
  MR. RYLANDScomplained that the loss of time over this Bill was the result of the Government not knowing its own mind, and that the way it was conducted was a public scandal. Outside it was said without hesitation that the conduct of this Bill was a perfect muddle, and that was also the opinion inside the House. To-night it had been admitted that the Government had had information in their possession which ought at once to have been laid on the Table. The President of the Board of Trade told them now that on a former occasion he had mentioned to the Committee
  1800
  something about it; but the right hon. Gentleman must have expressed himself so badly as to be unintelligible, or he had an audience so stupid, that it was not able to understand his meaning. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House anything of a material character about this important Correspondence, and for this reason, that he had not made up his mind as to the course to be pursued respecting it. Loss of time had been referred to, but he contended that that discussion was not a loss of time. If the Government came down to the House having first made up their own minds, no loss of time would be occasioned. The Bill ought not to be pressed until it was before them in the shape in which the Government desired to have it passed. He highly approved of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Watkin Williams), that the Bill should be re-committed and re-printed.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the Bill was not a muddle, for it had been fully accepted by the House. There had been scarcely any alteration yet made, but all the discussion had been engaged in rejecting Amendments, or postponing them, to be probably again rejected on Report.
  MR. PALMERstrongly objected to the Bill being re-committed and re-printed. They had made considerable progress with the Bill, and might have made more if it were not for the obstructive speeches of some hon. and learned Members. He was delighted to hear from the Government the nature of the two clauses they proposed to introduce, and he hoped they would confine their legislation to the deck loading of ships crossing the Atlantic, as Nature had limited the trade in the northern seas, and the danger there was reduced to a minimum. He denied that the propositions of this Bill could be described as "muddling." They were dealing with a difficult, delicate, and intricate question, and the points raised by the legal Members had done more than anything, to "muddle" the discussion. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persevere with a good heart in carrying the Bill through the House.
  MR. E. JENKINScontended that both the House and the Government were in a muddle with the Bill, and he

  1801
  thought it better that Progress should be reported and the Bill reprinted. He moved that Progress should be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. E. Jenkins.)
  MR. GORSTsaid, it was obvious enough that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not know where they were; and perhaps he should render them a service by reminding them that the Question now before the Committee was the proposal to postpone the clause which stood next in order and proceed with the following clauses, which dealt with the load line, a point on which the question between British and foreign shipping did not arise. He was as much opposed as hon. Gentlemen opposite to any distinction being made between foreign and British ships, and when the proper time came he would enforce his opinions with the best arguments at his command, whether they were acceptable to the Government or not. At the present moment, however, considering the period of the Session, the importance of the question, and the anxiety of the public that the measure should pass, that hon. Member incurred a grave responsibility who threw obstacles in its way by moving to report Progress at 9 o'clock.
  MR. E. J. REEDsupported the Motion to report Progress. He should be sorry to oppose any unnecessary obstacle to the progress of the Bill; but the Government had made a very great change of policy, involving a recantation of many of their declarations on the subject, and as they were unable even to name a day when they would produce the promised clause in reference to foreign ships further discussion of the measure at this stage would be only a farce.
  MR. RATHBONEdeprecated the course which hon. Members were taking in seeking to report Progress now, and suggested whether such a mode of procedure was calculated to raise the character of the House in the estimation of the country. Let the Bill be proceeded with in a business-like manner.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that the course which hon. Members opposite were taking was not calculated to encourage the Govern-
  1802
  ment to meet their views. The Government had prepared the Bill as carefully as they could, and in the course of the discussions a question had been raised which was fully debated. He had since stated what the effect of the clause which the Government intended to propose would be; and it was impossible for the hon. Member, if he accepted the explanation he had given of that clause, to plead that the Committee could not discuss the clauses which related to the load line, with which the Government clause to which he had referred had nothing whatever to do, until the terms of that clause were laid before them.
  MR. E. J. REEDobserved, that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman made it more desirable than ever that the Committee should have the terms of the proposed clause before them previous to their discussing the question of the load line.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKopposed the Motion to report Progress. He did not wish to see this difficult subject turned into a mere Party question, and he hoped that the Committee would satisfy the expectations of the country by attempting to improve the Bill in a reasonable way, and would not content themselves by mere fault-finding.
  MR. MACDONALDsupported the Motion to report Progress. He trusted the Government would consent to place the Committee in possession of what their intentions really were. He must protest against the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) that the matters under discussion should be left to hon. Gentlemen connected with the shipping interest.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was evident that the Government, while prepared to legislate for foreign vessels as regarded overloading, improper loading, and deck loading, were not prepared to legislate for them on the subject of the load line; and therefore he hoped that the Committee, whether it approved or disapproved the Government action, would, at all events, proceed at once to discuss the substantial question of the load line, and not waste any more time in fighting shadows.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were most convincing in favour of reporting Progress. The very first Amendment on the Paper

