Sitting of 8 May 1876

MINUTES.
Supply—considered in Committee—COAST GUARD SERVICES, &c.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Oxford University* [146].
Second Reading—Poor Law (Scotland) [130].
Committee—Report—Merchant Shipping [49–144]; Local Government Provisional Orders, Briton Ferry, &c. (No. 4)* [134]; Local Government Provisional Order, Skelmersdale (No. 5)* [135];Chelsea Hospital Accounts* [133]; Small Testate Estates (Scotland)* [107–145].
Third Reading—Poolbeg Lighthouse* [140], Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (Aldborough, &c.)* [131], and passed.
Withdrawn—Indian Legislation* [54].

METROPOLIS GAS ACT, 1860—GAS COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the accounts of the Metropolitan Gas Companies will be presented?
MR. W. H. SMITH: When the Gas Companies' accounts have been received, they shall at once be presented. The Metropolis Gas Act, 1860, does not require those companies that are still under its provision to send in their accounts until two months after their general meeting. It is not probable, therefore, that all these accounts will be received at the Board of Trade till the middle of June.

METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENTS—NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If any building lots are yet sold on Northumberland Avenue, and if it is, for any other reason, too late to make a slight change in the line of the street so that it may open to Trafalgar Square on the line of the Nelson Monument; and if he has no objection to postpone the sale of building lots and endeavour to carry out the improvement indicated?
  SIR JAMES HOGG,in reply, said, that the building lots in question were not yet sold, but the tenders were prepared, approved, and ordered to be issued. There was a great deal of misapprehension in the public mind in respect to Northumberland Avenue. In 1873, the date of the Charing Cross Act, the Bill brought in by the Metropolitan Board of Works put the Nelson Monument opposite the centre of the street. That Bill went before a Select Committee, and evidence was given by several eminent engineers and architects, including Sir J. Bazalgette, Mr. Hardwicke, Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Barry, and others, recommending an alteration of the street from the line recommended by the Metropolitan Board of Works to that which had since been adopted, and the alteration, which was approved by Parliament, rendered it necessary that the Board should bring in another Bill in 1875, called the Additional Powers Bill. That Bill dealt with the taking away of property which had cost the metropolis an additional £25,000 for the purpose of meeting the views of Parliament, and that large sum of money having been spent, he did not think it would be right now to delay the sale of the building lots or the carrying out of the improvement. He might add that those who gave evidence in favour of the
  206
  scheme considered that the manner in which it had been carried out was most for the public advantage. With respect to another Question on the Paper by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. T. Hankey), he had to say that a model plan upon a considerable scale had been prepared, and left in the Library of the House for inspection. Parliament had now disposed of the whole matter, and the street had been completed and handed over to the Vestry of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and for these reasons he was afraid that he could not adopt the suggestions of the hon. Member.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR JERVIS (for Lord FRANCIS HERVEY)asked the Vice President of the Council, If he could state what is the cause of delay in presenting the Return ordered from the School Board for London so long ago as March 16th, and when the Return will be in the hands of Members?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: I forwarded the Question of my noble Friend to the School Board, and I am informed, in reply, that the Return has required a great deal of labour, it having been necessary to get special returns from the divisional committees respecting the enforcement of the bye-laws. The answer also states that they regret that it will require two or three weeks more before the Return will be in a condition to be passed by the statistical committee of the Board, so that it cannot be sent to us before the first week in June.

  CRIMINAL LAW—EXPENSE OF EXECUTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. FORTESCUE HARRISONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have declined to pay the expenses incurred by the burgh of Dumbarton in the execution, on the 19th of October last, of the convict David Ward law; and whether they did so on the ground that the expenses attendant on the execution of criminals within the limits of any Royal Burgh in Scotland must be defrayed by the burgh itself, and are not chargeable on the public funds; and, if so, whether, in thus deciding, they were guided by the legal advice of the Lord Advocate; and,

  207
  whether this is in accordance with the practice which has been hitherto followed in England, Scotland, and Ireland in similar cases?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, the Treasury had declined to pay the expenses incurred by the borough of Dumbarton in the case referred to, the practice being that burghs in Scotland pay the expenses of the execution of criminals within their jurisdiction. In England the sum of £10 was allowed to a sheriff charged with the duty of the execution of a convict, and he presumed that charge was allowed, inasmuch as if the sheriff could not get any person to carry out the execution he should do so himself.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONVICT STANDRIDGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. WADDYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to statements in several papers attributing undue severity to Mr. Justice Denman in the case of Mr. Standridge, a schoolmaster, near Exeter; and, whether there are any grounds for the imputation?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the paragraphs in question, in which it was stated that protests had been made by Teachers' Associations in the county against the severity of the sentence passed upon the convict Standridge, that at length Mr. Justice Denman had written to him recommending a mitigation of the sentence, and that it was then discovered that the man had become insane in consequence of the sentence passed upon him. These statements were inaccurate in almost every particular. The facts were that the prisoner pleaded guilty to a most atrocious crime, for which, under ordinary circumstances, very severe punishment ought to be given. No facts transpired at the trial, nor was anything urged by himself or by any one on his behalf which could justify any mitigation of the sentence. But the learned Judge, from certain expressions in the depositions and from his own observation of the conduct of the prisoner, suspected that he was not altogether sane. He (the learned Judge) accordingly made inquiries on this subject, voluntarily, without any remonstrance or suggestion from any other
  208
  source. The result result was to confirm Mr. Justice Denman's doubts whether the man was responsible for his acts, and the learned Judge immediately reported this doubt to him (Mr. Cross) and suggested further inquiry. He (Mr. Cross) had in consequence directed an inquiry by two medical officers and from their report there could be no doubt that the prisoner was insane now and was insane at the time he committed the act. He was accordingly removed at once to a lunatic asylum; but it was certainly putting the cart before the horse to say that the severity of the sentence had driven the man insane, for he was insane before he committed the crime, and the discovery of that fact was entirely due to the learned Judge.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.— [Bill 49.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Edward Stanhope.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYappealed to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) to withdraw his clauses on "arrest without warrant" and on "official logs," on the ground that these subjects did not come within the scope of the present Bill.
MR. J. COWENsaid, in answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw the clauses for the present. He would admit the force of the objection that the Bill did not really deal with the question of discipline; but he should reserve to himself the power to consider whether at a future stage he should not propose them again.
New Clauses (Restriction on power of arrest without warrant) and (Official logs), by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PLIMSOLL,: in moving the insertion of new Clause after Clause 27:—
(Registered British ships if disclassed to be deemed unseaworthy until surveyed by Board of Trade.)
said, that he had carefully considered the objections that had been urged against a clause which he had previously proposed upon the subject, and he believed that by the clause which he now proposed it would be possible to reach unseaworthy ships without the clause being open to the objections which had been previously raised. The clause, no doubt, would not reach ships which had

209
never been classed at all, yet it would reach most of the vessels which would have been reached by the fuller treatment which he had previously suggested. As the Bill would not come into operation until the 1st October, there would be ample time for vessels to be re-classed, and the Board of Trade would only have to deal with the residuum.
New Clause (Registered British ships if disclassed to be deemed unseaworthy until surveyed by Board of Trade,)—(Mr. Plimsoll,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. SAMUDAthought that the clause would be very serviceable, though he believed that some alterations in its wording would be found necessary. He questioned the wisdom of putting upon the Board of Trade the responsibility of ordering the repair of ships, because that would fix the Department with the duty of fixing the extent of the repairs to be effected.
MR. RATHBONEconsidered the mere registration of ships which had run off their class would not be effective. There were thousands of ships now unclassed which were as safe both for passengers and goods as those which were classed highest. Indeed, it was in connection with the latter that the greatest loss of life and property occurred during the last two years. He objected to the Board of Trade survey on the ground that the surveyor, being unacquainted with any other than first-class ships, might expect too much in the case of ships of an inferior rating. He was of opinion that before they passed a clause of this sort it would be desirable to see whether the legislation that they had already passed would not be effective for the purpose. He admitted that the present clause was not open to some of the objection surged against the first proposal of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), but he could not help thinking that it would press very hard upon a very large trade. A ship might not be perfectly sound, yet it might be quite fit to carry timber across the Atlantic, and it would be a hardship if these vessels were required to be surveyed and classed.
MR. HERMONsupported the clause, on the ground that while it would not press very heavily upon shipowners, it would tend to the security of the lives of passengers and of sailors at sea. He hoped that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) would persist in his endeavour to pass the clause, though he agreed that it would require some alteration to make it work. The fact of a certificate having been withdrawn was primâ facie evidence that there was something wrong, though it was not sufficient to warrant the giving of a character of that kind to the ship at once.
MR. MUNDELLA,speaking as the chairman of one of the largest marine insurance companies in England, had never heard any objection raised among shipowners against the principle of this clause. He saw no reason why the Government should not undertake the survey of these unclassed ships, which ought either to be broken up or repaired. He agreed, however, that the clause, as it stood, might be regarded as a reflection upon all unclassed ships; though this would be met by providing that all such ships should be surveyed.
MR. NORWOODstrongly objected to the clause. It was really, though under a thin disguise, the clause which they had already decided upon, and it was based on a misconception of the object of Lloyd's register. The object of the Bill was to protect life at sea, whilst the register at Lloyd's was to class vessels for carrying cargo of specific kinds. A vessel might not be fit to bring home in perfect condition tea or silk from China which might yet be perfectly safe at sea; and it was very possible for a vessel to relinquish her class at Lloyds' without being at all unseaworthy. There were thousands of vessels which were quite safe to carry human beings, although they were unclassed. The object of the clause was an insidious one—to get the House of Commons to recognize Lloyd's and the Liverpool Register as standards of efficiency, and thereby place the whole Mercantile Marine virtually under their control. There would be danger in putting trust in Lloyd's or other survey, as it would absolve owners from responsibility. The Lady Macdonald went on shore from a defect in her ground tackle; but the captain had to be absolved from all blame, because he had

211
a certificate from Lloyd's that the vessel was in perfect order. If there was to be a survey, it should be carried on by the Government and not by a body like Lloyd's. The clause was, to his mind, insidious, dangerous, and unsatisfactory, and he trusted that the Government would refuse to adopt it.
LORD ESLINGTONsaid, the clause involved the principle that had been under consideration for five long years, and the House had over and over again deliberately accepted the alternative principle that responsibility should rest on the ship owner. Disclassed ships would apply to all unclassed ships. Now what the hon. Member for Derby wanted was to get at that dangerous class of ships of which nothing was known. It would cause a compulsory survey, and that would have to be followed by a certificate of some kind. And a man having shown that he had spent £500 in the repair of his ship a short time before would not, in the case of his ship having taken the ground and strained, and being sent to sea unrepaired, within the time for which she was classed, be convicted of an offence under this Act. If in the interests of safety they were to have a Government survey they would come back into the old circle out of which they did not appear to be able to emerge. He was not prepared to say that they had gone on the best principle, but they should give it a fair trial, and if it broke down, they must perforce fall back upon up on the principle they had rejected. He would rather they should adopt the survey of Lloyd's or the Liverpool Register than increase the powers of the Board of Trade. He wanted to see how they would do the work which had already been put on them.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the vessels which would be affected by this clause were such as had been on the register, but were there no longer. Was it undesirable to point out to the Board of Trade that if those vessels could no longer be classed by insurance companies, the Board of Trade ought, for the safety of the lives of the people, to see what condition those ships were in before they left port? He was in favour of the principle of the clause of the hon. Member for Derby, which he thought fitted in with Clause 5 of the Bill. It would be most unwise not to take advantage for the purposes of that Bill of societies like
212
Lloyd's Committee, even although they were not primarily established for saving of life. There was a large class of ships against which there was a primâ facie ground of suspicion, because having gone to those register societies for a character, they found they could not get one. All that the Board of Trade was asked to do was to see that those vessels did not leave port without a survey.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was conclusive against the principle of the clause, for a ship being classed was no doubt an indication of safety, but it was by no means a proof of it. When a ship was not disclassed, but expunged from the list of any registry within the term for which the ship was surveyed and classed, it was primâ facie evidence of unsafety, and in such a case the Board of Trade having received information from Lloyd's or elsewhere would proceed to have it inspected and reported upon. If the clause were carried, the Board of Trade would have to keep itself in constant communication with every shipping association in the country, and upon all disclassed ships there would have to be a Board of Trade survey, possibly without any reason or use, for it was most unreasonable to hold that a disclassed ship was necessarily unsafe. That would reverse the existing practice of suspicion first and inspection afterwards, and would be the first step towards substituting a Government survey for individual responsibility—a principle against which the House had so often decided. The hon. Member for Derby proposed that if a ship was for any reason disclassed that fact should be taken as conclusive proof that her character for seaworthiness or insurance was gone; but it was not true either that being classed was a proof of safeness, or that being disclassed was a proof of unsafe ness. In a return of the ships detained by the Board of Trade for defects not only in the machinery, but also in the hull, among them were many that were classed "A 1" at Lloyd's. The classification at Lloyd's was not made with general regard to safety, but with regard to fitness for particular kinds of cargo on particular voyages; and after vessels had run out the period for which they had been classed, many poor shipowners

213
bought them, for purposes for which they were perfectly safe—for example, as coasters; and those persons ought not to be compelled to class them again. The hon. Member called upon the Board of Trade to re-survey ships which had been expunged from the register of any society; but how was the Board of Trade to get into communication with all societies? Ships might cease to be classed, to avoid the penalty of disclassing. He did not see in what way the shipowners would be compelled to carry out this clause. The hon. Member said it was the duty of the Board of Trade to repair all these ships, but who was to pay for their repair? Ships might be intentionally disclassed to get Government repair and certificate. The clause was very imperfectly drawn, and he trusted that it would not receive the assent of the House.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had raised difficulties which really had no existence. So far as the clause was concerned, it simply provided that if a ship had no character, the Board of Trade was to assume that it was not in a satisfactory condition—that it required a certain amount of supervision—and consequently the Board would require a survey to be made of the vessel. He understood that the object of the Bill was to secure the protection and safety of life. He reminded the Committee that the rate of insurance was a rate which marked distinctly the risk to human life which attached to the ship herself. As soon as a vessel was in such a position that it could not be insured at a low rate, they might rely upon it that the vessel had become more or less unsafe. He was able to tell the Committee a fact of very great importance. He had a statement before him which gave the experience of certain insurance companies in relation to second-class vessels. It professed to give actual experience of insuring ships for 25 years, and it showed that the loss of properly registered ships was only 4¾ per cent, while, in the case of a large number of disclassed vessels the actual loss during 25 or 30 years had amounted to from 20 to 25 per cent. The proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) was simply a plan by which, as far as possible, these vessels of which from 20 to 25 per cent had been
214
lost, should be prevented from sailing in future. That, in point of fact, was the issue before the House. They were told that the Government could not rely upon the reports supplied to them from a private source. Was that the case in regard to the College of Surgeons? That was not a Government Department, and yet a certificate was accepted from that body, that a gentleman was fit to exercise the medical profession. His fear in regard to the present Bill and the policy of the Government was, that there would be a large number of permanent officials called into existence in connection with the Board of Trade, and he had a strong impression that the Government would harass the shipowners and inaugurate a policy which, instead of tending to the safety of human life, would have an exactly opposite effect. He hoped the Committee would support the proposal of his hon. Friend.
MR. J. P. CORRYsaid, he was glad to find the Government were going to resist the adoption of this clause. He thought the House ought to understand that classification did not always mean seaworthiness. Many of the vessels that were classed at Lloyd's were not so good as others that were unclassed, and could be insured on as easy terms. The fact was, that the seaworthiness of vessels depended more upon the builders than upon any classification by the London Lloyd's or Liverpool Lloyd's. He hoped that the Committee would reject the clause, the result of which would be to drive first-class shipowners from classing their ships at all.
MR. A. PEELobjected to the clause, because it made the disclassing of a ship primâ facie evidence against a vessel's character. The fact of a vessel's falling from one class to another, or falling out of class altogether, would not justify the belief that a ship was unfit to go to sea. It appeared from the evidence taken before the Royal Commission that when a vessel was classed at Lloyd's as of a high class, it was the practice to have what was called a half-time survey, which enabled the vessel after half the period of her classification had expired to renew and continue the period of her classification. It was a very severe survey, and shipowners objected to it; and perfectly good ships would under this clause lose their character because they had lost their class. It was also

