Sitting of 19 April 1887

QUESTI0NS.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—APPOINTMENTS IN THE PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMasked Mr. Chancellor of
  1242
  the Exchequer, Whether Mr. Bernard Mallet, who was appointed to a situation in the Treasury in 1885, is the same gentleman who entered the Foreign Office by a limited competitive examination, after nomination, in 1882; and whether he was transferred to the Treasury without further competitive examination; whether Mr. E. G. King-Harman, who was appointed to a situation in the Home Office in 1886, is the same Mr. King-Harman who entered the Admiralty Office in 1886, after competitive examination; and whether his transfer to the Home Office took place without any further competitive examination; whether it is a fact that Mr. King-Harman was third on the list in the competitive examination; and whether the gentleman who was second on the list in the same competitive examination was left in the Office of the Board of Trade; and whether the situations in the Office of the Board of Trade are inferior to those in the Home Office in immediate salary and in future prospects; whether Mr. F. S. Parry entered the Office of the Board of Trade in 1885, being second on the list in the competitive examination, and was appointed in 1886 to a situation in the Treasury without further competitive examination; and whether the gentleman who was first on the list in the same competitive examination was left in the Office of the Board of Trade; and whether the situations in the Office of the Board of Trade are inferior to those in the Treasury in immediate salary and in future prospects; whether Mr. J. M. Dodds entered the Post Office in 1885, being seventh on the list in the competitive examination, and was appointed in 1886 to a situation in the Office of the Board of Trade without further competitive examination; and whether the gentlemen who were fourth and fifth respectively at the same competitive examination were left in the Post Office; and whether the situations in the Post Office are inferior to those in the Office of the Board of Trade in immediate salary and in future prospects; whether it is the case that every vacancy in the Treasury and all but one in the Home Office, for the last two years have been filled by the transfer of gentlemen from other Offices without further competitive examination; and whether, if such transfers had not taken place, there would have