  1803
  was one to the effect that the provision as to a compulsory load line should be extended to foreign ships; and therefore it was absolutely necessary that the Government clause should be laid before the Committee previous to their discussing the question of the load line.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrepeated that the Government clause did not touch the question of the load line, and therefore there was no reason why the Committee should not proceed to discuss the latter subject without further delay.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that with respect to foreign vessels the right hon. Gentleman had not shown the way in which he proposed to deal with them. The most important clauses of the Bill remained for discussion on the Report, and he thought more progress would be made if the Government would consent to re-commit the Bill, and on some futute night recommence the discussion de novo.
  MR. RATHBONEdisclaimed the imputation of acting solely in the interest of the shipowners. A very large portion of the remainder of the Bill might be proceeded with without regard to the question of foreign ships, and the ship owners generally were most anxious that the details of the measure should be proceeded with.
  MR. PLIMSOLLwas under great apprehension as to the propriety of proceeding further with the Bill in the present excited state of the Committee. He desired to call the attention of the Government to the fact that almost every important part of the subject had been left for consideration on the Report, the clauses relating to grain cargoes and deck loading having been postponed.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobserved that not one single clause of the Bill had been postponed for consideration on the Report. It was only the consideration of certain Amendments which had been postponed.
  MR. E. J. REEDthought that after the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Motion for reporting Progress should not be pressed.
  MR. E. JENKINSthen withdrew the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16 postponed.
  Deck and Load lines.
  Clause 17 (Marking of deck lines).
  MR. PLIMSOLL MR. PLIMSOLL moved, in page 10, line 2, after "ships," to insert "under eighty tons register." The object of the Amendment was to extend the operation of the clause to the coasting trade as well as foreign-going ships. The Board of Trade had a Wreck Register, and year after year, in referring to the wrecks on our coasts, these remarkable words were used—
  "About half of this loss is occasioned through the unseaworthy, ill-found, and over laden state of the vessels employed in the coasting trade of Great Britain."
  Since he called attention to that sentence it had been dropped out of the annual record of wrecks. During the last three years the average loss of life in the coasting trade was more than half the losses of life at sea from all other causes.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, his only doubt was whether he would not go further than the Amendment proposed, and make it 100 tons.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the second Amendment would not go so far as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Marking of load line).
  MR. PLIMSOLL MR. PLIMSOLL moved, in page 10, line 15, after "ships," to insert "under eighty tons register."
  MR. NORWOODopposed the clause on the ground that, if adopted, it would be impossible to apply the provisions to many vessels in the Humber which were built like Dutch galliots, with high ends, but little or no freeboard amidships.
  MR. MACGREGORsaid, the vessels alluded to by the hon. Member for Hull were also used in Scotland, being known there as "billibhoys." The Amendment, if carried, would abolish one of the most useful species of vessels we possessed. A special exemption ought to be made in regard to that kind of craft.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, that if it were necessary to make an exception in the case of billibhoys, there could be no objection to such a course, but he thought the case was fully met by subsequent words in the clause. The Amendment was mainly intended to deal with the

  1805
  coasting vessels coming up from the North to London, and which were frequently overloaded.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that unless there were special provisions for billyboys the clause would entail a grievous hardship upon that useful and valuable class of coasting traders.
  MR. E. J. REEDpointed out that the objection to the Amendment was met by the requirements of the clause that the load line should be marked where it was practicable. It would be highly objectionable to exempt billibhoys from the clause.
  LORD ESLINGTONthought that on national grounds the Committee should not consent hastily to accept Amendments which would place under this enactment a class of vessels which was now the only nursery for our seamen, which, being for the most part in the hands of small owners, would be seriously affected by these restrictions, which, moreover, it was unnecessary to apply to them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. E. SMITH MR. T. E. SMITH moved an Amendment for the purpose of exempting billibhoys from the necessity of having a disc painted on them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 16, after the words "fishing and," to insert the words "billibhoys or."—(Mr. Eustace Smith.)
  MR. D. JENKINSopposed the Amendment, as he did not think they ought to be omitted from the operation of the clause.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, there was a point where billibhoys might be overloaded as well as any other ship. They wished to prevent that.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobjected to the Amendment, because it was impossible to define what "billibhoys" were. He did not believe they were ships strictly, as they were sometimes propelled by oars.
  MR. E. J. REEDconsidered that the words of the clause were perfect as they stood, and sufficiently provided for every contingency. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would resist the Amendment.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, he attached great importance to the Amendment, and must therefore press it to a division.
  Question put, "That the words 'billibhoy or' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 237: Majority 171.
  MR. NORWOOD MR. NORWOOD moved, in page 10, line 26, to leave out "intends," and insert "claims to be entitled with safety," in reference to the owner's maximum load line.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYpreferred the word "intends," as indicating a real intention, that was the owner's extreme intention of loading.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. PLIMSOLL MR. PLIMSOLL moved, in page 10, line 33, after "centre," to insert, "and shall transmit a copy of such statement to the Board of Trade." His design was to check the overloading of ships, whether for long or short voyages. To take a practical instance—it was known that many vessels, laden in Spain, had to cross the Bay of Biscay heavily over-laden, exposing the crew and cargo to imminent peril. According to the present regulation the owners might place the load line where they liked, and no one was entitled to alter it, though this load line was scoffed at by practical men. The load line was sometimes placed level with the deck, in derision of its being left to the owner. Practically, however, it was a system which would lead to a larger amount of overloading than before. Many shipowners who now never dreamt of overloading would mark the line as high as possible to give themselves greater freedom of action; but those ships when reloading in foreign ports would be loaded to the utmost capacity of the marked line, because the captains and agents would think they were throwing something away if the vessel was not put down to the line. An official sanction, on the contrary, would be beneficial alike to the shipowner and to the public. The latter would know that overloading was no longer practised; and the shipowner would not run any risk of being stopped at a moment when delay was most disadvantageous. It was said that no two persons could agree as to a load line; but when an officer of the Board of Trade ordered a certain amount of cargo to be taken out of a vessel which he thought overloaded he practically settled the question; and he (Mr. Plimsoll) did not think, therefore, that the course indicated by the Amendment was impracticable.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 33, after the word "centre," to insert the words "and shall transmit a copy of such statement to the Board of Trade."—(Mr. Plimsott.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, there were in the Bill certain penalties imposed for such tricks as those the hon. Member for Derby said he had seen attempted. It was true that some shipowners took that jocular view of the subject when the Act of last year was passed; but when the effect of the voluntary load line was pointed out they altered their views. The voluntary record was a part of the agreement with the crew, and a serious matter of evidence in the underwriters behalf in case of loss. The hon. Member for Derby said he had seen the load line fixed in ridiculous places; but he (Sir Charles Adderley), in a visit paid last autumn to many ports, saw none. He had, besides, a Report from the officers of the Board of Trade, stationed at all the ports of England, to the effect that the load line was generally marked in a bonâ fide manner. He placed those Reports and his own experience against the statement of the hon. Member for Derby; and he would also add that in the opinion of the highest authorities of the Board of Trade it had led to lighter loading, and had been found practically useful. If the hon. Member's proposal were adopted the Board of Trade would be called upon to express an opinion on the part of Government upon the load line of every vessel. If they did not disapprove, they would be supposed to approve; and it being impossible for them to survey for this purpose the thousands of vessels that cleared out of our ports at all hours of the day and night, it would be difficult to exaggerate the danger of such implied approvals of all ships not actually disapproved. Besides, if the surveyors told the owner they did not like his load line, he might say he was not going to load up to it. A load line was, in fact, no test of a proper, or even a moderate loading. The hon. Member himself admitted that no two people could agree as to what in any case the load line ought to be. He had told the Associations of Lloyd's and of Liverpool that he wished to reduce the judgment of the Government surveyor to as small a margin of uncertainty as possible, and he had conferred with them as to the
  1808
  possibility of any rules by publishing which it would be possible to reduce that uncertainty. He found it, however, impossible to get them to agree as to any rules. Most people had a theory about a load line. Very likely the hon. Member had one. [Mr. PLIMSOLL dissented.] Well, the hon. Member was probably the only man who had given any attention to the subject who had none. Lloyd's surveyors had one, the Liverpool surveyors had another, and no doubt the Board of Trade had a third; but the three theories, when put together, did not enable any argument to be arrived at. The general principle of the Bill, and of all previous Acts on the subject, was to keep the Government out of the business of the shipowner, and to throw the responsibility of safe conduct upon the shipowner himself, the Government only interfering where they saw reason to believe that life would be endangered by any vessel going to sea. He admitted that there were great difficulties in the way of any interference at all. There were two things it was desirable that the Board of Trade should have—efficient surveyors, and rules which would make their action as uniform and as little arbitrary as possible. They had in this Bill also provided an easy appeal against the judgment of their surveyors. In certain cases a Court must decide; but in cases of mere overloading there would be an easier reference free of expense or delay. The whole of the principle of the Bill was involved in the proposal to make the Government express my opinion upon the load line, and experience had shown that the existing load line which the Bill would make permanent was practically useful and effectual.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsupported the Amendment, which he said was not only satisfactory to the shipowners, but would render the clause acceptable even to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). There could be no doubt that the Board of Trade had to go into these matters, and even to stop ships in order to ascertain if they were loaded above their proper load line, and all that was now asked was that the Board of Trade should state what the result of their investigations were.
  LORD ESLINGTONwas astonished at the discrepancy which existed between