215
stated before the Royal Commission that there might be cases at Lloyd's where a black mark was put against a ship without her being defective, the black mark being put against her simply because she had not complied with the necessary survey. What would be the effect of such a proceeding? The question was one as between the shipowner and the society in which he registered his ship, and not one as to the fitness of the vessel to preserve human life. It would be primâ facie evidence against the character of the ship, although she might be perfectly seaworthy. But he took a wider objection to the clause. He objected to the transmutation of voluntary systems, created for purposes of commercial convenience, into instruments of Government interference. The principle on which they had been proceeding was that of trying to remedy evils without indulging in the Utopian hope that they could altogether prevent them. The clause contemplated the case of any British ship classed at any time in the registry of any society. There was nothing in the clause to limit it to registered societies. Under it any voluntary society might take upon itself to survey and classify ships—it might be a bogus society. He regarded the clause as a mischievous one. It ran counter to the deliberate policy which had been pursued for some years past, and he was glad the Government had opposed it.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, if the clause established the compulsory survey of all vessels he would support it; otherwise he should vote against it. The Committee should hesitate before mixing up the Government with those societies, and putting the shipowners into a position of antagonism with them. He hoped the clause would not be carried, because he believed it would make shipowners unwilling to class their vessels at Lloyd's at all.
MR. MAC IVERsupported the clause, because he believed it would have the effect of lessening the improper powers given to the Board of Trade under Clause 5, the effect of which could not, he said, be other than to place every vessel more or less under suspicion, unless surveyed by the Board of Trade. The principle of compulsory classification on whatever principle was not so bad as compulsory survey on the complaint of the crew.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the fact of a vessel losing her class would be a fair ground on which to allege unseaworthiness and to insist on her being surveyed. It was quite a different thing, however, to make it incumbent on the Government to watch all the circumstances connected with every vessel, and it seemed to him that the clause would impose a statutable obligation on the Government which it would be impossible for them to perform: how would it be possible that a ship which had been absent three or four years should come within their knowledge? He did not believe that the object of the hon. Member for Derby would be attained by the means he proposed, and advised the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.
MR. PLIMSOLLmaintained that vessels of no class were more likely to be unsafe than the others, and that Lloyd's possessed the confidence of all but a very small number of the shipowners of this country. He contended that he had shown sufficient and substantial grounds for the adoption of the clause. The Government Bill on this point did not even touch the fringe of the question, and he should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the subject. The President of the Board of Trade had argued that the disclassing of a ship was not primâ facie evidence of unseaworthiness; but it was remarkable that of all the long list of vessels destroyed by the Board of Trade not one was a classed ship. He knew he should be defeated on a division, but the fact that the Government had refused the clause was an intimation of their determination to the people of this country that they would not move hand or foot to prevent unseaworthy vessels going to sea.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 235: Majority 119.
MR. T. E. SMITHmoved the insertion of the following new clause:—
(Passenger certificate by Board of Trade to render a second survey under Passenger Acts unnecessary.)
"In every ease where a passenger certificate has been granted to any steamer by the Board of Trade under the provisions of 'The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854,' and remains still in force it shall not be requisite for the purposes of the employment of such steamer under the Pas-

217
sengers Acts, that she shall be again surveyed in her hull and machinery in order to qualify her for service under the Passengers Acts 1855, and the Acts amending the same; but for the purposes of employment under those Acts such Board of Trade certificate shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Passenger Acts with respect to such survey, and any further survey of the hull and machinery shall be dispensed with, and so long as a steamship is an emigrant ship, that is a passenger ship within the meaning of the Passengers Act 1855, and the Acts amending the same, and the provisions contained in the said Passengers Acts as to the survey of her hull, machinery, and equipments have been complied with, she shall not be subject to the provisions of 'The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854,' with respect to the survey and certificate for passenger steamers, or to the enactments amending the same."
New Clause (Passenger certificate by Board of Trade to render a second survey under Passenger Acts unnecessary,)—(Mr. Thomas Eustace Smith,)—brought up, and read a first time.
On Question, "That the Clause be read a second time?"
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he was prepared to accept the clause, on the ground that it would do away with a needless duplication of survey in some cases at present existing.
MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the adoption of the proposed clause would not exempt passenger ships from periodic survey.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that, as a fact, passenger ships so certified were surveyed yearly.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. WILSON,in moving the insertion of a new clause, enabling British ships to render assistance in the way of salvage or towage to vessels in distress, without being responsible for possible injury inflicted upon the distressed vessels in the attempts to assist them; and which clause also laid down rules as to the mode in which claims for towage or salvage should be assessed, and, if necessary, recovered, said, the task of assisting vessels in distress was often one of great difficulty, and in the present state of the law the assisting ship was liable to make good any injury it might inflict in the course of its efforts to save property or life. This was an anomaly that ought to be remedied.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the clause, on the ground that it would in one part be a mere recitation of the existing law, and in another a dangerous extension of the law, entirely without the scope of the Bill.
Clause negatived.
MR. PLIMSOLLmoved the insertion of a new clause, relating to danger and distress signals at night, which required all British ships to carry two or more distress signal-lights, which should be self-igniting in water and inextinguishable by wind and water, and showing an intensely brilliant light for at least 30 minutes, and visible for six nautical miles; and also requiring such ships to carry three or more life-buoy rescue lights.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYconceived that the proposal was quite within the existing law so far as passenger and emigrant ships were concerned. To pass an Act of Parliament to this effect would be going further than Parliament could enforce, because it would be impossible for the Board of Trade to see that such a law was carried out in all ships; but he would bring up on the Report a modification of the clause restricting it to passenger and emigrant ships and such ships as came within the survey of the Board of Trade, if that would satisfy the hon. Member.
MR. PLIMSOLLaccepted the promise of the right hon. Gentleman.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGproposed the insertion of a new clause, providing that—
"It shall be lawful for the Board of Trade, with a view to the prompt and uniform adjudication upon cases arising under the Discipline Clauses of the Merchant Shipping Acts, or upon other cases arising under or connected with merchant shipping, in respect of which the local magistrates exercise a summary jurisdiction, to require the appointment at any harbour or 'port of call' in the United Kingdom of a magistrate, who shall have been either a barrister or solicitor of at least seven years' standing, and whose constant residence shall be in close proximity to such harbour or port of call, and whose services shall be always available for hearing and determining all such cases as aforesaid; such magistrate to be appointed in England and Ireland by the Lord Chancellor of each country for the time being in which such appointments shall be deemed requisite, at a salary not exceeding five hundred pounds per

219
annum, and to be paid and payable out of the Consolidated Fund to such magistrate, or by moneys provided by Act of Parliament for that purpose."
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the latter part of the clause could not be put, as it involved the expenditure of public money.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he would withdraw that part of the clause. His proposal was really made in the interest of all parties connected with the Mercantile Marine. Cases of very great magnitude often occurred at the large ports in Ireland and England, and those cases were disposed of by the local magistrates. There were great powers given by the existing law, and those powers would be increased by this Bill. He was sorry to say that, to his knowledge, magistrates who were personally connected with the shipping interest pursued such a course of conduct as tended very much to throw discredit on the administration of justice. His clause would give the Board of Trade power, if they were satisfied that it was necessary in any part of England or Ireland, to appoint a paid resident magistrate, who should adjudicate in all shipping cases coming within the province of the Act of Parliament, so that such cases should not be allowed to come before magistrates who were personally connected with the Mercantile Marine. He understood there was some objection to making such appointments as he proposed in England; and if that were so, he was quite willing to limit the operation of the clause to Ireland. He was told that it would be also objectionable to leave the appointment of magistrates to the discretion of the Board of Trade, and he would, therefore, be prepared, if the substance of the clause were agreed to, to leave the appointment entirely with the Lord Chancellor.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought it would be an unusual process for the Board of Trade to require the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate in every or any port in the Kingdom at its discretion.
MR. MAC IVERsupported the principle of the clause, but did not approve of the words in which it was couched. In Queenstown, for instance, which was a port of call, a great many cases arose, and at that place he knew there were various circumstances which rendered it
220
desirable for a stipendiary magistrate to be appointed.
MR. MURPHYthought this was a subject which should be pressed on the attention of the Government. To show the magnitude of the interests involved, he might mention that in the course of the last 10 years the tonnage of the shipping arriving at Queenstown Harbour had risen from 580,000 tons to 2,600,000 tons. The necessity of some more permanent method of administering justice to the mercantile interests in such a port than that supplied by the local justices sitting in petty sessions, and often personally connected with shipping, was obvious.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved that continual complaints were made of the increase of expenditure, and yet clauses were continually proposed tending to such an increase. The clause now proposed would, if agreed to, lead to the creation of an indefinite number of places. He was not at all sure that the object which was sought would be attained by the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. As this was a clause dealing with a professional matter, he might be expected to support it, but he did not intend to do so.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHadmitted there might be a few ports, such as Queenstown, where the appointment of a magistrate to deal specially with Admiralty cases might be desirable. About 18 months ago strong representations were made to the Irish Government as to the necessity of such a magistrate being appointed for Queenstown. He thereupon took some trouble to find a gentleman who would be thoroughly qualified for an appointment of the kind. He asked the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant if they could recommend him some barrister with a special knowledge of maritime law, but he found that no gentleman possessing the necessary requirements was willing to accept such a comparatively small appointment. He had at last, however, found a gentleman who had been for 21 years a resident magistrate, and had had considerable experience in Admiralty cases at Cork. That gentleman had been sent some few months ago to act as stipendiary at Queenstown, and he had reason to believe that his administration there had so far given entire satisfaction. At all events, he had heard no com-

221
plaints. If similar appointments should be proved to be necessary at other ports, the Government would take action accordingly.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his clause; but he could assure the House it had not been brought forward in order to create places for anybody. He had proposed it simply in the interests of his constituents, and at their request.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GORSTmoved the insertion of a new clause, providing that any seaman who deserted his ship, who refused without reasonable cause to join it, or who should be absent without leave, and without sufficient reason, should be liable on summary conviction to any period not exceeding six weeks' imprisonment, with or without hard labour; and also to forfeit his effects on board and also his wages; and, further, to satisfy any excess of wages paid to any substitute in his place. In case any of the offences did not amount to desertion, then there was to be merely a money penalty. He maintained that it was unnecessary to give very strong powers of imprisonment against seamen in order to secure the safety of life and the safety of the ship at sea. The existing Merchant Shipping Act, by Section 239, treated misconduct which endangered either the ship, or life, or limb as misdemeanour. That dealt in a complete manner with all breach or neglect of duty endangering life or the ship; and the present clause would only apply to such neglect of duty as did endanger the ship, or the lives of those on it. Another argument which he warned them against was the saying that it was impossible for the trade of the country to be carried on unless the present peculiar tyrannical laws were continued; but the very same argument was used when the Employers' and Workmen's Act was under discussion in that House, and he saw no reason why sailors should be punished criminally for simple breach of contract any more than other working men. He did not wish to repeal any ancient law, but only to deal with modern enactments. Before 1835 a sailor could only be imprisoned for 30 days for desertion, but in that year the period was lengthened to three months; and a mere absence
222
from duty entailed a punishment of 10 weeks' imprisonment. The power to arrest without warrant, which he proposed to deal with by another clause, was not enacted till 1851, and he asked whether the character of our seamen had improved or deteriorated since that time. These severe laws applied not only to sea-going ships, but also to fishing smacks; and they, in Suffolk and Norfolk, where there were so many fishing smacks had a very demoralizing effect. He asked the Committee to consider whether such laws should be allowed to remain any longer upon the Statute Book.
MR. RATHBONEadmitted that the existing law required alteration, but was not prepared to say how far the Amendment met the necessities of the case. He suggested that the Government should institute an investigation to see what changes were wanted. He recommended that a small Committee should be appointed, not necessarily of shipowners, who should take evidence as to the coasting and timber trade, and who might report how much of the existing law was useless and unnecessary.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the new clauses must be considered at present, not on their own merits, but as connected with the Bill. He had made this a prominent part of the measure of last year, and had a strong view of the necessity of dealing with the existing law. The Government had, however, expressly excluded this great and important subject from the scope of the present measure, and there were two good reasons for this decision. The first was, that he received no great encouragement last year to proceed with the subject of the discipline of seamen, and second was, that there was good reason for limiting the scope of the present Bill if there was to be any hope of carrying it through this Session. As a good deal had been said about the alterations made in this Bill, he would assert that hardly any Bill had ever been passed with so little alteration upon which there had been so much discussion. The Government had almost carried the virgin text of the Bill without alteration. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but the new clauses which they probably had in their minds were not alterations, but only an extension of the application of an unaltered Bill. The text of the Bill had almost been carried