  1243
  been vacant for competitive examination in December, 1886, a situation in the Treasury, with salary beginning at £250 a-year, and also a situation in the Home Office, with salary beginning at £200 a-year; and whether the best appointment actually vacant at that time was one with salary beginning at £100 a-year; and, whether he can inform the House what were the definite reasons for which the Chiefs of Department and the Lords of the Treasury considered it to be for the public interest that competitive examination should be dispensed with in filling any or all of such, vacancies by the transference of gentlemen from other Offices; and, whether he will assure the House that his influence will be exerted to prevent such transfers being made, except upon clear and sufficient grounds, and solely with a view for the promotion of the public interest?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER [Mr. GOSCHEN): I understand that the circumstances of the transfers from one Office to another of the gentlemen named are substantially correct. The last two vacancies in the Treasury were filled by the transfer from other Departments of the gentlemen named in the hon. Gentleman's Question. The Order in Council of 1870 dealing with competition reserves to Departments power to transfer to vacancies as well as to fill them by open competition. Since the passing of that Order, there have been 10 appointments to second-class clerkships in the Treasury. Seven of them have been filled by open competition, and three by transfer. I am informed that former Heads of the Treasury thought it advisable to exercise occasionally the power of transfer, so as to obtain the services of men after a certain degree of trial as officials. I believe that such transfers wore made with a sole view to the public interest; and, as far as I am concerned, I readily give my assurance to the hon. Member that I shall not favour transfer except upon clear and sufficient grounds, and solely with a view to the promotion of the public interest. But I may add, for the information of the hon. Member and the House, what has been written to me by the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, who says—
  "As to the grounds on which the several transfers were made we have no information,
  1244
  our functions in such cases being limited to ascertaining and certifying that the transferee possesses the qualifications required for situations of the class to which he is to he appointed. On the question of the policy of such transfers, it would hardly be within our province to express any opinion; hut we may be allowed to point out that they were strongly recommended by the Play fair Commission—see page 18 of their first Report, paragraph on, 'Recruiting of Superior Departments.' It is clear, even from that paragraph alone, that the Head of the superior Department was intended to select, on his own responsibility, the person whom he thought fittest to be transferred, without regard to the place he might have taken in the entrance examination; hut if there were any doubt it would he removed by what is said on page 12, as to the method in which original appointments should be made—more particularly in the last two paragraphs on that page."
  The hon. Member will, therefore, see that these transfers, as carried out, formed part of the system of competition adopted. I gather from one paragraph in the Question, asking whether a certain number of Offices would not have been open to competition if these transfers had not been made, that one of the points in the Question, and the suggestion that has led to it, is that there is a certain vested right on the part of those who are going to enter the Public Service that no clerkships should be filled up except by open competition. On the part of the Public Service, I must entirely repudiate any such idea; the interest of the Public Service alone has to be considered. I must add that I consider it inadmissible to maintain that after persons have once entered the Public Service the transfers are to be guided by their original marks, and not by the aptitude which has been shown in the appointments they have held.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POST OFFICE, RATHMINES ROAD, DUBLIN, AND "THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL."
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the Post Office, Rathmines Road, Dublin, is also the local office of The Freeman''s Journal; whether it is a fact that cartoons of that newspaper, ridiculing the Government and designating the Chief Secretary for Ireland "the latest Cromwell," have been displayed side by side with Post Office notices; and, whether this is in accordance with the Post Office Regulations; and if not, what course does he propose to take in the matter?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Post Office Receiver in Rathmines Road, Dublin, is, I understand, agent for the sale of The Freeman's Journal; but I cannot ascertain that cartoons of that journal have at any time been exhibited side by side with Post Office notices. The Post Office business, I am assured, is kept quite separate and distinct from the business of the shop.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I may inform the right. hon. Gentleman that I have myself seen the cartoons side by side with Post Office notices.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether there is anything more incongruous in it than the sporting of primroses by the Members of Her Majesty's Government on the Treasury Bench to-day?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the tenant of a shop in which the business of a Post Office is conducted is not entitled, under law and under the Post Office Regulations, to conduct any other lawful business?
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Member must be aware that it is clearly competent to any person in that position to conduct any other lawful business. I merely referred to the fact that the business must be kept distinct from Post Office notices.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— THE MAXIM MACHINE-GUN.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the trials made with the new Maxim machine-gun have proved that gun to be superior to any kind of machine-gun at present in existence; whether the Government purchased three of these guns in the month of February last, and what has been their destination; and, whether, in view of the fact that Foreign Governments are largely buying these Maxim guns, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of giving orders for more guns of this pattern, to supersede the manufacture of Nordenfelt guns, which are still being made in spite of the Report of the Select Committee of May, 1881, which placed the Nordenfelt inferior to the Gardner?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL(Mr. H. S. NORTHCOTE): The trials with the Maxim machine gun, which have hitherto been under the direct supervision of the inventor, have been sufficiently promising to justify the purchase of three for trial on board Her Majesty's ship Excellent, under conditions more nearly approaching those of actual warfare. The question of further orders of Maxim guns cannot be decided until these trials have conclusively demonstrated their serviceability. Nearly the whole of the Nordenfelt guns which have been ordered during the last 12 months have been ordered for the Admiralty at their special request; the orders given by the War Office for guns of this class for land service have been almost entirely for Gardner guns.

  BORNEO—AGGRESSIONS OF THE RAJAH OF SARAWAK.
  DR. TANNERhad the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What further official information has been received from the Consul General of Brunei, concerning the forcible seizure of the Limbang River by the Rajah of Sarawak, against the formal protests of the Natives and Native authorities in that district; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose taking in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir, JAMES FERGUSSON): The House will, perhaps, allow me to answer this Question though not put. It has been on the Paper very often, and yesterday the hon. Member postponed it in my presence, and I think it ought to be disposed of. The official information from the Consul General is that no such thing happened. I may, however, state that news has been received by telegraph that the natives of the Limbang District have attacked Brunei.

  WAR OFFICE—SUICIDE OF J. F. CONOLLY, A WAR OFFICE DRAFTSMAN.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances set out in the following report of 12th April;—

  1247
  "An inquiry made yesterday by Mr. Lang-ham, Coroner for the Duchy of Lancaster, reveals a sad case of suicide of a War Office draftsman, named James Francis Conolly, aged 59, of Offerton Road, Ciapham. It transpired at the inquiry that in January last the deceased received notice that he would he discharged at the end of April. He had bean in the Horse Guards branch of the War Office for near, y 30 years, and since he had received notice, through the cutting down of the Estimates, he had been very depressed. On Thursday it was intimated that he would get no superannuation allowance, and in a fit of depression on Sunday night he cut his throat with a razor.—A verdict of Temporary Insanity was returned;"
  whether any communication had been received at the War Office from the Treasury that Conolly was to receive a year's salary on his discharge in addition to his ordinary pay; and, whether he was informed of this; and, if not, why he was kept in ignorance that any provision would be made for him?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said, that Mr. Conolly had been suffering from depression. He was aware at the time that he was not entitled to a pension, and that an application had been made to the Treasury for a grant on his discharge, which was to take place in consequence of the curtailment of the Estimates. The application was granted, and Mr. Conolly was to receive a year's salary in addition to his ordinary pay; but he was not informed of that before his death, because his service had been extended for two months.

  THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE—THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL.
  COLONEL HUGHES -HALLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to place the affairs and funds of the Imperial Institute for direction and control in the hands of the gentlemen who had the conduct of the various South Kensington Exhibitions?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My hon. and gallant Friend cannot have noticed the answer which I gave on a former occasion with regard to the Imperial Institute. Her Majesty's Government are not in any way responsible for, or in any way mixed up with, the management of the Imperial Institute. It is an en-
  1248
  tirely independent affair, under the control and direction, in the first instance, of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. We are, therefore, quite unable to give any assurance as to the way in which the management shall be conducted, or as to the officers who may be employed to carry it out; and I think it would be almost impertinence on our part if we were to seek to exercise any influence over an Institute to which no Government funds of any kind, no funds under the control of the House of Commons, are intended to be contributed.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether any of the accounts of any of the Exhibitions held under Royal Commissioners had been audited and published?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he had been informed that the accounts had been audited; but he had no personal knowledge of the fact.

  EDUCATION (WALES).
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer disposes of his surplus, the Government will make some provision for technical education, local Colleges, and Welsh intermediate education?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Though the right hon. Gentleman put this Question on the Paper last night, I saw it for the first time only a few hours ago, and he must be aware that I have had no opportunity of consulting with my Colleagues who are specially responsible for the expenditure. The Government are very conscious of the importance of this business; but I am not able to assure the right hon. Gentleman that a provision in excess of that made in the ordinary Estimates can be made by Supplementary Estimates in the course of the present financial year. I can assure him, however, that the question itself will receive the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, whether it was intended to proceeed with the question of Welsh intermediate education, for which a grant was promised in 1885, and a Bill respecting which he (Mr. Mundella) had laid on the Table?
  MR. W. H. SMITHrepeated that he had had no opportunity of conferring with his Colleagues on the subject.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he would repeat the Question on Thursday.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—ALLEGED FORGERY OF A LETTER—MR. PARNELL AND THE "TIMES."
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to put a Question to you, Sir, affecting a matter of Privilege. A statement is current in the public Press that a certain forged letter, a facsimile of which appeared in The Times of yesterday, had been for some time in the possession of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). As the matter is one which affects the veracity of an hon. Member of this House in respect to a statement made by him in this House in the discharge of his duty, I wish to know whether I am not entitled to ascertain from the hon. Member for South Tyrone whether the forged letter was in his possession; how it came into his possession; and if it passed directly from him to the Editor of The Times?
  MR. SPEAKER: Certainly. I think it is, under the circumstances, competent for the hon. Member to put that Question in order to elicit information.
  MR. SEXTON: Then, Sir, I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone, If it is true that a document, of which a facsimile copy appeared in The Times of yesterday, was at any time in his possession; and, if so, from whom he received it—[Cries of "Oh!" from the Ministerial Benches]—and if it passed directly from him to the Editor of The Times?
  MR. T. W. EUSSELL: I desire to say that the paragraph which appears in an evening paper is a pure concoction from beginning to end. Apart from the fact that some time ago it came to my knowledge that there was such a correspondence, there is not a word of truth in the paragraph.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member has spoken of a correspondence, whereas my Question simply related to a document. May I ask him what the correspondence is to which he refers?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As far as the document is concerned, there is not a word of truth in the paragraph in question.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. DILLONasked, What the Business of the House would be on Thursday and Friday?
  THE FIEST LORD OF THE TEEASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce the Budget on Thursday, and on Friday the ordinary Business will be proceeded with.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, what would be the Business on Monday next?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill was put down for Committee on Monday next; but it had been represented to him that he engaged that a week should elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and that a week could not be said to have elapsed between Tuesday morning at 2 o'clock and Monday afternoon at 4 o'clock. He should have thought that a Parliamentary week would have elapsed; but he wished to keep the most strict faith with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite; and if it were their view that he had not complied with the engagement into which he came by putting the Committee stage down for Monday, he would say Tuesday for that stage, and they should proceed on Monday with Supply.