  1809
  the views expressed by the hon. Member for Derby and his line of action. He expressed distrust of the Department, and yet continually proposed to throw new duties upon it. He trusted that in regard to the present clause the Board of Trade would, at any rate, remain firm to their own proposition.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that his object in the proposition which he had made with respect to the load line was not simply in the interest of the owner, but in the interests of the seaman, who ought to be placed in a position to judge of the safety of the proposed immersion, and to be able to protect himself. He entirely objected to the Amendment, which would relieve the shipowners from the responsibility which ought to attach to them.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSagreed with the hon. Member for Hull, and expressed a hope that the Government would not assent to the Amendment.
  MR. MACGREGORobserved, that there had not been any difference between the opinion of the Board of Trade surveyor and that of the shipowners of Leith on the subject of the load line.
  MR. D. JENKINSsaid, there was no doubt that in certain trades there had been cases of overloading; but he believed that to be almost a thing of the past.
  MR. A. PEELhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 197: Majority 133.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PUBLICANS' CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 115.]
(Dr. Cameron, Sir Windham Anstruther, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Mackintosh.)
PUBLICANS' CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 115.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Interpretation of terms).
  MR. WHITELAW MR. WHITELAW moved, in page 1, line 24, after "grant," to insert—
  1810
  "But shall not apply to the rebuilding of certificated premises which have been destroyed by fire, tempest, or other unforeseen and unavoidable calamity."
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he would not oppose the Amendment.
  MR. MACDONALDthought the limitation proposed by the Amendment was somewhat vexatious in character. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) had an Amendment on the same clause which he thought in every sense of the term was better calculated to promote the welfare of the trade.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Refusal of new certificate by justices or magistrates to be final).
  COLONEL ALEXANDERproposed to amend the clause by giving the applicant for a spirit licence whose application might have been refused a right of appeal to the Licensing Committee. It would be considered one-sided justice to allow an appeal to the Committee in a case where a publican obtained his licence and refuse it to the man who failed in his application. The only answer that could be given to this proposal was that such was not the state of the law in England; but he did not regard that as a legitimate argument, for while he wished to import into Scotland all the excellences of the English law, he did not wish that what was bad in that law should be likewise adopted in Scotland.
  DR. CAMERONregretted that the hon. and gallant Member had not put his Amendment on the Paper. If adopted it would not only do away with the great principle of this Bill—which was the assimilation of the Scotch law to that of England—but it would substitute an entirely new principle. He could not see where there was any injustice. The only case of absolute refusal would be in the case of licences applied for for the first time, where the persons had no vested interest whatever, and where they appeared as disturbers of the status quo.
  MR. ORR EWINGthought under the present law very often injustice was done to the magistrates, their decisions being upset on appeal by the quarter sessions. He thought it was absolutely necessary to have a change, and the hon. Member by the Bill constituted a new Court of Appeal. It would be a very