223
intact, with the exception of slight verbal alterations, and it embodied the temporary legislation of last year and portions of the original Bill which had been dropped. The Government declined to accept clauses of the kind now proposed in the measure of last Session, and there was this additional reason for not accepting the clauses now, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not made up his own mind on the subject. The clause would not meet the object his hon. and learned Friend stated that he had in view, as under it the law relating to seamen would not be assimilated to that which regarded workmen. On the contrary, it proposed a wide distinction, for the former were to be treated with civil remedies only; while it was proposed to treat seamen one way when at sea and in foreign ports, and another way when in England. There was no reason for treating desertion criminally on the voyage, and only civilly at its outset, when it might be most dangerous. He should not then enter into the broad question of desertion, as it was not within the scope of the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that the question raised by the clause was not foreign to the scope of the Bill of last year, which re-introduced the law as it stood, and simply modified it. The manner in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the virginity of his Bill was somewhat amusing, for, notwithstanding that the Bill was virgo intacta, it had produced two bouncing twins—deck loading and the provision as to foreign vessels. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have changed his mind on this subject since last Session. Then the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the existing law was defective, and expressed his willingness to consider the whole subject. Now, however, he was not prepared to do anything in the matter. One of the clauses under discussion last Session was in favour of limiting the period of imprisonment, and if the Government would now give a pledge next Session to amend the law with reference to the discipline on board merchant ships in direction of the clauses he proposed last Session, he would suggest the withdrawal of the present clause. If not, he would divide in favour of the proposal. The code which it was sought to modify was one of the most barbarous and unjustifiable that ever existed in a civilized
224
country, and the Committee ought to have an explicit understanding from the Government upon the subject.
LORD ESLINGTONexpressed a hope that before the debate closed the Government would give a positive assurance that they would at an early date deal with this very important question. At present the law was in a state of such uncertainty that it was absolutely necessary to place it upon a more intelligible and more satisfactory footing. Great disappointment had been felt and great dissatisfaction had been expressed by the shipping interest that discipline was not dealt with in the Bill. A late flagrant and patent instance had shown the uncertain state of the law when a magistrate could commit a captain to prison for enforcing discipline on board his own vessel—he alluded to the Locksley Hall case. He was afraid that desertion in foreign ports was largely on the increase, and there were some ports where shipowners knew they would lose their crews. The advance note was one of the most fertile causes of desertion. He objected to this part of the question being dealt with except as a whole; and, in doing so, he hoped the hands of captains would be strengthened in enforcing discipline on board their ships.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSreminded the House that during the discussion of the Employers' and Workmen's Bill last year it was distinctly understood that sea service was of an exceptional character, and required exceptional legislation. As a general rule, he might say it was wise not to make regulations too stringent on either side, but to secure their being carried out with fairness. The question of discipline on board ship was not an easy one. He was most anxious that it should be fairly and fully considered on as early an occasion as possible, and under these circumstances he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press the adoption of his clause. He could assure the House that the subject would receive, not only the earnest, but the early attention of the Government, and he might add that he should not be sorry to see the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool carried into practice, although he could not give a pledge to that effect. In the course of next Session he hoped a Bill on the subject would be introduced.
MR. NORWOOD,in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, suggested that the clause should not be pressed on the present occasion. He trusted that the Government would even this Session consent to the appointment of a Committee. Under any circumstances he trusted they would not delay it beyond the next; and so far as he could speak for his hon. Friends, he might say that they, with himself, would only be too happy to consider the discipline clauses in the fairest manner. On some points the law was too severe and of no benefit to anyone. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsuggested that the clause should be withdrawn, if it were clearly understood that the Government would deal with the subject next Session.
MR. MACDONALDsaid, he should like to have heard a little more definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary than the one he had made, and that the subject should be dealt with in a comprehensive way. With that assurance he would press the hon. and learned Member for Chatham to withdraw the clause.
MR. HOPWOODsaid, there was no difficulty in dealing at once with the proposition put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, which could be but small in effect on shipping interests, though large and beneficial in the sense of giving benefit to a class. There was nothing to prevent them putting an end to imprisonment for desertion, and no shipowner of eminence had asked for the continuance of the law. Shipowners should not have at hand a weapon to compel a sailor to serve on board of a ship which he believed to be unseaworthy.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the clause. He thought that, while there was a feeling that the law with respect to the treatment of seamen was too severe, after the assurance which the Home Secretary had given that the question would be dealt with separately, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham ought not to press for the addition of the clause to a Bill with which it had no necessary connection. If the clause as it stood was agreed to, it would in fact attach no penalty to desertion on the high seas or in foreign ports, when the immediate consequences
226
of such desertion might be great damage to property and danger to life. If such a change were made, it would in fact give encouragement to desertion. The Home Secretary had distinctly stated he was most anxious to place seamen under the protection of the Labour Laws passed last Session with respect to workers on land. Time would be required to consider how that could best be done, and he did hope that after the intimation which had been given the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his clause.
MR. GORSTdid not see why the clause should not be added to the Bill, especially as the Home Secretary had admitted that the law for seamen should be assimilated to that of workmen on shore. But he would not press the clause to a division if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) were adopted for the appointment of a Committee to take this matter into consideration during the present Session with the view of recommending some course which should have the effect of modifying the existing law, or if the Government would undertake, either this Session or next, to deal with the whole question of the discipline of merchant seamen. If not, he must press the clause to a division.
MR. MUNDELLAthought the appeal made to the Government by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was an exceedingly fair one. With one exception, every hon. Member who had spoken had declared the present state of the law to be indefensible. He hoped the Government would deal with the whole question in a generous spirit.
MR. MAC IVERcould not approve the course taken by the Government in this matter. Their legislation last year had tended to discourage discipline on shipboard. The proper way to deal with the matter was for the Government to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), for the appointment of a Committee.
MR. BURT: considered that too much reliance was placed upon imprisonment as a check for such offences as breach of contract, and said the result of his own observation was, that it did not prove effectual in dealing with working men, although it might have some deterrent effect on boys. It was a notable circumstance that from the judicial sta-

227
tistics it appeared that breaches of contract had of late been decreasing year by year to a very considerable extent, and that this decrease had taken place in the face of the most extraordinary state of things with regard to fluctuations in trade when working men were put to the severest tests in keeping their contracts. He trusted that the Government would make some definite statement as to whether they would adopt the proposal for the appointment of a Committee, or whether they would assist him in passing the Bill by which he proposed to deal with the subject.
MR. T. E. SMITHagreed with the proposal that the law with respect to seamen should be assimilated to that which affected landsmen. If the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was pressed to a division, he should certainly vote for it; though if it were agreed to, he would make a suggestion that its provisions should not apply to any seaman in any port after leaving the port of embarkation.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had apparently not been understood when he made his statement in reply to the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford. He did say that the Government would deal with the subject next Session; and, therefore he had been much surprised to hear it said by one hon. Member after another that no distinct pledge had been given. He had not undertaken to deal with the whole question of naval discipline, but only with the relation of seamen to the Employers' and Workmen Act. After the Report of the Royal Commissioners on the Labour Laws last year, he did not think it necessary to refer the subject to a Committee, and as the Government would certainly deal with it next Session, he hoped the discussion would not be continued.
MR. GORSTsaid, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought he would best consult the feelings of the Committee if he withdrew the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed subsequent new Clause (Power of arrest in cases of desertion)—(Mr. Gorst),—by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PLIMSOLLproposed the insertion of a new clause, providing that it should be the duty of our Consular
228
agents at any port to prevent the shipping of any grain cargo or deck cargo, or the loading of any British ship, contrary to the provisions of the Act; authorizing Consuls and persons employed by them to go on board and inspect such ships, and to withhold the ship's papers until the Act was complied with. Its effect would be to render permanent the great success which had attended the powers given to the Consuls by the temporary Act of last Session preventing the shipping of grain cargoes or deck cargoes on board British ships in such a way as to endanger the safety of the vessels.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the Government, following in the wake of the hon. Gentleman in the Black Sea ports, and fully acknowledging his good example, had done what they could in this direction in foreign ports, but it was easier for a private person to visit and inspect vessels in a foreign port with the consent of their owners and masters than for Government officials to do so by authority. To empower any British Consul, or any persons employed by him, to go on board a British ship against the will of the captain, would require a very considerable regulation and official organization; nor could our Consular agents in every port be trusted with such duties and with the power to detain British vessels. The clause was also objectionable because it contained indirectly a provision for a Government "load line," and also gave the Consul power to withhold the ship's papers from the master until he had loaded properly in the Consul's judgment. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be content with the good he had done and had been the means of the Government doing, and not run the risk of losing it all by straining the law.
MR. PLIMSOLL,in reply, said, he found that the Italian Consul in the Black Sea ports had power to withhold the ship's papers until the ship was properly loaded. When this remedy was in successful operation by the Consuls of a foreign country, it did not seem unreasonable to expect that it might be equally well applied by our own. He fully recognized the "omnipotence" of the Government upon the question, and would withdraw the clause, leaving with them the responsibility of refusing to accept it.
SIR ANDREW LUSKconsidered that the clause was an outrage on the liberty of the subject, and he was astonished that such a proposal should be made to the Committee. It was monstrous that a Consul or Vice Consul at any foreign port should have power to come on board a man's ship and interfere with his property as proposed by the hon. Member for Derby.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Baronet was not in Order in discussing the clause, as the question before the Committee was whether it should be withdrawn?
SIR ANDERW LUSKwas inclined to put the matter to the test and object to the withdrawal of the clause, in order that the Committee might have an opportunity of condemning it. ["Hear!"] If they agreed that it was monstrous, he was satisfied.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PLIMSOLLmoved the insertion of a new clause—
"Providing, That before any British ship shall be cleared out the emigration agent or other officer appointed by the Board of Trade shall survey, or cause to be surveyed, the provisions, medicines, and water placed on board for the use of the crew and passengers, and shall satisfy himself that they are of wholesome and proper quality and in good condition, and in quantity sufficient for the crew and passengers throughout the voyage, and that if a clearance be obtained for any British ship which shall not be stored with sufficient provisions, medicines, and water, as required by the Act, the managing owner or master of such vessel shall be liable for each offence to a penalty not exceeding £100."
Parliament did not think it beneath its dignity to see that lodging-houses were inspected, or that cattle conveyed by train received food and water; and he did not see on what ground it could refuse to see that the provisions served out to their seamen were fit for human food. Instead of that, however, stores which were truly in a horrible condition, after simmering in pickle for seven or eight years, were sold by the English Government at Deptford, and were traced to certain ships. They had, by great injustice, and by the total neglect of the interests of the sailor, driven a large number of seamen out of the Merchant Service. He had received a letter from Captain Darcy, at Port Stanley, stating that there were at the time he wrote five
230
British ships at that port, of which the crews preferred to become colonists through the portals of the gaol rather than go round the Cape at the risk of losing their fingers and toes by the use of unwholesome food. An Order in Council had recently been issued that sheep should not be carried on the decks of vessels in winter without an awning for their protection from the weather, and if sheep and cattle were not beneath the care of Parliament, reasonable attention should be paid to the health and comfort of our seamen.
Clause (Survey of provisions and medicines,)—(Mr. Plimsoll,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. ALGERNON EGERTONregretted that he was not in the House the other night when the hon. Member made a statement in regard to the sale of Government stores. The hon. Member was probably aware that a Return was in preparation, giving the details of the sale of Government stores, and the names of the persons to whom they were sold. It would shortly be ready, and would afford the means of tracing those provisions. He had made inquiry as to the conditions under which stores were sold at Deptford, and he could assure the Committee that so far as he knew the instructions of the Admiralty, which were most distinct and precise, that nothing unfit for human food should be sold, were carried out. When the stores came in they were surveyed, and if they were unfit for human food the order was that they should be instantly destroyed. It sometimes happened that stores which could not be re-issued for a five or six years' voyage might be fit for a short voyage to the Mediterranean. Inquiries were being made at Gibraltar and Malta as to whether the orders of the Admiralty were carried out, and as soon as he received the information he would be happy to lay it on the Table.
MR. WILSON: thought the clause was one which deserved the serious attention of the Government, but suggested that it should be made applicable only to vessels undertaking long voyages, such as round Cape Horn or to Australia. No doubt the absence of a survey of provi-

231
sions might have been in some in stances a cause of seamen deserting their ships.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, there were two propositions before the Committee; one that this clause should be applied to all vessels, and the other that it should be applied to vessels on long voyages; but he contended that it would be impossible to apply it to either case. The hon. Member for Derby had too much confidence in the Government, and wanted to throw upon it the minutest responsibilities of every conceivable kind. Such continual Government interference as the hon. Member would have might do in France and other similar nations, but it was absolutely contrary to the genius of this country. If the clause were agreed to, there was no reason why a Proviso should not be added to oblige the Government to inspect the provisions and medicines of all private houses, or at least in all large establishments to have the water analyzed, the medicines tested, and the food inspected. If they were to interfere in all cases where possibly good could be done and evil prevented there would be no limit to Government inspection. If they were to accept the argument that because there were orders to have awnings over sheep, why not have equal care over men, who were more valuable than sheep, it would come to having Orders in Council for awnings over their labourers. He must not only refuse to accept the clause, but protest against the spirit of it.
MR. BATESsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. Member for Derby, but confessed that he thoroughly coincided with him as to the necessity for such a clause as this. It was perfectly certain that however good meat might be when put on board ship, it would soon be unfit for human food unless properly taken care of when there by the captain or some other officer. If pickle or brine was allowed to run out of the casks, the best beef or pork that ever went on board ship would be worthless.
DR. WARD: supported the clause. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Inspectors had now the right to enter and inspect a house believed to be in an unsanitary condition. The right hon. Gentleman told them that stores were sold by the Royal Navy as unfit
232
for use; but who bought those stores? Brokers bought them, and sold them to emigrant ships. He could not see any objection to the clause, and he thought there had been a very fair case made out for inspection of stores for long voyages. In the Navy, where provisions were inspected, there was no scurvy; but in the Mercantile Marine it was rife.
MR. PALMER,in supporting the clause, said great care was taken in respect to the quality of provisions in troop-ships, and he considered on behalf of their sailors that equal care should be taken in seeing that their provisions were sound and wholesome.
SIR JOHN HAYdoubted whether inspection would be of any use. A Committee of the House, which sat to inquire into the failure of Goldner's preserved meats, showed how useless such inspection proved. It was only by extraordinary care taken by preserving in the Naval Victualling Yards that provisions were kept good. He remembered when, some years ago, he served in Her Majesty's ship Trinculo, on the West Coast of Africa, there were provisions on board which were preserved in 1809, and having eaten of those provisions in 1834, and subsequently some years after, he found they proved to be quite good. He thought the hon. Gentleman was asking too much in this clause. It would be better to leave the matter to be discovered on occasional voyages, which would prevent those who had supplied improper provisions from being again employed.
MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, he had been at a loss to understand the speech of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Palmer) until he remembered the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates), when he learned that what they both wanted was to avoid a clean bill of health. It would no doubt be a great relief to the shipowners if the Board of Trade would take upon itself all their responsibilities, but he would not then envy the right hon. Gentleman his position.
MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he failed to perceive that there was any argument against his proposal that would not weigh with equal force against the inspection of food put on board emigrant ships for the consumption of the passengers. Again, we inspected the food sent into the metropolis, and the inspection of food on board ship was a much

233
more important matter. Ashore a man could change his butcher, if he found the meat bad; but the sailor had to throw his provisions overboard, if they were not good, and have recourse to chewing tobacco. So far from an occasional failure rendering inspection illusory, it was calculated to give it greater reality, as the Inspectors would on the next occasion be more upon their guard.
MR. T. CAVEsupported the clause. When he was Sheriff of London he had to attend the trial of the Flowery Land mutineers, and he felt convinced the men would have never mutinied nor have been handed over to him for execution had proper food been supplied to them on shipboard.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 114: Majority 47.
CAPTAIN PIMhaving moved a new clause which was not upon the Paper, enabling the relatives of deceased sea-men to recover damages against the shipowners in certain cases where the deaths had resulted from a breach of the provisions of the Bill—
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: proceeded to state objections to it.
SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that the hon. and learned Attorney General had been stating objections to a clause which was not upon the Paper, and the terms of which had not been heard by those who sat on the Opposition side of the House.
After short conversation,
CAPTAIN PIMsaid, he would withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Motion of Mr. Rathbone, after Clause 27, the following clause:—
(Power for Her Majesty by Order in Council to apply certain provisions of Merchant Shipping Acts to foreign ships.)
"Whenever it has been made to appear to Her Majesty that the Government of any Foreign State is desirous that any of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876, shall apply to the ships of such State, Her Majesty may by Order in Council declare that such of the said provisions as are in such Order specified, shall (subject to the limitations, if any, contained in the Order) apply, and thereupon, so long as the Order remains in force, such provisions shall apply (subject to the said limitations) to the ships of such State, and to the owners, masters, officers, and crews of such ships when not within the jurisdiction of such
234
State, in the same manner in all respects as if such ships were British ships.
It shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time by Order in Council to add to, alter, or repeal any Order made under this section."
was agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Schedule verbally amended, and agreed to.
On Question, "That the Chairman report the Bill, as amended?"
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that he would, when the Speaker got into the Chair, move that the Bill should be immediately reprinted, and then hon. Members would find that after 12 nights of discussion scarcely a single alteration had been made in it. Two material additions—that relating to the Court of Appeal and that relating to the Wreck Commission—had been made to it at the instance of the Government, and two or three clauses had been added on the Motions of private Members; but otherwise it practically remained in the form in which it had been introduced into the House by the Government. He wished that the fact should be clearly understood, because it had been stated by some hon. Members that the Bill as introduced was so confused that no one could comprehend it. The measure contained the whole of the temporary Act that was passed last year, and also the main provisions of the Bill that was dropped at the end of last Session.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, though the alterations made in the Bill were small, the attempts to obtain alterations had been great. He was glad to hear that the Bill was to be reprinted, and hoped that there would be another opportunity to urge the consideration of particular points upon which a great deal had been said, but which the Government had failed to appreciate.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, that though he had spoken out candidly against some of the Government proposals, he disclaimed any discourtesy towards the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill. He, however, represented a constituency which was not satisfied with the Bill. He regarded that measure as a thoroughly honest attempt to deal with the subject, and he admitted that there was much that was valuable in it; but he appealed to the Government not to adhere to certain clauses which had

235
been disapproved of at every port in the Kingdom.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that at this stage it was not usual to discuss the provisions of the Bill.
MR. MAC IVERregretted that he had uttered his protest in the wrong place.
MR. W. E. FORSTERasked when the Report would be taken. He hoped it would not be taken immediately, because, although his right hon. Friend was quite right in saying that not many alterations had been made, yet the provisions with regard to deck cargoes and foreign ships were very considerable changes.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he would formally name Thursday for the bringing up of the Report, with the view of then naming another day when there could be a discussion, if it should be thought necessary.
Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended; to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

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

NAVY—SHIPS OF WAR.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. T. BRASSEY,: in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That this House, while approving the programme of work on iron-clad ships for the ensuing financial year, is of opinion that the present is a fitting opportunity for reviewing our shipbuilding policy and the resources of the Mercantile Marine for naval purposes; and this House is further of opinion that this inquiry should be held by a Royal Commission,"
  said: The Resolution I am about to move is drawn in terms which cannot be regarded as unfriendly to the Government. I regret the large expenditure on unarmoured ships which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has hitherto refused to recognize as forming part of the effective strength of the Navy; but I am not aware that the designs for the iron-clads now in construction have been
  236
  disapproved by any competent critics. Having disclaimed any intention to criticize the ships at present being constructed, still less am I disposed to speak unfavourably of the designs approved by the late Government. Turning from the past and present to the future, I may remind the House that it was stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his speech on moving the Navy Estimates, that it had been decided not to lay down any new iron-clads during the ensuing financial year. I do not accuse the Admiralty of unnecessary hesitation in coming to a decision on the infinitely vexed question of naval construction; but, if no new ships are to be laid down, it cannot be urged that our shipbuilding will be delayed by further inquiry. It may be said, however, that the Department is at least as competent an authority on shipbuilding questions as any Royal Commission that could be appointed. I gladly acknowledge that the present Naval Lords, if they were not in office, would constitute a most able Commission. But my fear is that they have no leisure to investigate new problems of armament, tactics, and construction. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), in seconding a similar Motion by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), in 1868, said, as I think, truly, that—
  "When a great policy had been inaugurated, he could well understand that a Department of the State might efficiently carry it out; but it was unlikely that such a policy could be initiated by a Government Department."—[3 Hansard, cxciii. 1118.]
  In the same debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) said—
  "That he could at the same time have wished that the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) had been able to lay before the House some plan, which, without diminishing the responsibility of the Constructive department of the Admiralty, or diminishing its responsibility for all that was done under its superintendence, would give it the advantage of a certain amount of scientific investigation and advice."—[Ibid. 1139.]
  The controversy as to the continued use of side-armour must naturally arouse the greatest anxiety in the country. It is said that unless armour be strong enough to keep out shells, it is worse than useless; and armour, more or less impenetrable, even when limited to vital places, involves a large addition to the cost, and an increase of dimen-

  237
  sions, tending to diminish that mobility, which is of the last importance, if, as Admiral Jurien de la Gravière predicts, ships will fight in the future with the rams alone. In our Navy there is an almost hopeless conflict of opinion. Captain Noel insists that excessive top-weight should be avoided. On the other hand, I am assured, in an able letter from an admiral in a high command, that our men would have no chance if they had to contend with heavy guns, protected by a turret, and therefore fired with confidence and precision. The painful uncertainty, in which we are placed in this country, is shared by every Maritime Power. In Russia, attention is being directed chiefly to the circular iron-clads, the Popoffkas, which are intended solely for coast defence. In Germany, it has been decided to lay down no more iron-clads at present. M. Dislere, one of the constructors of the French Navy, says that the progress made by artillery has rendered it useless to retain armour for ocean-going cruisers. The views of M. Dislere are borne out by the passing events in naval construction. The Inflexible, which has just been launched, is protected by 18 inch-armour, and the Dandolo by 12 inch-armour. When the progress of gunnery has rendered 22 inch-armour insufficient, Messrs. Cammell undertake to roll plates of 30 or even 40 inches—
  "For the moment," as it is observed in The Times report, "the advantages seem to be in favour of armour; and yet a target, representing the strongest portion of the armour of the Inflexible, was penetrated a few months ago at 1,800 metres by a Krupp gun. "While, however, we find an eminent French authority announcing that armour will shortly be laid aside, in his annual report, published last December. Admiral Porter says that the aim of the United States should be, in making changes, to resist the shot from the 12-inch 35-ton, which at 200 yards perforates 15 inches of solid wrought iron. He asks for 24 first-class ships; but such vessels will represent, in his opinion, no decided power for offence or defence, unless they carry sufficient thickness of armour to resist the average rifled gun, and have speed to get within striking distance of the enemy. Wooden vessels add nothing to the fighting force, just as, in former days, engagements fought with frigates never materially affected the result of a war. For fighting purposes, he prefers a turreted vessel to any other."
  I do not pretend to offer an opinion of my own. When, however, we observe such a wide difference of view, it is our
  238
  duty, as representatives of the taxpayers, to take care that these subjects are thoroughly investigated before we commit ourselves to large ships, which may be condemned as obsolete before they are completed. Since this subject was last reviewed by the Admiralty Committee on Designs, great progress has been made in perfecting offensive torpedoes. Many authorities declare that the most effectual defence against the torpedo is to be found in further developments of the cellular system of construction. According to Mr. Barnaby, on the other hand, it is idle to attempt to form the bottom of a ship strong enough to resist a fair blow from a powerful torpedo. Each costly iron clad should be defended against the torpedo and the ram by a number of small unarmoured vessels. But how are you to keep such a flotilla together? If, however, our great iron-clads are to be attended by a cloud of skirmishers, they cannot venture far from their base of operations. Great coal-carrying capacity will no longer be necessary, and the high free-board and other features of a sea-going ship may be materially reduced. The Motion I originally placed on the Paper contained a recommendation that designs for various types of fighting vessels should be invited from private shipbuilders. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) has recently constructed for the Chilian Navy two vessels, each of 2,000 tons, armed with six 12-ton guns, protected by armour of 8 and 9 inches. Messrs. Ronnie have built two gunboats for the Peruvian Government, little larger than the gunboats of our Staunch type, but carrying 26-ton instead of 18-ton guns. Mr. Mackrow has recently designed the Vasco de Gama for the Portuguese Government, which vessel carries two 18-ton guns, protected by a circular breastwork, armoured with 10-inch armour. The ship carries in addition one 6½-ton gun, and two 40-pounders, and has, I believe, been built for £100,000. These examples suggest the expediency of following the precedent of 1867, when six of our most eminent firms were invited to submit competitive designs. Having regard to the danger to which the most powerful ships are exposed when attacked by the ram or torpedo, I should like to fix

  239
  the limit of cost at £150,000, or even £100,000. A perfect ship could not be built for such a sum; but the attempt to unite in a single vessel every quality can only end in an unsatisfactory compromise. On a former occasion, when a similar competition took place, Sir Spencer Robinson and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke were called upon to decide between the respective merits of the various proposals. The anomaly of this position was pointed out by Sir Spencer Robinson. I have thus far confined my allusions to the fighting Navy, but the naval resources of this country are not limited to the fleet especially constructed for war. The latest Returns show that, in our Mercantile Marine, we have 419 steamers of 1,200 tons register, and upwards. The extraordinary regularity of the passages made between Queenstown and New York is sufficient evidence of the steaming and coal-carrying capabilities of these ships, and the torpedo provides the means of defending them against the most powerful vessels of war. It therefore makes them a source of great naval strength. The owners of ocean-going steamers should be encouraged by judicious subsidies to build their ships of such a type that they could be converted, if necessary, into armed cruisers. This object can only be attained by making arrangements beforehand, when the designs are being prepared. Numerous precedents might be cited, of independent inquiry, by Commissions and Committees, into the condition of the Navy. It may not be equally widely known that a Commission, precisely similar to that which I propose, has recently been authorized by the United States House of Representatives. This Commission is to consider the great changes which have taken place of late years in naval warfare, and to recommend the best type of ship to meet these changes. They are to report on the whole subject, and to enable Congress to consider intelligently, and to legislate upon, naval affairs in all their branches. The last is precisely the object I have in view. Under our Parliamentary system, it is essential that every Department of the Government should carry with it the approval of the public, even in matters of administrative detail. There is no alter-
  240
  native, therefore, for the Admiralty but to satisfy the country that the expenditure they propose is unnecessary, that their designs for ships are well-considered, and that everything that it is practicable to do is being done to make the great resources of the country available as a reserve for the Navy, and so to diminish, as far as may be, the cost of our standing force in time of peace. The Report of the proposed Commission should be an invaluable document in the hands of the First Lord in pleading with Parliament on behalf of the Navy. It will not be necessary to make disclosures on points of detail. In Parliament we want only that general information which will enable us to determine whether or not armour should be retained. We want advice as to the relative value of armoured and unarmoured ships, and as to the necessity or otherwise of building unarmoured ships of the vast dimensions of the Inconstant or the Raleigh. Thus far I have referred to the different modes in which money may be spent to strengthen the Navy. May we not venture, however, to hope that the Commission might be able to suggest economies in other directions? I noticed only the other day that £23,000 had been spent in repairing the Salamis. Can it be supposed that any private shipowner would have allowed such a sum as I have named to be spent in repairing a despatch boat of 835 tons? Admiral Porter has suggested in his last Report that iron cruisers should be built for the United States Navy, and kept on the stocks until the outbreak of a war. In this way all waste from wear and tear and dry-rot would be avoided. Might not we do the same thing with advantage? In conclusion, assuming that such an inquiry as I have suggested were to be ordered, the question is whether it should be conducted by a Committee or a Commission. A Commission is to be preferred as being more independent. It may be that the Report would be wholly in favour of the designs submitted by the Admiralty. If such were the result, it would be eminently gratifying, both to the Constructors' department and to the public. If, on the other hand, the result should be that some suggestions were obtained, which had not hitherto been adopted by the Admiralty, that again would be valuable,

  241
  as tending to make our Navy stronger and more efficient than before. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. His hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had, in his able statements, made the case so clear in favour of a Royal Commission that he would only occupy the attention of the House for a very short time. Since the Committee on Designs sat in 1871, enormous changes had been effected in naval warfare. In gunnery great advances had been made. Hydraulic machinery enabled us to carry guns capable of piercing armour far thicker than could possibly be carried afloat. The 81 and 38-ton guns could now be carried and worked with greater facility than the 25-ton gun could be worked in 1871—and a very limited number of men were required. The power of the ram had been shown with deadly effect in the case of the Vanguard, and no doubt existed that it must prove a most important weapon in any naval action. Lastly, the knowledge of the locomotive torpedo had advanced with marvellous strides, and month after month great discoveries were made which proved the fearful power of this weapon. He believed we had entered into a new phase of naval warfare, which must, to a great extent, revolutionize our ideas of modern shipbuilding. The great problem of the day was how to protect the vitals in a ship, and how to render her unsinkable in the face of these new weapons. He believed that however unpalatable and worrying such an inquiry might prove to the Admiralty, it could not fail to be of great service, and must be economical. It would enable us to have access to information now practically closed, and bring in the able, healthy, and intelligent criticisms of clear and impartial minds. He thought it would certainly bring one matter into prominence, and that was the urgent necessity of diffusing our strength over a greater area, of having smaller ships and a greater number of them, so as not to have our eggs as at present in a very limited number of baskets. The loss of one ship now was a great national disaster. He thought serious attention ought to be speedily drawn to the enormous power developed by the Whitehead
  242
  locomotive torpedo, and to the present unprotected condition of our great iron-clads. Up to a short time ago, this weapon could only be fired out of particular vessels properly fitted, and at a speed of only 9 knots. Now that was entirely changed. Experiments had shown at Portsmouth that we could launch it from the surface with the greatest facility, even from the bow or beam, and without any special fitting. These torpedoes were now being made to go from 20 to 22 knots an hour to a distance of 300 yards, and at a lower rate to travel no less than a mile. In stating this he was revealing no secret, as he saw it announced quite recently in a newspaper report. The Committee would see at once what a vast change this had effected in modern warfare, every little steamer, every passenger steamer, and every tiny boat could now use these terrible weapons. The effect of a single torpedo of this description fired against one of our iron-clads, if it did not send her to the bottom, would undoubtedly do her enormous harm. It was to his mind a question of the gravest importance, and one well fitting special inquiry. How were their present ships to be protected? The cellular principle carried out to a great extent and double iron bottoms might in some measure offer protection, but it must be remembered that even now the locomotive torpedo was only in its infancy. If the right hon. Gentleman granted the Commission or Committee, he hoped that special steps would be taken to see if the proceedings could not be kept confidential. A general Report might be issued, but he thought the details ought not to be made public. It appeared to him that we were a great deal too open to foreigners. We spent large sums in costly experiments year after year, and in building vessels of the most approved type, with all the latest improvements, and then deliberately showed them all to any foreign officers who desired to become acquainted with what we were doing. Not only did we do this, but we actually went out of our way to show to the foreign officers what we kept a secret from our own officers. It appeared to him that this was most suicidal. If it was impossible to keep matters secret from foreign officers, then let your experiments be made public, and invite that wholesome criticism from our own