  1811
  great hardship in the magistrates of the borough or city having the power of deciding whether there should be any licence or not, for opinion in Scotland ran very high at present. There were places where the magistrates were all teetotallers, and very great injustice was done. They might depend on it that if people in a district wanted drink, no limitation of houses would prevent them obtaining it. It was necessary, in the interests of justice, that every man should have a Court of Appeal. In the present case they should not be guided by what was the law in England, and many Bills drawn on English lines had been applied to Scotland, which they very much regretted. He might, for instance, quote the Education Bill. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to, in the interests of the people and the publicans of Scotland.
  MR. MARK STEWARTthought if the Amendment were carried, one of the main principles of the Bill would be lost.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas not going into the question at the present moment; but he desired simply to state that he regretted very much that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander) had not put the Amendment on the Paper in order that the Government might have an opportunity of considering it. In order that that might be done, he moved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  COLONEL ALEXANDER,in reply to what had been said by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, wished to explain that his Amendment was on the Paper originally, but that when the Bill was re-committed, he forgot to place it on the Paper again.
  DR. CAMERONthought that if the Secretary of State for the Home Department understood the scope of the Amendment, he would not consider it necessary to report Progress. The hon. and gallant Member proposed to remove the appeal from the quarter sessions to the Licensing Committee, a system which at present did not exist in England. The objection to the present system in Scotland was that it gave rise to overriding of the decisions of quarter ses-
  1812
  sions, and to a very undesirable system of canvassing. Even if one agreed with the arguments of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing), it would not be within the scope of the Bill to provide what was asked by the Amendment. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not consider it necessary to persist in his Motion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not at all objecting to the Bill. On the contrary, he should like to see it pass. At the same time, he should like to see the Amendment on the Paper, and to have the opportunity of consulting other Members about it.
  MR. R. SMYTH,taking into consideration the few chances private Members had of pushing forward their Bills, thought that, when the Committee was willing to go on with the Bill, Government ought not to interfere as the right hon. Gentleman had done.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that as the Government were giving a qualified support to this Bill, it was only right that they should have an opportunity of considering the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that if the Government took upon themselves to move to report Progress, they ought to undertake to give facilities for the resumption of the discussion at another time, otherwise they would be defeating the Bill by a side-wind. He thought the suggestion a good one, that the Amendment should be withdrawn for the present, and brought up for consideration on Report.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he was just going to make the same suggestion. If his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Amendment for the present, he (Lord Elcho) thought that would be the best course.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, it was a very rare circumstance that a Scotch measure came up for discussion, and still rarer that a measure relating to the liquor traffic, about which there was extraordinary unanimity in Scotland, got a fair chance of being discussed. The evil system of an appeal lying to a foreign power, as it were, in many cases unconnected with the original licensing body, was well known and understood. The agreement about this Bill in Scotland was remarkable, as were also the number of Petitions in its favour, and he was heartily sorry that the Go-

  1813
  vernment should have interposed any delay in the passage through Committee. He would therefore join in the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should withdraw his Motion for adjournment, and that his hon. and gallant Friend should, if he thought proper, bring up his Amendments on the Report.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that if it met the views of the Government, he was quite willing to accept the suggestion that his Amendment should be brought up on Report. The county he represented (Ayrshire) felt a strong interest in the point he had raised, and as he had presented a Petition on the subject from the Commissioners of Supply, he had felt bound to move his Amendment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,said, his objection was entirely removed by the suggestion that had been made.
  Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Colonel Alexander), by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (As to proceedings for confirming new certificates.)
  On Motion of Dr. CAMERON sub-section 3 was omitted.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Provisions for the case of justice or magistrate being disqualified to act as such.)
  MR. YEAMAN MR. YEAMAN moved an Amendment to remove the disqualification of brewers and distillers to adjudicate as magistrates in licensing cases.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which would alter the present law, and would be entirely without the scope of the Bill.
  MR. YEAMANsaid, sworn teetotal men were allowed to sit in Licensing Courts, while brewers, distillers, &c., were not.
  MR. ORR EWINGthought the Amendment a reasonable one. What would be said to him if he proposed to prohibit declared teetotalers from acting as magistrates in licensing cases?
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the hon. Member did not comprehend the scope of the
  1814
  Bill, which simply affirmed the present state of the law. It did not make any change:—the Amendment would make a change in the law, and therefore would be beyond the scope of the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, surely they were not going to take a division on the point. If there was one thing settled in our law and practice, it was that persons pecuniarily interested in any matter should not adjudicate or vote upon it. The case of teetotalers was different; they had merely a sentimental interest, whereas the brewers and distillers had a pecuniary interest.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Grant and confirmation of provisional certificates for new premises.)
  DR. CAMERON DR. CAMERON moved, in page 6, lines 3 and 4, to leave out "two justices of the peace for the county or two magistrates," and insert "a justice of the peace for the county or a magistrate." He explained that his object was simply to restore the provision as to the justice's certificate of character to the same position as it stood under the existing law.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
  MR. WHITELAW MR. WHITELAW moved, in page 7, after Clause 15, to insert the following clause:—
  (Certificate holders need not attend licensing meeting unless required to do so.)
  "16. Where a person holding a certificate applies for the renewal of his certificate, he need not attend in person at the meeting for granting and renewing certificates, unless he is required by the justice of the peace of the county or magistrates of the burgh, as the case may be, so to attend."
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he did not see that any great harm would arise from agreeing to this clause. It was virtually an embodiment of what was the law in England at present, and in any case where it might be found to work injuriously, it would be within the power of the magistrates to order publicans to attend who applied for a renewal of their licences. He understood that the Lord

  1815
  Advocate desired that the clause should be inserted in the Bill, and he had therefore no objection to it.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK—THE SERPENTINE.

  RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th April],
  "That the mounds at present being erected on the south of the Serpentine are unsightly, and will, when planted, be detrimental to the picturesque character of Hyde Park, and ought to be removed."—(Mr. Pease.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he was glad to find, as the result of the previous debate, that a great part of the mounds had already been removed; and as his object had been attained, with the permission of the House he would withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 123.]
(Lord Elcho, Sir Graham Montgomery.)
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 123.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD ELCHO,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, in 1867 he brought in a Game Law Bill, which appeared to him, without touching the question of the poacher, to do what was necessary. It assimilated the law in England and Scotland with reference to game, and was accompanied by two other provisions—one to enable tenants who were not prevented by agreements in their leases, to destroy hares and rabbits without taking out licences, and the other to enable a tenant to obtain speedy and cheap redress in cases of dispute with the landlord through the Sheriff Court. The object of the Bill was to put tenants in the best position. The Bill and another brought in by the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) were
  1816
  sent to a Select Committee, who took his (Lord Elcho's) Bill as a basis of their proceedings, and amended it. The Bill now before the House was in the same shape as the Bill that passed the Select Committee, and he hoped the House would adopt it as a basis of legislation on the subject, and agree to the second reading. He proposed that it should be taken at a future stage, concurrently with the Bill of his hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Elcho.)
  MR. DODDSremarked that it was impossible to discuss the Bill at that hour, and moved that the debate be adjourned.
  MR. RAMSAYseconded the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

LIVERYMEN (CITY OF LONDON).

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. JAMES MR. JAMES moved for a Return—
  "Of the number of Liverymen in the City of London entitled to vote at the election of Members of Parliament for the City of London by reason of their patrimony, servitude, or purchase in any of the Companies, arranged in the order of their respective Companies:—Name of Company. Patrimony. Purchase or Redemption. Servitude."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection himself to the Return, but he was told by the Lord Mayor that the materials did not exist for ascertaining the information required. If, however, that had been so, he supposed the Lord Mayor would have been in the House to oppose the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.

  COUNTY RATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to make better provision for the apportionment of County Rates between landlord and tenant in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. DOWNING, and Mr. RICHARD SMYTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 138.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. (No. 56.)
PUBLIC BILLS—Royal Assent—Royal Titles [39 Vict. c. 10]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)Provisional Orders (No. 2) [39 Vict. c. 8].

SULPHUROUS ACID.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)reported The Queen's answer to the Address of the 27th of March last as follows:—
  "I have received your Address, praying that a Royal Commission may be appointed to inquire into the working and management of works and manufactories smelting, burning, or converting ores and minerals by which sulphurous acid, sulphuretted hydrogen, and am-
  1746
  moniacal or other gases are given off, to ascertain the effect produced thereby on animal and vegetable life, and to report on the means to be adopted for the prevention of injury thereto arising from the exhalations of such acids and gases, and upon the legislative measures required for this purpose, and I have given directions that a Commission shall issue for the purpose which you have requested."

FELSTEAD SCHOOL—DISMISSAL OF REV. W. GRIGNON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in calling the attention of the House to the dismissal of the Rev. W. Grignon, Head Master of Felstead School, by the Governing Body, said, he did so not so much in the interest of that rev. gentleman as in the interest of Head Masters generally. The vindication of Mr. Grignon had been already ample. During the past Autumn no topic of inferior importance was heard of more frequently than the case of Mr. Grignon, and there was none on which public opinion expressed itself more decisively—his dismissal had been commented upon by every journal in Great Britain; and the refusal of the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Rochester to re-hear the case had elicited some strong observations. Mr. Grignon had been for nearly 20 years Head Master of the school. On his appointment he found the school in a languishing condition; but during his term of office the school progressed, the number of its scholars increased in a very marked manner, and he raised it to a high state of reputation and prosperity. Indeed, the services of Mr. Grignon in connection with the school were so well established, that no aspersions which might have been cast upon him could affect his character in the eyes of those who had charge of educational establishments, or of the public generally. A large number of Fellows of the University of Cambridge—including some of the most distinguished University men—had expressed their opinion on Mr. Grignon's case in a document which had been extensively published, and no fewer than 60 Masters of Endowed Schools had addressed the Charity Commissioners, protesting against the dismissal of Mr. Grignon without a hearing. Further, when Mr. Grignon had been dismissed