  243
  officers, and from engineers of eminence, which could not fail to be of great benefit, but he deprecated most strongly the present system of only giving the information to foreign officers. It was sometimes said that we obtained reciprocal advantages. He doubted if there was any reciprocity whatever. He had spoken to officers and civil engineers of great standing, and they all concurred that we got nothing of any importance from foreign nations—but that, on the contrary, they took great care to keep any discoveries they made to themselves. Only the other day the newspapers announced that Admiral Pop off, the Russian Naval Constructor, had been to Chatham; that the greatest civility had been shown him, and that all the latest designs and improvements had been laid before him. The next day we were told he had been to Portsmouth, and that he and his official staff had spent the whole time inspecting the various improvements. This condition of things had gone on for a long time. It was well known that some years ago the percussion fuze, "Moorsom's Fuze," was a secret jealously kept, and none of our officers were able to obtain any information about it. At last a translation was obtained from a Russian pamphlet, containing a full account of it. Again, only about two years ago, a diagram was carefully made out, showing the various distances at which British and foreign iron-clads could be pierced by our large guns. This was by way of being a most confidential document, and was allowed to captains in command of vessels, and certain other high officials, but the information was denied to everybody else. After this state of things had gone on for some time, it was discovered that the Foreign Attachés had been allowed copies, and the result was that this valuable and authentic information was circulated amongst all foreign Governments, whilst our own officers were not allowed the privilege of becoming acquainted with facts of great importance to them in their profession. Perhaps nothing more absurd could be imagined than what happened last year at Portsmouth. It was well known that for some time past we had been conducting great experiments with locomotive torpedoes before a very able Committee of naval officers. Many most valuable discoveries had been made, and
  244
  the Reports were supposed to be of a strictly confidential character. We had it the same time a number of officers going through a torpedo course of instruction, and with them, as usual, two or three foreign officers. The torpedo school was, of course, quite distinct from the experimental Committee. One day some of the officers under instruction were discussing amongst themselves how the experiments were progressing, and wondering what was being done, when, to the astonishment of everyone, one of the foreign officers present said—"Oh! I can tell you, here is the last Report." It was only too true, the Report was produced from his pocket, and on it was seen the Admiralty stamp, proving that it had been obtained direct from that quarter. He thought this sort of thing was most suicidal. It was a question which the Treasury ought to take up, and with a strong hand prevent the Departments giving away the benefit of the large expenditure we annually incurred in experiments. No doubt, after a certain time, all new inventions became public; but he ventured to think that for some few months, or for a year or two, we might keep our own secrets. He hoped, if the Commission or Committee were granted, that this matter would be well considered in framing their instructions. There could be no necessity to make known the evidence, or the detailed statement of such a body, and a short Report would be quite sufficient for the general public. He begged to second the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, while approving the programme of work on iron-clad ships for the ensuing financial year, is of opinion that the present is a fitting opportunity for reviewing our shipbuilding policy, and the resources of the mercantile marine for naval purposes; and this House is further of opinion that such inquiry should be held by a Royal Commission,"—(Mr. T. Brassey,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) practically comprised two parts. It approved the programme of the Government so far as iron-clad

  245
  building was concerned, and it invited the Government to appoint a Royal Commission. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would do them the justice to admit that while they had endeavoured to perform their duties as critics with regard to naval administration, they had been moderate in their criticisms on the proposals he had made. They had never divided against the sums of money he had asked the House to vote, and had scarcely offered any opposition to his policy, so far as he had a policy, in the matter of shipbuilding. While they had criticized the statements he had made and sanctioned the reasons he had assigned for the course he took, he was not sure they had not gone far in the direction of supporting his proposals and somewhat exposed themselves to criticism on their own side for their too great alacrity in supporting those largely increased Estimates demanded by the right hon. Gentleman. At all events, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit, so far as he had a shipbuilding policy, they had not offered any opposition to which he could object in the carrying out of that policy. He would endeavour to deal with this question also in the fairest spirit to the right hon. Gentleman. When the House was called upon to vote for a Royal Commission he ventured to ask himself what would have been his answer had such a proposal been made when he was at the Admiralty. Of course, much would depend on whether one had a policy of one's own. If the Government had got a distinct policy upon any one particular subject, then a proposal to appoint a Commission was considered rather in the light of a somewhat adverse Motion, and it was the tendency of Government to resist such Motions. But what the House particularly wished now to know was what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Had he a policy as regarded iron-clad shipbuilding? During the tenure of office of the last three First Lords of the Admiralty there had been a distinct policy of shipbuilding, approved by some parties, disapproved by others, but, at all events, a distinct policy. The late Mr. Corry had a policy, which he proposed and carried out. He proposed the building of six ships of the Audacious class. They were a new class. He had a strong opinion in regard to
  246
  them. They involved an increase of expenditure; but the House approved his policy, and he carried it out. He was succeeded by his (Mr. Goschen's) right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), to whom was due the policy which created the Devastation class, the Thunderer and the Dreadnought. That policy was greatly questioned at the time, but ultimately approved by the House. The Hotspur was a ship for which the credit was due, so far as it was successful, to Mr. Corry; so was the Glatton. The Rupert and the Ram belonged to his right hon. Friend. By both those First Lords a distinct policy was submitted to the House. When he (Mr. Goschen) had the honour to be at the Admiralty, it was his duty to propose a certain advance in shipbuilding policy, and it fell to his lot to submit designs of the Inflexible, the Téméraire, and the Superb—all ships of a novel kind, which involved a new policy. One point was the central citadel and the development to a greater degree of the bow fire. The question had always been, what was the policy of the Admiralty? In quoting the policy of these three Administrations his object was not to revive any controversy about the credit of one Administration or the other, but to point out that, for good or evil, there had been a distinct policy in the Admiralty. They knew what ships they wanted to propose, and on what class it was desirable to spend the funds that were voted. It would not have been right to demand of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he adhered to the policy of his Predecessor, or if he had a policy of his own during his first two years of office; but he had now entered on his third year of office, and he thought he would admit they might now appeal to him to state whether he had a distinct policy as regarded iron-clad shipbuilding. The right hon. Gentleman had made proposals to continue the repairs of iron-clads of a smaller class than the ships he had enumerated; but we had now arrived at a point when we must know from the right hon. Gentleman what line he intended to adopt—whether ships of the Inflexible class, or of a smaller class were to be continued, or whether ships of the Inflexible class were to be abandoned. It was known that the right hon. Gentleman had ordered two Inflexibles and also two ships of the

  247
  Shannon class, a design which had been brought to the notice of Parliament before the right hon. Gentleman acceded to office. Now, the offer he, so far as he was personally concerned, would make to the right hon. Gentleman was that if he stated he had, with the assistance of his able advisers, clear views with regard to iron-clad shipbuilding, he (Mr. Goschen) would support the policy of the right hon. Gentleman just as he would a policy of his own, and would vote against a Commission; because during the whole process of a Commission the responsibility of the advisers of the Admiralty was greatly embarrassed and hampered, and they could not be expected to perform their duties as they would in ordinary times. But if the right hon. Gentleman would state that he had no policy, though the Naval Estimates had been increased £400,000 a-year each year he had been in office—if he would state that he did not see his way, but would like to call in assistance from without, the House would do well to assist the right hon. Gentleman in finding a policy. If the right hon. Gentleman consented to a Commission, he would, no doubt, get the best advice he could from all quarters. In that way he would obtain the great advantage of getting the brains which were outside the Constructor's department; but he must take that advantage with the corresponding disadvantage of conducting the inquiry in the face of the public and of other nations. What would be instructive in the history of Commissions would be to see how the appointment of those which had been previously made had assisted the Executive Government in the discharge of its duties. We had had a notable instance in the Commission which sat on the Bill that had occupied the House in the earlier part of the evening, and the whole Report of which had been practically disregarded in the legislation which had followed. However, nothing could be worse than that we should go on without any policy. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to pursue one of two courses—either on that, or a future occasion, to take the House into his confidence, and explain his views with regard to iron-clads, or to accept the suggestion that the composition of the Fleet should be determined by the advice which the right hon. Gentleman
  248
  would call in from without. Whichever alternative the right hon. Gentleman adopted, he might rely upon fair criticisms of the plans which he might submit to the House.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he believed that the proposals made during the three previous Administrations had been arrived at in precisely the same way as those of the present Admiralty. The same officers had produced their plans, and the present First Lord had dealt with them in the same way as his Predecessor. Now, he had long ago expressed the opinion, which he still entertained, that when people were engaged in one groove of thought they were not so likely to develop new and valuable plans as to enlarge upon that which had been their practice hitherto. He therefore thought the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London would have been more valuable if he could have shown that the three previous Administrations of the Admiralty had pursued a policy that was superior or more likely to be permanent than the one at present pursued. With regard to the position of our Navy, some things had been stated with which he could not agree. For example, we had been led to believe that the country ought to be exceedingly uncomfortable on account of the building of circular iron-clads in Russia. There could be no greater bugbear. At the Institute of Naval Architects he had shown that the best of these vessels was taking five times as much power to propel it as the ordinary vessels we were constructing, and that, notwithstanding this enormous power, it had only acquired the means of going something like 8 knots an hour; and Mr. Froude informed him that if these vessels had been driven at 9 knots an hour, they would have been driven under water. In fact, they were nothing more than floating fortresses and in that capacity might be of some advantage, but as ships of war they might be disregarded; at all events, they were of no serious importance. Then we had been told about certain vessels built for the Chilian and Portuguese Governments. These vessels were not of a size or construction which would be suitable for a great country like our own. At the same time the Portuguese Minister had laid down some conditions which were worth considering. Instead of prescribing

  249
  a plan to the builders, thus shutting out possible improvements, the Portuguese Government said—"Construct for us the best vessels you can construct for a specified sum." That example deserved imitation. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) asked what assistance previous Commissions had given in this matter. Not much, certainly. The late Mr. Corry, to whom the country owed great gratitude for the immense improvements he introduced into our steam Navy, saw the great advantage which was to be gained from external assistance, and with this view called upon a number of the best constructors in the country to place before him their plans for the best class of vessels. After Mr. Corry had obtained that information from the private firms, it was rendered nugatory by the course subsequently pursued by the employés of the Admiralty. The particulars were handed over to the Controller of the Navy and the Chief Constructor, the upshot being that all the plans were thrown aside, and that a proposal of the Chief Constructor was substituted for all the rest. This was a policy which he hoped his right hon. Friend would not adopt. He might here remark that he entertained the very highest opinion of the officers who were now engaged under his right hon. Friend in the construction of ships. His hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had led the House to imagine that the German Government had ceased to build iron-clads, but the truth was that no other Government in Europe was so actively engaged in constructing them. At this moment Germany had seven iron-clad ships which were not completed. These had been in course of construction between three and five years, and the reason why they were not yet finished was simply because sufficient manual labour could not be obtained. The most important point which had been alluded to was that of speed. This was one of the elements which was daily growing more important, and he believed it would become a positively exchangeable term for thickness of armour. If we had a greater amount of speed and a less thickness of armour, we should have an equally if not a more formidable ship. Under the circumstances, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, although he was not inferior to his Predecessors in his policy for giving
  250
  the country an efficient Fleet, would derive considerable advantage from external assistance, and he should be glad if the Admiralty could see their way to fortify themselves by some such arrangement as that proposed by his hon. Friend.
  MR. HUNTsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had remarked that that was a favourable opportunity for reviewing our shipbuilding policy and had asked the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into it and into the resources of our Mercantile Marine for naval purposes. His hon. Friend founded his opinion that that was a favourable opportunity, on the fact that it was not proposed to lay down any new iron-clad during the present year. His hon. Friend, however, was mistaken in thinking he (Mr. Hunt) had said that no iron-clad would be laid down until the vessels now in course of construction were completed. He had not bound himself to that course; but what he really said was that, in the present state of things, looking to the comparative state of our armoured and unarmoured fleet, he did not think he should propose to Parliament to lay down an iron-clad this year. He admitted that if there were to be such a review as his hon. Friend proposed, this was not an unfitting opportunity for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) proposed to him to meet this apparent dilemma. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Either you have no shipbuilding policy—and in that case you will do well to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Hastings—or else you have a shipbuilding policy, and then you must resist the Motion." Now, he did not consider that was a proper alternative, for he might have a shipbuilding policy and yet be willing to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Hastings, or something like it. The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the shipbuilding policy of Mr. Corry and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, and said to him—"What shipbuilding policy have you?" He would come to that presently. During his administration Mr. Corry, whom the right hon. Gentleman said had a shipbuilding policy, invited designs from outside in aid of the resources of the Admiralty; and it seemed, therefore, that he (Mr. Hunt) might accept the suggestion