  1747
  by the Trustees, he appealed to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, whose approval as Bishop of the Diocese was made necessary by the Endowed Schools Act, and he was simply informed by the secretary of the Bishop that he could not find anything in the communication he had received which would induce him to differ from the decision of the Trustees. The general principle involved in the case was that Head Masters should receive a more adequate protection as against Governing Bodies than they did at present. As regarded the Head Masters of schools under the Public Schools Act perhaps no legislation was required; their offices were so conspicuous in connection with historic institutions, that no injustice done them by Governing Bodies was likely to pass unnoticed and unchallenged. But with the Head Masters of schools under the Charity Commissioners the case was different; publicity with respect to the acts of the trustees of such schools was more limited, and no person could have predicted that such a commotion would follow the dismissal of Mr. Grignon. The Charity Commissioners might give Head Masters an appeal from the Trustees; but in the schemes which they were framing he could not find that any such appeal was given—the position of the Head Master was laid down in the scheme of the school. A Resolution of their Lordships' House, recommending that the Commissioners should provide an appeal, would be very appropriate; but he could not move such a Resolution without Notice, and without a reasonable certainty that it would meet with support from a considerable number of their Lordships. He thought, however, that Her Majesty's Government might be able to effect the desired object. The Charity Commissioners were amenable to Her Majesty's Government, and if the propriety of giving the Head Masters an appeal were suggested to the Commissioners by the Government, no doubt the suggestion would be acted on. As there was a relationship between himself and Mr. Grignon, he did not ask their Lordships to rely on his statement alone. He thought, however, they would find that it was amply corroborated. The wrong done to Mr. Grignon might not admit of reparation; but that wrong would not have been suffered without
  1748
  beneficial result, if it led to measures which would protect Head Masters generally from treatment such as that to which Mr. Grignon had been subjected.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, that before making the remarks he intended to offer to the House he could not help expressing his opinion that the subject was one which was, perhaps, hardly suited for Parliamentary discussion. If it were one affecting any important branch of education in the country, there was no fitter place than that House in which to discuss it; but the question brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) was really one of local interest only, and in a few words he would show their Lordships why it was so. Were it a question of the working of the Felstead School, an important establishment, it would be a matter of public importance, but the facts of the case were, shortly, these—Mr. Grignon came to Felstead in 1855, and there were then 69 boys in the school. Six years afterwards there were only 65 boys there, although in the three years and a quarter before 1855 the school had risen in numbers from 22 to 69. In 1862 the number of scholars was suddenly increased to 100, and in 1867 to 174. No doubt Mr. Grignon contributed largely to this result; but that gentleman said himself, when the Trustees doubted whether they ought to spend a large sum of money in enlarging the school—
  "I found my expectation of the school keeping full on the following reasons. … The fact that it is, for the find of education given, and the number and efficiency of the staff of masters, by far the cheapest school in England. This is so decidedly the fact that it would require, I believe, very marked inefficiency in the teaching or domestic management to keep the numbers down."
  He (Lord Henniker) did not wish to detract from the merits of Mr. Grignon as a Head Master. Even those who dismissed him were ready to say he did well up to a certain period, and a Senior Wranglership and several University honours were gained by his pupils. But numbers were not everything. At present the school, both as regarded numbers and efficiency, was all that could be desired: it was as full as it could hold; its reputation was kept up; two scholarships had been gained a short time ago at one of the Universities, and peace reigned where discord had

  1749
  been the rule for some time past. He contended, therefore, that the question was not one of public interest, but was a local, and he might even say, a personal one between Mr. Grignon and the Trustees. It had been discussed in the local newspapers, in pamphlets issued to the parents, and even in letters which had appeared in The Times. He had no intention of troubling their Lordships with small details connected with the subject. They were endless; but he would endeavour to place as plain and short a statement before their Lordships as possible of actual facts. As the noble Lord opposite had thought proper to bring the question forward, he thought the shortest way of replying to him would be to give an account of the position taken up by the Trustees, leaving their Lordships to form their own judgment with regard to it. The Chairman of the Trustees was his (Lord Henniker's) cousin, and in his capacity of chairman he had requested him to lay their case before the House. He knew none of the Trustees, except Sir Brydges Henniker; he did not know their clerk, or Mr. Grignon; he was not even a resident in Essex, but he had had opportunities of hearing of this case from time to time, and of seeing the documents which bore upon it, and he thought he might claim to place the matter fairly before their Lordships—certainly without any strong personal feeling. The Trustees based their case on the document now before their Lordships, and which was submitted to the Trustees at the meeting when Mr. Grignon was dismissed. It was as follows:—
  "That the relations between the Trustees of Felstead School and the Head Master are so unsatisfactory that great detriment to the school is now imminent. That in consequence of a decision come to by the Trustees on the occasion of an inquiry instituted at Mr. Grignon's request, and at the close of which the Trustees compelled the resignation of several Masters with whom he, Sir. Grignon, had quarrelled, he, Mr. Grignon, felt himself aggrieved, and from that time has set himself in direct opposition to them, and has lost no opportunity of publicly vilifying them. That he shortly after this inquiry voluntarily resigned the house stewardship, giving no reason to the Trustees for so doing, but stating in a letter to the matron that his reason for so doing was the injustice—and intentional injustice—done him by the Trustees. That the Trustees continued in her office the matron who had been appointed by Mr. Grignon himself, and of whom, up to that time, he had always spoken in the highest terms. That her conduct, under very trying circum-
  1750
  stances, subject as she has been to annoyance and misrepresentation at the hands of Mr. Grignon, has given satisfaction to the Trustees; that they believe her to be most conscientious in the discharge of her duties as matron, and kind and attentive to the boys. That on Mr. Grignon resigning the house stewardship, the Trustees appointed the clerk to that office. That the wisdom of that appointment has been fully justified by the fact that the school accounts have been brought into good order out of the confusion they had fallen into under Mr. Grignon's administration. That economy now prevails without any loss of comfort to the boys. That Mr. Grignon has taken on himself to send circulars to the parents of the boys, impugning in every particular the conduct of the Trustees, and speaking of them in such terms as to make it impossible that those cordial relations which ought to exist between the Governing Body and the Head Master can ever be re-established between him and them. That he has thwarted in every way the steward and matron in the discharge of their duties. That when called upon by the Trustees to give an opinion on a change proposed "by them as necessary for the health of the scholars, he returned the most insulting answers to them. That it is impossible for this condition of affairs to last—that the school must collapse, and that it comes to this—that either the Trustees must sacrifice the steward and matron, in whom they have every confidence, in order to please Mr. Grignon, of whose administration of the school they have not that high opinion which he appears himself to hold, or that they should call upon him to resign the post of Head Master. Of these two alternatives, they have preferred the latter."
  First, then, as to the second paragraph. In 1873 Mr. Grignon quarrelled with one of the under-masters, of whom he had spoken most highly a short time before, and demanded his dismissal. The Trustees thought that if this gentleman were asked to resign, it would be sufficient. However, he would not resign, and was dismissed. In the course of the inquiry, the under-master brought certain charges against Mr. Grignon, with respect to which the Trustees thought Mr. Grignon not entirely free from blame, and in framing their resolution to dismiss the under-master they expressed an opinion to that effect. Mr. Grignon chose to think this was a blow aimed at him. Soon after this two of the Trustees died, and a third was made Dean of Winchester, so that the number of Trustees, already below the full number of 11, was reduced to five. The scheme of the school provided that new Trustees should be appointed when the number fell below seven. Mr. Grignon, who seemed to have been in a state of uncontrollable irritation, took it into his head that the Trustees had no power to

  1751
  act, and attacked them forthwith. He set to work by saying that they had no power, and he called them "shabby," "contemptible," and "ignorant." Now, it was the general rule, as their Lordships were aware, to insert a clause in charitable trust deeds to allow the remaining Trustees, when vacancies occurred, to act till others were appointed. It was so in this case. However, Mr. Grignon thought otherwise, and accordingly, in speeches and in print, used towards them terms such as he had mentioned. The Trustees bore this in silence for more than a year; but at last they instructed their clerk to ask Mr. Grignon officially whether he had said these things, or written of them in this way. He replied that he was "most certainly" the author of the writing attributed to him—he in no way acknowledged his mistake—and had not done so now, up to the present moment; on the contrary, he had never ceased to vilify the Trustees. It must be remembered that this course of proceeding was allowed to go on for a year without notice; and, to show the patience with which the Trustees endured Mr. Grignon's conduct, he (Lord Henniker) would quote one or two of the agreeable things which that gentleman said of them. In a letter to The Guardian newspaper he said:—
  "I have seen this poor remnant of what was once an efficient body of Trustees too often not to have gauged pretty thoroughly the character and capacity of each."
  On another occasion he charged them with "evasion," and, again, with sending him a communication "colourable and insincere." He held them up to contempt, one by one, as far as he could, in one of his several letters to the parents of the boys, saying some had not been to a University, and some had not taken high degrees—in fact, he seemed to have done all he could to bring contempt upon them; and actually, in his last pamphlet, he charged them with tampering with the funds, writing to the Charity Commissioners to object to the appointment of new Trustees in 1874, while still Head Master, and without notice to them. He said, in his pamphlet—
  "I had reason to think that one of those nominations would lead to an infringment of the very important rule that a body of Trustees should not enter into pecuniary dealings with one of their own number."
  1752
  The pamphlet he issued to the parents of scholars contained many gross misstatements; but he would take one instance only—Mr. Grignon said in his pamphlet that Mr. Onley, one of the Trustees at the time the under-master was dismissed, admitted that it was quite impossible for this Master to stay, but, to avoid injuring him, suggested that the matter might be settled by Mr. Grignon undertaking to give him a good testimonial; that he objected to do so, and that then Mr. Onley said—"You need not say anything about moral character, but you might speak of his ability in teaching, and so on." This statement the Trustees declare to be entirely without foundation. He referred to this incident only for the purpose of showing the sort of man the Trustees had to deal with, one who was not accurate in his facts, and secretly accusing them of dishonourable conduct. There was an episode, which really need hardly be alluded to, but for the fact that it showed that Mr. Grignon was determined to oppose the Trustees in every way: the resignation of the house stewardship by Mr. Grignon. He had held it some time, an extra master had been appointed to help him with the sixth form, as the work was too much for him, and the house management when he gave it up was in confusion. He resigned, as he had said, and soon set to work to complain of the matron, who had virtually taken the position of house steward. She had been appointed by him; an outbreak of scarlet fever took place, and he complained that the boys were neglected, that the Trustees did not agree with him. He then wrote to the parents abusing the arrangements of the school. In fact, he left no stone unturned to oppose the Trustees in every way. Discord, naturally, existed in the school, and it was impossible for the Trustees to go on in a satisfactory manner with Mr. Grignon. He had purposely passed over this episode in detail. He could show that Mr. Grignon was entirely in the wrong all through it, but he could not weary their Lordships with such endless details; details which anyone could read in the pamphlets published. Before concluding he begged to be allowed to allude to one more point: the statement of Mr. Grignon that he was condemned unheard, and that the pre-