  251
  of the hon. Member for Hastings without at all admitting that he had no policy. It was said when the last change of Government was made that larger demands for the Navy were to be expected. No doubt; and no one had better grounds for expecting those increased demands than the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him at the Admiralty and who knew what state the Navy was in when he left it, and what were its deficiencies. Then it was asked, what was the shipbuilding policy of the Government. Well, he defied any man to lay down a definite shipbuilding policy for the future—for this reason, that inventions and discoveries were daily being made which upset all previous calculations. Why, within a comparatively short period they had changed from the wooden ship to the iron-clad, from the iron-clad to the turret, and now they reached the armed citadel ship. However wise First Lords of the Admiralty might be, could any one, in view of these facts, venture to decide, three or four years in advance, what particular type of ship should be built? His shipbuilding policy was this—to keep pace with the inventions of the day and to keep ahead of all maritime Powers. Well, how was he carrying that policy out? When he came into office he found a great number of ships called obsolete—that was to say, ships which we would not lay down at the present day, but which, nevertheless, if put in proper order, would be able to meet vessels of other Powers built about the same time. Some of those ships he found in so defective a state that they were unfit to be sent to sea, or, at all events, to take part in an engagement; and, accordingly, he asked the House to increase the resources of the Admiralty in order to put these ships into a proper state. As hon. Members knew, it was a work of much less time to repair ships than to construct new ones, and the result was that from the time he took office the number of effective sea-going iron-clads had increased from 14 to 20, not to speak of those two powerful vessels the Devastation and the Thunderer. The latter, he might say, was not actually completed, but for all practical purposes might be considered so; and in two months another ship would be ready. Thus a great improvement had been made in the capabilities of the Navy, notwithstanding that great disas-
  252
  ter the loss of the Vanguard. Concurrently with the repair of the ships he had mentioned, four new iron-clads had been laid down. Well, the right hon. Gentleman said—"You have laid down two iron-clads of the Shannon class and two iron-clads of the Inflexible class; which do you prefer? because by laying down two ships of one kind and two of another, you seem to be halting between two opinions." [Mr. Goschen: No, no!] At any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman did not say that, he asked what the shipbuilding policy of the Government was. His answer to the right hon. Gentleman was, that different classes of iron-clads were required for different purposes, and that in considering what policy they were to pursue, it was necessary to bear in mind the purposes for which ships would be required. They had, for instance, to meet an enemy in battle, to protect our commerce against an enemy's armed and unarmed cruisers, and also to inflict injury on an enemy's commerce in return. Well, for the protection of our commerce from armed cruisers, he had laid down two ships of the Shannon class of an improved type, a knot an hour faster, carrying more coal stowage, and armoured at the stern as well as at the prow, and therefore more efficient as fighting ships. As regarded line-of-battle ships he had followed the type of the Inflexible, and had laid down two ships of a less size and less costly, with an armed citadel in the centre, and with less tonnage than the Inflexible, not quite so powerfully armed, carrying not such thick armour, and with a less draught of water, preferring to build ships of a smaller size, as he recognized the truth of the saying that we ought not to put all our eggs into one basket. For the purpose they were designed to serve, he believed those ships were the best that could at the present time be devised. However, he was not prepared to say that as new discoveries were made the Inflexible type might not be improved upon, and it was for that reason that he declined to pledge himself to any particular class of ship for the future. All he would say was, that so far as their present knowledge went they had laid down the best type of ship they could, and that if in future any improvements were made upon it, they would not be slow to adopt them. This year he proposed to build un-

  253
  armoured ships, because at the present time we had not enough of them. He had recognized it as his first duty to provide a sufficient number of ships of battle, but the protection of our commerce was a very important consideration. Well, he had to tell the House, and it was really a very serious statement to make, that if war broke out to-morrow he had not a single unarmoured ship to dispose of that was not already in commission. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him his bounden duty to lay down unarmoured vessels for the purpose of protecting our commerce in case of war, and, without saying that our naval power was as great as could be wished, we had certainly arrived at a point where we were practically safe and able to meet any combination that would be likely to be brought against us. But it seemed to him our unarmoured ships should not only be able to protect our commerce, but also to annoy an enemy's cruisers, and if necessary take part in a naval battle. The unarmoured ships which he asked the House to sanction were ships of a class which he believed would be exceedingly useful for the double purpose he had named. They would be useful as regarded the protection of our commerce and the annoyance of the enemy's commerce, and as auxiliaries to the iron-clad fleet. It was proposed they should have a speed of 13 knots and—this was a new feature—an armoured deck 3 feet below the water-line, which would entirely protect the machinery and boilers. They would also have a ram bow, and they would be armed with torpedoes. He believed ships of this class would be useful in times of peace; and in times of war they would be absolutely essential to protect our commerce from vessels like the Alabama. Some of those vessels would take about two years to complete, and the design upon which they were laid down was, as regarded the armoured deck, upon a principle recommended by Admiral Elliot in his Report on Designs of Ships of War. As to the question of using the Mercantile Navy in time of war, he had not been neglecting it, and he had very valuable information as to the number and classes of vessels which might be dealt with for this purpose. Though they might be considered useful auxiliaries, no one could look on merchant ships in their
  254
  present state as war vessels. The matter was undergoing careful consideration as to how they could be strengthened for war purposes, but he ventured to say this, that at the outbreak of war it would be impossible to find them serviceable for war purposes without considerable alteration. It was not desirable to rely on assistance from that source without being ready with a certain number of fast cruisers to take the sea. It was with that view that he had proposed to lay down these corvettes. He held that the present Admiralty had something like a shipbuilding policy, and when he was asked what it was he hoped it might be considered he had given a sufficient answer. The question was, how was he to deal with the Motion of his hon. Friend. He had the greatest confidence in the Constructor's department at the Admiralty. He could not accept the Motion, but he was prepared to agree to the appointment of a Committee such as sat in 1871, to consider whether, in view of the great development of modern weapons of offence, any material variation should be made in the type of ship which had been laid down during the last few years. He believed such a Committee would not seriously interfere with the business of the Admiralty, and would be able to conclude its labours within a reasonable time. In assenting to this Committee, however, he hoped he should not be considered to show the slightest want of confidence in his advisers, or any doubt as to the shipbuilding policy they had been pursuing; but in these days, when every fresh invention required almost a corresponding alteration in the plan of our ships, it seemed to him not unreasonable to accept all the assistance they could obtain, both outside and inside the Admiralty, as to this important question upon which the safety, honour, and dignity of the country mainly depended. He did not wish designs from outside to be submitted to this Committee; because as a ship progressed, the designs needed constant modification, and it was absolutely necessary that somebody should be responsible from beginning to end for the designs. Those submitted from outside could only be provisional and sketch designs, and it was necessary that the constructors of the Admiralty should be responsible for the design of a ship in all its stages of progression.

  255
  Of course, they would be perfectly ready to receive suggestions. He hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the undertaking he had given and not press his Motion.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that after the statement of the right, hon. Gentleman, he felt that his object would best be attained by the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and upon the understanding that such a Committee would be appointed, he begged to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, before the Motion was withdrawn, he wished to express his gratification at hearing the very clear statement of policy made by the right hon. Gentleman, and especially his determination to maintain unimpaired the responsibility of the Department to Parliament, without the shield of a Royal Commission being interposed. With respect to the Committee which it was proposed to appoint, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in appointing the Committee in 1871 the late Government distinctly refused to refer to it the general question of shipbuilding; but limited its inquiry to the policy of the Government in constructing vessels of certain specified classes. He trusted that the Committee about to be appointed would also be limited in its investigation. It would be most dangerous to call for the production of plans and designs from the general public, and leave their adoption practically to an irresponsible Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  £210,230, Coast Guard Services, &c.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would like to have some information as to the control of that part of the Naval Reserve which consisted of the men in the Coastguard. Formerly the Coastguard was part of the Customs; but, on the Report of a Commission, the control of the Force was transferred to the Admiralty, but still the administration was a separate department outside the Admiralty itself.
  256
  The result was, that as a Naval Force great defects were allowed to grow up in it. When he had the honour of being First Lord, all that was changed. The administration of the Coastguard, as part of the Fleet was brought directly under the control of the Admiralty, and the Force itself cleared of inefficient men, and it was arranged that they should be sent to sea one-half at a time under the command of an admiral or commodore, the result being that the Force became a far more effective one. What he now wished to know was why the present Admiralty had upset that arrangement, which had been made with the concurrence of the most experienced officers, and the old arrangement resorted to?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he did not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman should criticize the change made by the present Board of Admiralty; but, for his own part, he did not see any reason for the arrangement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, but that of saving the salary of the Comptroller of the Coastguard. One reason for removing the Naval Reserve outside the Admiralty was, that if he had not done so it would have been necessary to appoint another Naval Lord to the Board; but the chief reason was, that there was a slackness about the Naval Reserve; that there was no one to stimulate them; that there was a want of unity of management; and that there was no one person to look after them to see that they were doing their duty.
  MR. GOSCHENasked what course the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take this year with regard to sending the reserved ships to sea, whether they were to be sent to cruise generally, and under whose command they were to be placed?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought it desirable that these ships, which were sent out for a short time with inexperienced crews, should be joined to a practised squadron, and he had therefore given orders that they should join the Channel Squadron by two or three at a time. In the course of this month two ships would join the Channel Squadron, and when they had been forty days out would be replaced by two others.
  MR. GOSCHENwished to ask whether the Channel Squadron would continue to be commanded by the same

  257
  admiral? He would also call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to his use of the expression "inexperienced crews." No doubt he meant that they were inexperienced in the sense of not acting together in ships; but they were not inexperienced as sailors, for they were, in fact, composed of the finest material in the Service. It was important that the public should know that these valuable vessels were not sent out undermanned or with inexperienced crews.
  MR. HUNTwas obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling his attention to the matter. What he meant was, that the seamen were not practised together on board their own ships, not that they were inexperienced sailors. He intended that the reserved ships thus sent out for practice should be entirely under the command of the admiral commanding the Channel Squadron. On the other point he might say that there was no intention to appoint another admiral. He thought that sending the Squadron round the coasts from time to time was a policy wisely favoured by successive Governments.
  MR. GOSCHENthought it might be gathered that the right hon. Gentleman intended this year that the men of the Squadron should have a considerable amount of exercise at sea as distinguished from harbour life.
  CAPTAIN G. E. PRICEpointed out that the harbour duties and exercises were of themselves exceedingly important and expressed a hope that the men would not be kept too much at sea.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked what were the proposals of the Government with regard to the Coast Guard Naval Reserve? If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to keep the boys to a later age, he must hold out greater advantage than he now did.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that if a boy passed the standard required by the Admiralty, he ought to be as proficient as a boy who had passed two years in a training ship; and he did not think £25 was too large a sum to pay for boys from training ships.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £109,194, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses
  258
  of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Rylands,)—put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

INDIAN LEGISLATION BILL.— [BILL 54.] (Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Attorney General.)

  ORDER FOR COMMITTEE DISCHARGED. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in moving that the Order for the House to be put into a Committee on the Bill be read and discharged, said, it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if he were now to state what course the Government intended to adopt with reference to this Bill. The only object of the Bill was to strengthen and confirm the powers of the Legislative Council of the Governor General of India. Since the Bill had been before the House certain doubts as to the position of the Council had arisen in India which would require further reference to, and communication with, the Indian Government before they could be finally settled. Pending the settlement of these matters it would not be proper to ask Parliament to increase the powers of the Legislative Council, and he would, therefore, move that the Order be discharged.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL. (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)

  [BILL 130.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE,: in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, in order to save time, he would suggest that any discussion that might be wished on the measure should be taken on the later stage. He would move its second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. RAMSAYobjected to the Bill being taken at so late an hour.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYconcurred in the objection, especially when the amount of opposition existing against it in Scotland was considered.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERregretted to hear the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He had lately come back from Scotland, and could testify that there was only one chorus of approbation of the conduct of the Government in proposing the Bill. The feeling was, that if they had only carried the clause providing for medical aid, that alone would have entitled the Government to the gratitude of the people of Scotland.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that without pronouncing any opinion for or against the Bill, he was sure there was not such a chorus in its favour as had been represented. He thought, moreover, that nothing whatever would be gained by reading the Bill a second time now and taking the discussion at a later stage. It was rather a slipshod way of conducting business. They had Scotch Business put down and deferred night after night, and then they were at last implored to pass Bills, even without discussion. That he regarded as anything but the right mode of conducting Scotch Business.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, the questions which were raised in the Bill were matters which were much ventilated in Scotland. There was considerable difference of opinion and much discussion upon them. Therefore he thought that the House should have a fair opportunity of considering the measure.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he approved of the Bill in a general way, and should be glad to see it read a second time. Yet he must complain of the manner in which Scotch Business was treated by the Government. Scotch Members were treated badly by the last Government; but the present were even worse, inasmuch as they never could get discussions of Scotch Business except private Members Bills on Wednesdays. On such occasions as the present the Bills were
  260
  always left over till 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning; and then it was said that if they were not allowed to pass without opposition, they would not be taken at all. The Bill was very much what it had been described to be by the hon. Baronet, and would not require much discussion till after being in Committee; but still, as it was a matter of great importance to the Scotch Members, they would like to say something about it, and he would consent to the second reading now if the Government would undertake to allow them to have a full discussion on going into Committee.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had entered into an engagement that when Bills were opposed an opportunity should be given to hon. Gentlemen for having them discussed; but he had consulted the Lord Advocate in regard to this Bill, and they had agreed that it was an exception. There was no opposition to the principle of the Bill, and the only points on which discussion would take place were those of detail, and he assured them there would be ample opportunity for discussing these on a future occasion.
  MR. YEAMANsaid, that so far as his constituency were concerned, they had no objection to the principle of the Bill, though they thought considerable alteration was required on the clauses. He thought they might take the second reading now.
  MR. RAMSAY,in explanation, said, he did not object to the principle of the Bill, but to the time at which Scotch Business was brought forward.
  MR. MELDONsaid, the same objection would apply to Irish Business.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsuggested that Morning Sittings were required.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—Charles Edward Hastings Lord Hastings, after the death of his Mother.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Treasury Solicitor* (76).
Second Reading—All Saints, Moss* (70); Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 2 and 3)* (62–63).
Committee—Report—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) (44).
Report—Irish Peerage (32–75).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders* (54), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 44.) (The Lord President.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House be now put into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that before their Lordships went into Committee he wished to make a few observations. In the first place, he had endeavoured to ascertain the feeling of the people of Scotland with regard to the Bill, and numerous suggestions for its improvement had been made at their spring meetings by the Commissioners of Supply and others. Having gone carefully through these proposals, and also through the clauses of the Bill, he thought that the measure was altogether unworthy of their Lordships' approval, and therefore he had not put down any Amendments for Committee. The reason he had formed that opinion was this—he found that there was a general feeling throughout the country, expressed by parties representing different classes of opinion, that this Act would remain a dead letter. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that last year, during the discussion upon the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, it was pretty generally expressed in both Houses of Parliament that one of the reasons for the introduction of that Bill was the absence in many parts of England of any agreement between landlord and tenant; and upon the occasion of the second reading there was a long discussion with respect to freedom of contract. On that subject, he (the Marquess of Huntly) expressed himself in favour of making agreements in writing between landlords and tenants compulsory—indeed, in his opinion the chief argument in favour of the English Bill was, that it would permit agreements in writing—