  1753
  amble to the resolution passed for his dismissal was in print before the meeting was held. The latter statement was not a fact, and he would leave their Lordships to judge of the truth of the former by what he was about to relate. A meeting of the Trustees was appointed for June 8 last. On June 4 the clerk wrote to Mr. Grignon to call his attention to the authorship of the speeches and letters to which he had already alluded, and he stated—
  "The above will be made the subject of a motion at the meeting of Trustees of which you have had notice."
  Mr. Grignon, in a previous circular to the Trustees, said in a postcript—
  "On the slightest intimation that it is your wish to take my personal evidence at your meeting at Braintree on the 8th inst., I will make arrangements to be there, notwithstanding the pressure of examination work from which I can ill be spared."
  The clerk wrote to him as follows:—
  "June 7, 1875.
  "Reverend Sir,—I am not instructed to invite your attendance to-morrow; but I am sure that if you wish for an audience on the subject of my last letter, or on any other matter of business, the Trustees will be ready to receive you.—Your obedient servant, A. C. VELEY."
  And his remarks on that part of the proceedings the clerk said—
  "Mr. Grignon had thus a plain intimation that his speeches and writings would be made the subject of a motion at the meeting of Trustees, and that the latter, though not choosing to invite a man who had insulted and defied them, were willing to hear anything he had to say. He had proclaimed his desire 'to minimize his communications with these men,' and they did not seek what he had repelled. Mr. Grignon did not attend the meeting or offer any explanation of his letters and speeches."
  He thought he need say no more on that point. The Trustees long ago applied to the Charity Commission for the appointment of Trustees, and were quite willing for a searching inquiry by a sub-Commissioner. He thought he had shown their Lordships, without going into unnecessary details, that the Trustees and Mr. Grignon could not possibly get on together any longer. The Trustees believed they were in the right; they knew their power of dismissing a Head Master without giving a reason—a power given for the very purpose of meeting a case
  1754
  of this kind—a power which was given under the Endowed Schools Act and to them by their scheme; but they were so confident of the position they had taken up that the moment they heard the Charity Commission had been petitioned to institute an inquiry, they directed their clerk to write to the Commissioners to say they would give every facility for such an inquiry, although the Charity Commission had no power over them by their scheme. He thought their Lordships would see that the conduct of the Master could not be put up with any longer; that they would see what sort of man he was by the mis-statements he made, the intemperate language he used, his extraordinary conduct in insulting the Trustees in every possible way, and his defiance of their authority, both to the parents and in public, while still in their employment. He thought their Lordships would be able to judge whether any other course was open to the Trustees, whether they acted harshly, and he would go so far as to say whether they would have acted honestly to the school if they had allowed such a state of things to go on. He had not gone further than he was obliged into details, for he thought he had stated enough to make his case good, and for the sum of 1s. any of their Lordships who wished to spend a happy and pleasant half hour, would have details repeated over and over again, in a pamphlet written by this martyr to the good cause of education himself. Be that as it might, he must apologize to their Lordships for taking up so much time in discussing a subject which, he thought, would have been far better left to public opinion out-of-doors.
  THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid, that the noble Lord who had brought this matter before the House had commented upon his (the Bishop of Rochester's) acting upon the dismissal by the Trustees without any further or independent inquiry. The Trustees of the School had power to dismiss the under masters summarily, and the Head Master with the approval of the Bishop of the diocese. The reason why he had not instituted a second investigation was that he did not think it necessary: he thought it unnecessary to ask for further evidence, because he thought the evidence on which the Trustees had acted in dis-

  1755
  missing Mr. Grignon was amply sufficient. He was sorry to have to speak harshly of Mr. Grignon; but he might say that the evidence went to show that Mr. Grignon had indulged in reiterated personal vituperation and abuse of the Trustees—in other words, of the persons with whom co-operation on his part was essential to the well working of the school. He believed that no one of the Head Masters or Fellows of Colleges to whom reference had been made would have used language such as that which Mr. Grignon had used. The fact was things had come to a dead-lock between them, and in consequence the Trustees resorted to the step of dismissing him. And he (the Bishop of Rochester) arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Grignon had been properly dismissed. Complaint had been made against him (the Bishop of Rochester) that he had answered Mr. Grignon through his secretary. The facts were these—that while he as Bishop had the matter under consideration a letter came from Mr. Grignon, which he (the Bishop of Rochester) did not answer, because he was considering the case. Then Mr. Grignon wrote to his secretary asking what answer would be made; and he (the Bishop of Rochester) told his secretary to say that nothing had been brought before him to alter his opinion that he had been properly dismissed. He (the Bishop of Rochester) was extremely sorry that the dismissal of Mr. Grignon after his 20 years' service should have become necessary, but necessary he believed it to be. When a Head Master complained continually to parents of the mis-management of Trustees, and actually stated that he had minimized his communications with those persons who, together with himself, were responsible for the well-being of the school, it could not be wondered at that he should be dismissed. He was sorry that their Lordships' time had been taken up in listening to this matter, and with every regret for Mr. Grignon's position, he believed the school would get on very well though he had ceased to be its Head Master.
  LORD DYNEVORsaid, that he considered Mr. Grignon had been hardly treated, and though he did not defend his intemperate language, yet looking at what had taken place at the school, particularly with regard to a case of scarletina, when a boy suffering from it
  1756
  had been placed in the room where the other boys' clothes were kept, it could not be wondered at that Mr. Grignon should speak strongly. He was reminded of the question—"Doth our law judge any man before it hear him? "and he thought the rule of hearing before condemning had not been followed in this instance. If Mr. Grignon had been granted a hearing he might have been induced to apologize. He considered that what had occurred was very much to be lamented.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in reply, said, that nothing but inevitable necessity had prevented two noble Lords—one on each side of the House—from attending that evening to reply to the speeches of the noble Lord and the right rev. Prelate. It was never his intention to enter into all those details which the noble Lord (Lord Henniker) had done. His conviction was that in spite of the defence offered for the conduct of the Trustees and of the right rev. Prelate, the opinion of the public would be still the same. The only object which he had had was to bring about a public good through an unfortunate transaction; and he would endeavour to impress upon the Government the expediency of considering how far it was consistent with their duty to urge upon the Charity Commissioners to frame a different class of schemes from that which had enabled the Trustees to dismiss Mr. Grignon—to frame a class of schemes which would enable Head Masters and others to appeal against their dismissal, and which would prevent such a scandal as the Felstead case from occurring in future. The conduct of the Charity Commissioners must have an extensive influence upon the course pursued by endowed schools' trustees, and the Government might exercise an influence upon the Charity Commissioners. Nothing at all had fallen from the right rev. Prelate which would alter public opinion, that he had declined to hear the Head. Master (Mr. Grignon) before his final dismissal by the Trustees with his permission.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.