  185
  and in order to make the Bill more express on that point he moved on Report a series of clauses. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), however, considered such clauses unnecessary. "Well, the Act having passed, what had been its effect? In many parts of the Midland counties, where agreements were not usual, the landlords and tenants had contracted themselves out of the Act, and had gone on just as before. Then, with respect to Scotland, if the Bill was necessary in England where agreements in writing were not the rule, was it necessary in Scotland where agreements were universal? Surely, if landlords and tenants did not take any advantage of the Act where there were no agreements, was it to be expected that they could do so where there were not only agreements but long leases? The conclusion that he had arrived at was that this Act would remain a dead letter. It appeared to him to be utterly useless to make any Amendment whatever on it, and the best course to pursue would be to allow the Bill to pass as it stood, and let the landlords and tenants adopt what part of it they thought fit. On these grounds he did not intend to propose any Amendment.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 22, inclusive, agreed, to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 23 (Requisition for appointment of oversman by Inclosure Commissioners, &c.).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked the noble Duke what reasons had induced him to think it necessary that oversmen of the Referees should be appointed by the English Inclosure Commissioners? He could not understand why there should be any introduction of the English Inclosure Commissioners into a measure for Scotland. It seemed to him that in Scotland the Sheriff was the natural party to be applied to to appoint the oversmen.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the only reason for inserting the Inclosure Commissioners was, that they had great experience in matters of this kind; but there was no sort of objection to substitute the Sheriffs,
  186
  if the noble Duke thought they would do the business better. He would consider the matter, and if it seemed desirable, would bring up an Amendment on the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 46 (Time of warning to remove).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved an Amendment to the effect that nothing in the section should extend to a contract for tenancy in writing for a period exceeding one year, or to a case where the tenant possesses upon tacit relocation following upon such written contract. The position was this—By the almost universal practice in Scotland a farmer held his land either for a 19 or a 21 years' lease, and the conclusion of the lease was itself a notice to quit, the tenant fully understanding that at the end of the lease, unless it was renewed, he would have to remove. But under the old common law of Scotland, the tenant was under what was called "tacit relocation," unless he got 40 days' notice to quit. Now, in almost every case the question as to whether the tenant was to quit or to have a new lease was determined long before 40 days. But by this clause it was provided that the tenant should know for certain 12 months before the determination of the lease whether it was to be renewed or not. As regarded yearly tenancies a 12 months' notice might be very reasonable; but as regarded tenants under lease it would have no effect whatever, for it was usually determined in the month of August or September whether the lease should be renewed or not. The notice, therefore, was not necessary, except when the tenant was about to be changed; but now the landlord would have to give the tenant a notice of 12 months in every case.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that before he replied to the noble Duke opposite, he must take notice of what had fallen from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly). The noble Marquess, who had criticized this Bill with some severity, expressed his opinion that it would be wholly inoperative, and stated that he had ascertained the prevailing feeling

  187
  in Scotland to be that it would be a dead letter; and therefore he looked upon it as so much waste paper, and that it was not worth while to attempt to make any Amendment on it. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) took a very different view. He believed the Bill would be a very useful measure, and though, perhaps, not so applicable to Scotland as the English Act was to England, it would do a great deal of good, because it introduced into Scotland for the first time the principle that the presumption of law was in favour of the tenant; and that the tenant who had laid out money on the land, and who had not been able or had time to recoup himself for the money so laid out, ought to be entitled to receive remuneration for the capital which he had expended. Though, of course, it would not apply to leases, yet in many parts of Scotland there were holdings not under leases, and those holdings would therefore come within the purview of this Bill. The noble Marquess had told them, in regard to the English Bill, that in some parts of England—the Midland counties—where there were not any written agreements, the Bill had not been taken advantage of, and that the landlords of the Midland counties had not thought fit to adopt the Bill, believing it better to go on without any written agreement at all. Therefore, the noble Marquess argued, this Bill would be inoperative in Scotland, and be a dead letter. His (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's) opinion was that if it were so, the landlords in the Midland counties did not know their own interests; but even if they did not adopt the Act that was no reason for not applying it in Scotland, and in his belief it would be a benefit to that country. The noble Marquess had stated that the Bill had been discussed at several meetings of the Commissioners of Supply in various parts of Scotland. No doubt that was so. But he did not gather from the statement of the noble Marquess that the opinions they had expressed were unfavourable to the measure. On the contrary, he gathered from what had taken place at those meetings that those who represented the agricultural interests throughout Scotland were favourable to the operation of the Bill. As to the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), he was sorry he could not accept it. The law with reference to leases was
  188
  as the noble Duke had described it. In England leases expiring required no notice to be given to the tenant; but in a tenancy from year to year a 12 months' notice was now required where formerly six months only was required. In Scotland leases could not be determined without 40 days' notice, and therefore they were in exactly the same position as to notice as yearly agreements in England. If a 12 months' notice was now required for the determination of a yearly tenancy, he did not see that the tenant in Scotland should be placed in a different position. In fact, the whole point at issue between the noble Duke and himself was, whether the notice should be 12 months. The noble Duke said that as regarded yearly tenancies he thought the 12 months' notice might be fairly adopted. That was an inconsistency which he was not prepared for. The noble Duke proceeded to say that when tenancies had become annual holdings by tacit relocations they should not be entitled to the same notice as other tenancies were entitled to. But when once a tenancy became a yearly tenancy, whether by agreement or tacit relocation, it was equally entitled to a year's notice. This proposal for a year's notice was by no means new. The subject was one, as the noble Duke was probably well aware, that attracted the notice of high authorities, and in 1853 a Bill was brought in by the then Lord Advocate (Lord Moncreiff), by which the farmer was placed not in a better but in a worse position than before. Then, in 1872, Mr. Caird published an address which was adopted by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, in which he expressed his opinion of the utter inadequacy of the 40 days' warning, and recommended that no agricultural tenant should be removable unless after 12 months' notice. He could not understand how the noble Duke could have an objection to the 12 months' notice, or how it could be an injury to the landlord. On the contrary, he thought it was a benefit to the landlord, and he was sure it was to the tenant.
  On Question? Amendment negatived.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

IRISH PEERAGE BILL—(Nos. 32–75). (The Lord Inchiquin).

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he had to propose the insertion of a new clause, in lieu of Clause 2, which was struck out in Committee. Their Lordships would probably recollect that in the discussions on the Motion for the Second Reading and also in Committee two objections were raised to the 2nd clause of the Bill. The first, that the number of Representative Peers he proposed to add was too large; and the second was the mode of election he proposed to introduce in order to give to the minority a fair share in the representation. In the clause which he now submitted he had attempted to meet both those objections. The clause would increase the number of Irish Representative Peers by two instead of four, as proposed by him originally. The increase, therefore, would be from 28 to 30;it provided that no election to make up the latter number should be held until the first vacancy among the existing Representative Peers; it then went on to provide that no vacancy hereafter arising in any manner among the Representative Peers of Ireland should be supplied until there were three such vacancies; and, lastly, it provided that at each election of Representative Peers for Ireland every Peer qualified to vote should be entitled to three votes, which he might give to any one Peer or might distribute as he should think fit; in fact, he proposed that the method of election should be what was termed "cumulative voting." He trusted that the alterations of his original proposal which would be effected by this clause would meet all the objections which had been urged against Clause 2 of the Bill. He thought there could be no valid objection to a representation of the minority in the case of the Irish Peerage. Supposing that the English Peerage were represented in this House by a body elected on the same principle as the Irish Representative Peers, how long did their Lordships think the country would stand such a principle? He did not believe it could last for a single Session. No one could advocate the principle of the representation of minorities
  190
  more strongly than it had been advocated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the case of the representation of the people in the House of Commons. The noble Lord then moved the first (A.) of the new clauses of which he had given Notice—
  "The number of Lords Temporal of Ireland elected for life to sit and vote on the part of Ireland in the House of Lords shall be increased from twenty-eight to thirty, but no election of Peers to make up this number shall take place until the first vacancy among the existing Representative Peers.
  "No vacancy hereafter in any manner arising among the Representative Peers of Ireland shall be supplied until there are three such vacancies.
  "For making up the full number of Representative Peers on the first vacancy and for supplying vacancies thereafter the Lord Chancellor shall direct a writ to be issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, directing him to cause writs for the election of three Representative Peers to be issued to the persons who, if this Act had not been passed, would have been entitled to receive writs in the case of a vacancy among the Representative Peers.
  "At each election of Representative Peers for Ireland every Peer qualified to vote shall be entitled to three votes, and may give all such votes to any one Peer or may distribute such votes amongst various Peers as he may think fit; and the three Peers who have the largest number of votes at such election shall be returned to sit and vote as Representative Peers for Ireland.—(The Lord Inchiquin.)
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNtrusted their Lordships would refuse to accept the Amendment. The main object at which the Bill aimed was to prevent the creation of fresh Peerages of Ireland, and so to provide for the ultimate absorption of the Irish Peerage into that of England. That object was secured by the 1st clause to which the Bill was now reduced. He opposed the introduction of the other clauses, not so much on account of their containing a plan of minority representation, which, however, he did not like, as that he considered them unnecessary and calculated to prevent the Bill becoming law this Session. He reminded their Lordships that the Committee appointed to consider the questions connected with the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland had unanimously recommended that a stop should be put to the creation of fresh Peerages of Ireland, and that their Lordships' House had unanimously adopted an Address to the Crown on the subject; it therefore appeared to him that it would

  191
  have been better that this Bill should be confined to that subject; but the noble Lord thought proper to introduce into it all the recommendations of the Committee relating to the Peerage of Ireland, and then in Committee took the unusual course of introducing Amendments which had been rejected by the Select Committee on the noble Lord's own Motion. Moreover, these provisions, if adopted, would create precedents affecting the Peerage of Scotland, if the Representative Peers for Ireland were increased, he did not see how they could refuse to increase the number of Scotch Representative Peers, and if the principle of the minority representation were adopted for Ireland it must be adopted for Scotland.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that if this was a question touching the Irish Peerage only he should not have dreamt of troubling their Lordships with any observations, so far as his knowledge of the question of representation went. So far as the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin) for a representation of the minority touched the Irish Peerage alone, it was a question of the very smallest proportions. He begged it to be understood that in saying so he did not mean anything disrespectful to the Irish Peerage—far from it—he only meant to assert that the adequate or inadequate representation of the Irish Peerage was not now, and was never likely to be, one of the "burning questions" of the day. Whatever vote they might come to, it would have the smallest, almost an infinitesimal effect on the political opinion or the course of politics in the country. Nevertheless, he thought that a real interest attached to the Motion of the noble Lord. In the first place, he thought the proposal was highly honourable to the noble Lord who made it, and highly honourable to the Irish Peerage in so far as they sympathized with it. A proposal made by a Conservative Peer of Ireland in fairness to the order to which he belonged, and of which he was a distinguished ornament, that they should be afforded a chance of having their political opinions represented in that House—for without the proposal of the noble Lord, they would have no such chance—was creditable to him and to the Peerage which he represented. It was perfectly true that the effect upon
  192
  the balance of political parties would be very small. They all knew well that the majority of Irish Peers were Conservatives, and the Liberal Peers a small minority. It was not very likely, even if the proposal of the noble Lord should be adopted, that the Conservative strength of the Irish Peerage would be very much affected as regarded its representation in that House; nevertheless it was important that the question should be discussed as regarded the principle itself and not as regarded its immediate effect. It appeared to him desirable to discuss in the first place the general principle of the representation of minorities, and, secondly, how far it was applicable to the Irish Peerage. It was now little less than nine years since he had the honour of following the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in a Motion which he made for giving effect to the principle of the representation of minorities. That was in 1867, and the division was a very remarkable one. That proposal was opposed by a Conservative Government then, as the proposal of the noble Lord opposite was now opposed by the present Government. It was opposed also by, he would not say a majority, but by a considerable number of his noble Friends behind him. In fact, it was carried by an insurrection of the back benches against the two frontbenches; and no doubt the result was greatly to be attributed to the influence of his venerable Friend Lord Russell. On the division the numbers were:—For the proposal, 142; against, 51; giving a majority of no fewer than 91. Since that time the principle had been carried into effect to a much larger extent in the Education Act. With respect to the representation on school boards, Parliament had decided that all over the country representation of the minority should be the principle of the law and constitution of this country. The question might arise, had the principle of the representation of minorities acquired a firm footing in the Constitutional system of the country? He was not quite sure that it had. It was applied, but to a very limited extent, in Parliamentary representation; and they must not conceal from themselves that, although on the whole it had worked without great friction in the case of the school boards, it had in some cases caused no slight degree of irritation—especially when the representative

  193
  chosen by a small minority was at the head of the poll. He did not believe the principle of the representation of minorities was altogether so safe and so secure as some of their Lordships might think, and he was anxious that those of their Lordships who were favourable to the principle had better take care in the votes they were about to give to-night. He thought that was the only instance in which a suggestion of what might be called the doctrinaire school of politicians had ever succeeded, and the first occasion on which Parliament had accepted their principles. Generally speaking, in all our advances towards greater political freedom we had generally proceeded on the old lines of precedent, and had hardly ever adopted any proposition founded on an abstract principle, and they ought to look with some anxiety whether they were secure in its application or not. They must not conceal from themselves that the principle of the representation of minorities was open to some real and valid objections. What was the great objection to the principle of the representation of minorities? The old principle of the Constitution was simply the representation of individual constituencies—county divisions, great towns and boroughs, each having individual men and interests that would be represented in Parliament. The principle was that each community should be considered a political unit—that each county constituency and each town or borough should be considered an individuality, and represented by its own majority. In 1867, when he followed the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he could not help feeling that there was very great force in some of the objections raised by the noble and learned Lord against the principle of the the representation of minorities on part of the Conservative Government, and many on that side of the House. But what was the answer of Lord Russell, who took the lead in that insurrection against the front Benches which was successful on that occasion? He said—"It is perfectly true this is an entire novelty in the Constitution of the country. The old principle is that every community should speak through its majority and take no notice of the minority;" but, he said, "observe the process that has begun, and which will unquestionably be carried further. You
  194
  are now doing away with a great mass of those small constituencies which were individualities of the Constitution, and you are accumulating Members in large towns and large divisions of the country which represent nothing but large masses of population. You are giving up the principle of individuality and accumulating Members in proportion to numbers." He said—"In proportion as this process goes on you will be in danger of accumulating the whole political power of the country in one description of majority, and practically one class only would be represented in Parliament." Lord Russell did not pretend to say that the destruction of small constituencies had yet gone to the extent that was dangerous to the Constitution, or that one Party only could be represented in Parliament; but what he represented to their Lordships, and what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in that very able and remarkable speech to which he had referred, had pointed out, was that this was a process that had begun, that would continue; and it was time for them to establish some balance to the abolition of small constituencies by securing to minorities some share in the representation. That was the view individually of Lord Russell; but if their Lordships referred to the debates that took place on that occasion they would see the arguments that then prevailed on either side of the House. Now he desired to ask, how far was this principle applicable to the case of the Irish Peerage? Was the Irish Peerage to be considered a constituency in the ordinary sense of the term? Was it an individuality in the Constitution that ought to be represented by its majority alone? Was it in the nature of a popular constituency, to speak through its own majority? He trusted the day would never come when they would consider the Peerage of England, Scotland, and Ireland as a body by itself—a separate political individuality, distinct from the rest of the community. That was not the position of the Peerage; and the principle of the 1st clause of this Bill, which was passed unanimously by the House, was that the Peerage was not to be considered a constituency to be indirectly represented in Parliament, and that the existing constituency as regarded Irish Representative Peers should be abolished

  195
  as soon as possible, and that no new Peers should be created to make up for those who might die or be created Peers of the United Kingdom. The principle of the Bill was that the Peerage was an honour which ought to be inseparably connected, as far as it could be, with a seat in Parliament—and that it was a misfortune that there should be Peers without a seat in Parliament. But what was the obvious remedy? Of course they could not give all the Peers of Ireland and Scotland seats in that House; but they could at least distribute the privilege of voting as much as possible over that body. That was all that was asked—to allow the minority to dispose of the votes they had upon the cumulative principle. Now, no doubt, they were told with accuracy by the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin) that looking back to the history of the Irish Peerage since the Union, he could only find one instance in which there was an Irish Peer returned to the House who did not hold particular views; and the consequence really was that the minority should be absolutely disfranchised. He did not wonder that the noble Lord, feeling great interest in his order, should characterize this as a great injustice. In point of fact it was a clear case of injustice to the individual Members of the Peerage, and the introduction of the principle of cumulative voting was quite consistent with the 1st clause, because it was only in that way that the minority could exercise the privilege of obtaining representation. He trusted the House would look a little beyond the immediate results of the question upon the Irish Peerage. We were now in the middle of what might be called, and had been called, a great Conservative re-action. It was a very dull time in politics, and there was not much danger of any great changes being proposed. But the re-action would not last for ever. The time of political change would come—a change which their Lordships might not be very well able to resist; and what would be the effect of a vote refusing to allow the principle of representation to minorities? They would be put out of Court. He should not wonder very much if it tended to checkmate and thwart the influence of the House in a sense to which they committed themselves in 1867. One other consideration he wished to refer
  196
  to—the effect of all these changes in raising the character and intellectual representation of that House. They were differently situated from the House of Commons—there was a larger number of Peers in that House independent of Party than there were generally in the House of Commons. It was more necessary in the House of Commons that Party organization should be powerful; but there were occasions, such as that to which he had referred, on which the House of Lords was very apt to form an independent opinion, free from all Party discipline. This was, in his opinion, an element, not of weakness, but of strength and security to the House of Lords. Many of their Lordships might remember an anecdote of Mr. Pitt, when, on an occasion of great political interest to the future of this country, he was asked what part of the Constitution he thought would be the first to give way? and, after a few moments' consideration, he said—"The House of Lords." Now, his own impression was that since the days of Mr. Pitt the changes which had been made had tended rather to strengthen than to weaken the House of Lords. He recollected a noble Friend of his who spoke of the great changes which had been made in the House of Lords since his early days, and used to lament it—"Formerly," he said, "there was a certain number of old Whig families and old Tory families whose votes could be counted on with perfect accuracy, so that everybody knew what the result of a division would be. But now it is impossible to do that, so many new Peers have been created and so many new families introduced to the Peerage." His Friend deplored that change; but he (the Duke of Argyll) rejoiced at it. A noble Lord opposite (Viscount Midleton), speaking the other day of this Bill, alluded, with some asperity to the number of new Peers created by the late Government, very much exaggerating the number. No doubt, from time to time charges had been made of additions to the numbers of their Lordships against successive Governments; but for his own part, he heard the complaints made on that score, whether against one Government or another, with very little sympathy. He believed it to be for the good of the House that both political Parties when they had an opportunity

  197
  should recruit the benches of this House with able and accomplished men who had done good service to their country—ay, and who had done honourable service to their Party. He believed, on the whole, that by such a process the House was strengthened in its representative character and in its reputation with the country. He believed the old families would be always able to hold their own; but who could deny that the country was proud of the additions of intellectual power which had been made to their Lordships' House by noble Lords introduced during the last 10 or 20 years? He would ask whether the tendency would not be in the same direction if they were to give to the Liberal minority of the Irish Peers at least a partial representation in their Lordships' House. Without saying that minorities were always right—which, indeed, it would be foolish to say—and majorities always wrong, this he would say—that men whose opinions were opposed to those of the great majority of the body with which they were connected were just as likely to be right as the majority. Looking to the tendency of what was sometimes called Liberal opinion in Ireland, he would like to see specimens of Peers who, in the face of the peculiar circumstances of their country, had been able to maintain their ancient hereditary traditions. He hoped this House would not be influenced on this occasion by Party considerations, or by the observation that had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Courtown); but that looking to the influence his vote would have on their future deliberations, they would not throw away the opportunity the were now offered of adding the names of distinguished men to the representation of the Irish Peerage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would be glad to say a few words, mow particularly after the allusion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) to the part he had taken on the question of the representation of minorities. He entirely agreed with the noble Duke that this was a question which might be discussed by their Lordships without the least in fusion of political considerations, and without any fear that it would have any effect on the political composition of that House. The Bill of his noble Friend (Lord Inchiquin) was a Bill connected with the Irish Peerage, and intended to
  198
  remedy an admitted evil with respect to its representation; but in the course of its passage his noble Friend had originated another subject which was not connected with the Irish Peerage alone, but quite as much with the Scotch Peerage. Now, if it should be their Lordships' opinion that any change should be made in this matter, it should be made not in a Bill dealing with the Irish Peerage, but one applying to the mode of election both of Irish and Scotch Peers. Their Lordships would remember that the present mode of election of Irish and Scotch Peers was regulated by the Acts of Union with both countries. Their Lordships' object, if it could properly be done, was to provide for the ultimate absorption of the Scotch and Irish Peerages. Those Peerages were now in a state of transition. The Scotch Peerage was hastening to absorption, and before long would be reduced to such a number that there would not be more Scotch Peers than there were at present Scotch Representative Peers. In the case of the Irish Peerage the transition was not so rapid:—and the object of the present measure was to put it on the same footing as the Scotch and provide for its extinction. Now, he had not altered his opinion in the slightest degree with respect to the representation of minorities from the time when he moved the proposition which their Lordships had accepted and was now the law. He quite admitted the accuracy of the description of the noble Duke, when he termed the constituencies units of representation, and that it was necessary to provide for a representation of the minority in places where large masses were accumulated, and this was what was done in 1867 with his entire approval. The original constitution of this country was that every community which elected Members elected two—there was no such thing as the election of one Member. In the process of time by disfranchisement some constituencies came to elect only one Member, and some counties were allowed to elect an additional Member. In the Bill of 1867 their Lordships were entering upon a course of augmenting the Representatives of various constituencies—and he maintained that they arrived at a wise conclusion in what they had done. But let their Lordships contrast the necessity of what they did then with the present

  199
  case. What was the position of one of those boroughs which was to elect three Members? It might be a borough with 12,000 voters, 7,000 of one way of thinking and 5,000 of another. If the majority elected the whole three Members, the constituency of 5,000, as he might call the minority, would be entirely unrepresented, for they had no means of being represented in any other way. But that was not the case with the Irish Peerage. Here there were about 100 Peers, who elected 28 Representatives. The majority in politics elected 28 Representatives of their own views. What was the case with the case with the minority? Were they unrepresented? He took the liberty of stating on a former occasion what he found to be the fact—namely, that since the Union, so far was the minority from being unrepresented, there were actually made out of the Irish Peerage no fewer than 61 Peers of the Realm. He did not mean that they were all on one side of politics, but he believed the large majority of those so created were of Liberal politics. A noble Friend of his (Lord Dunsany) who was connected with Ireland, said the other night it was perfectly well known that if there was an Irish Liberal Peer who desired to become a Member of their Lordships' House, he stood two elections, was defeated, and then he was made an hereditary Peer. Those persons, therefore, who represented the minority were introduced, into this House, and there were as many such Peers, or nearly so, who had been made Peers of the Realm as there were Representative Peers of Ireland. The difficulty was to introduce such a principle of voting as had been proposed into elections of this sort. These elections were for life. The principle of cumulative voting would therefore not only hold out an inducement, but would almost make it compulsory on the electors to choose as far as they could young Representatives in the place of those who might be more fit from their experience and otherwise, but who might be older. If one party were to choose young Representatives and the other those who were more advanced in life, the result would be against the party who chose the latter. By minority voting, therefore, you created a strong temptation to sacrifice fitness in order to obtain a longer hold on the representa-
  200
  tion. This case was one in which none of the principles urged by the noble Duke properly applied. The House was asked to deal with Peerages which in process of time would, he hoped, be absorbed in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and he thought it would be unwise to alter the system of Representative Peers which now prevailed.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, he heard with extreme regret that the Government had not seen their way to accept the proposition of the noble Lord; for neither upon the last occasion when this subject was discussed, nor upon the present, had he heard any sufficient reasons urged against the merits of the proposal for the representation of the minority. No one had attempted to controvert the statement that there was a great grievance, or had shown why the Government should not attempt to remedy that grievance. It was said that the proposal was inopportune. The question, however, came legitimately before their Lordships, after full consideration by a Committee, and why should the occasion be deemed unfit for doing an act of simple grace and justice? The Committee recommended that four Representative Peers should come into this House in the place of the right rev. Prelates who formerly sat here. They agreed as to the right of Ireland to have 32 Representative Peers in accordance with the arrangement made at the Union. It was not because there were four Irish Bishops in the House of Lords that the number of Representative Peers was so fixed at that period. The number was fixed with reference to the numbers of the Scotch Peerage. Unless the present occasion was used to remedy the grievance now complained of, no other opportunity might arise for many years to come. Then, it was said that the question indirectly affected Scotland. But why should justice to the Irish Peerage be postponed till the Scotch case came before the House? There was an admitted wrong to be rectified, and their Lordships ought not surely to refuse to redress the grievance of Ireland because hereafter the same redress might be necessary in the case of Scotland. As to the minority vote, he thought the principles enunciated by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) applied in effect and in essence to this case as strongly as to cases in which the representation

  201
  of thousands of persons was concerned. The majority of Irish Peers would not be induced to elect a single member of the minority, who were thus deprived of all opportunities of political influence or political activity. If the concession were made there would be no appreciable increase of power on that side (the Opposition) of the House; the balance of political power would remain unchanged, whilst an act of grace and justice would be done. It was a case in which, for the interest and honour of the House itself, some redress should be given. The Irish Lords at the time of the Union had made a sacrifice for a supposed public advantage, but they had not received the compensation to which they were entitled, by being associated in fair proportions with the Peers in this House. There was a manifest personal grievance. Within the last three months a Representative Peer for Ireland had been elected, and the oldest Baron in the Empire had been on that occasion a rejected candidate. Was it desirable that the political representation of Ireland in this House should be all on one side, and that the Party who were notoriously not in sympathy with the great body of the Irish people should alone be represented here? In the House of Commons the majority of the Irish people were adequately represented, while here that majority was absolutely not represented at all. Would it be tolerated for a moment that the English Peerage should be so arranged as to sustain the views of only one of the political parties in this country? Of course it could not, then why should a different measure be meted out of Ireland? Why should one third, at least, of the Irish Peers be denied the possibility of a fair proportional representation? He trusted that the House would accept the clause to which no valid objection had been offered by any one.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, that although the Liberal Party were willing to consent to a minority vote, they would not agree to a future increase of the Irish representation. Of course if the Government did not support the present proposition there could be no hope of carrying it through the other House.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there appeared to be some misrepresentation as to the course which noble Lords on that side of the House intended to pursue.
  202
  After what was stated the other day, he thought it was generally admitted that a grievance existed, and in order to provide a remedy they were prepared to sacrifice some portion of the objection they felt, and would not oppose the immediate addition of two Peers to the Irish Representatives in that House. With respect to the general question of giving the Irish Peers a minority vote, he should follow the noble Lord into the lobby with the utmost cordiality. There could be no doubt that a great grievance existed, and he did not think it would be met by the power that the Government possessed of creating Irish Peers, Peers of the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, he believed of the last 80 Irish Peers created English Peers about 50 were Conservatives. He was not quite so strong on the minority clause as some of the noble Lords who had addressed the House, because he did not think that there was so much reason for its adoption among the Irish Peerage constituency as among the voters of the English borough constituencies, or for the school boards. It had been said that young men would probably be elected because they would remain the longer in that House. He doubted whether this would be the result; but even if it were, a certain infusion of youthful Irish blood would not be wholly undesirable in an assembly composed chiefly of middle-aged men.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 54; Not-Contents 66: Majority 12.

  CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Halifax, V.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Abercromby, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Auckland, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Belper, L.

  Devon, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Carlingford, L.

  Granville, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Grey, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Emly, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Foley, L.

  Morley, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Powis, E.

  Hanmer, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Sydney, E.

  Inchiquin, L. [Teller.]

  Bangor, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Eversley, V.

  203

  Lyveden, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Manners, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Selborne, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  O'Hagan, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Oxenfoord, L.(E. Stair.)

  Waveney, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Aveland, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Bloomfield, L.

  Bath, M.

  Bolton, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Amherst, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Egerton, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Erne, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Headley, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Lucan, E.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Morton, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) [Teller.]

  Onslow, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Stanhope. E.

  Sondes, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Templemore, L.

  Bridport, V.

  Tollemache, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Westbury, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Resolved in the Negative.
  LORD INCHIQUINmoved to insert new Clause (B)—
  "Upon the Lord Chancellor's being satisfied that any person, being a Representative Peer of Ireland, shall have hereafter become entitled by creation or descent to an hereditary seat in the House of Lords, the seat of such person as a Representative Peer shall be deemed vacant."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: objected to the clause.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Lord Inchiquin, Preamble amended by inserting before ("Whereas")—
  "Whereas in the last Session of the present Parliament of Her Majesty Queen Victoria an humble Address was presented to Her Majesty by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, praying Her Majesty that the power conferred on Her Majesty under the Act of Union for the creation of Irish Peers may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure relating thereto that may be introduced: And whereas to the said Address Her Majesty was graciously pleased to return the following answer: 'Relying on the wisdom of Parliament I do not desire that the powers reserved to Me by the Act of Union of making creations and promotions in the Peerage of Ireland should stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure that may be introduced on that subject: And."
  Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 75.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.