M0TIONS

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE. RESOLUTION.
  MR. YEO: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of moving the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper—
  "That, having regard to the recent fearful sacrifice of life in the Bristol Channel, and to the constantly recurring losses of life and property around the coasts of the United Kingdom, it is, in the opinion of this House, urgent that Her Majesty's Government should immediately take action to diminish these losses by the construction of suitable Harbours of Refuge."
  I think, Sir, that no apology is needed for occupying the valuable time of this House by calling attention to this question. There is no subject which could more properly occupy the atten-

  1251
  tion of the House than one which affects the seamen of this country, and I may say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no class of our fellow-countrymen which has greater claims upon our consideration than our seamen. In the first place, we are mainly dependent on them for our national prosperity and existence. Our seamen are exposed to greater peril than any other class of the community; and from the very nature of their calling, they are, politically speaking, more defenceless than any other of our industrial classes. Happily, Sir, this question has never been made a shuttlecock of by political Parties. Whatever there may have been of past neglect, or past supineness, no one Government can be specially blamed—all are alike responsible; but I am gratified to observe that more than one Member of Her Majesty's Government is named among the supporters of a society entitled "The National Refuge Harbours Society." I augur, from that fact, that they are not opposed to the Motion which I am now proposing. Among the names included in the long and distinguished list of supporters of the National Refuge Harbours Society I find those of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and many others. I trust that the Division which may take place to-night will have such a result as will strengthen and encourage Her Majesty's Government to take action in this important matter, with which I am justified in entertaining the belief that they sympathize. I should like, in the first place, to state that the subject with which I propose to deal in this Motion does not relate to commercial ports and fishing harbours, although they, no doubt, constitute a very important branch of the subject. The extension and improvement of these ports and harbours is an extremely important matter; but the object to which I desire to direct the attention of the House, and which forms the subject of my Motion, is more immediately concerned in the construction of National Harbours of Refuge, which, in order to be effectual, must, in many cases, be placed at points around the coast where no local trade exists, or, indeed, can be created. I would not for a moment disparage the importance of commercial ports, or the importance of fishing harbours—I know how very
  1252
  much depends upon them. I am aware that local enterprise has done, and is doing, a good deal in that direction; and I am glad also to know that successive Governments have offered some help in the way of loans and otherwise in order to help forward the development of those ports, and the improvement of such harbours. As I have said, the object which I advocate is more particularly the construction of National Harbours of Refuge, and those harbours would have to be made at points of danger where probably there is not, and never will be, a sufficient amount of trade to justify any Local Authority in taking the matter in hand. They have no resources within themselves. The question has been repeatedly brought before Parliament in past years. As long ago as 1836, a Select Committee was appointed to consider the question of the safety of our seamen. Again, in 1843, and in 1857 and 1858, other Select Committees were appointed for the same purpose. In 1859 a Royal Commission was appointed, and that Royal Commission, as many hon. Members know, went round the different parts of the United Kingdom, held public meetings, obtained information from experts and others, and made an exhaustive inquiry into the subject of Harbours of Refuge. We have their Report, which is a very valuable contribution upon the subject. The most recent Committee which has sat in reference to the question is the one which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks). That Committee sat in the years 1883 and 1884, and the Report of the Committee is, on the whole, confirmatory of the Report of the Royal Commission. In looking at all these Reports—I do not propose to weary the House by reading more than a very short extract from them—I can safely make two assertions. They all agree in stating that there is a great loss of life going on all round our coasts which might be prevented. They also agree that want of Harbours of Refuge has had a good deal to do in bringing about that result. I only propose to make one quotation from the Report of the last Committee. That Committee stated as follows:—
  "Your Committee wish to express, in the strongest terms, their conviction of the absolute necessity that no further delay should take

  1253
  place in the construction of the National Harbours of Refuge, to which they have alluded."
  This Report also deprecates any delay in seeking to utilize the employment of convict labour, and the Committee use these words—
  "Your Committee desire to point out the inexpediency of further delay in the execution and completion of the harbours originally planned in order to provide the convicts with employment for an extended time."
  From this Report I gather that in the years which ensued between 183G to 1843 the loss of life averaged 830. When the Royal Commission presented their Report they placed the loss of life at 780 between the years 1852 and 1856, and the more recent Report of the Select Committee of 1883 and 1884 places the loss of life at 728. The latest Return for 1884 gives the loss of life at 661. So that we have a decrease from 830 in the earlier years to 661 in the most recent year for which a Report has been issued. As regards the loss of property, it is extremely difficult to obtain anything of a reliable character, because there are no official documents in existence in regard to it; but I observe that in the Report of the Committee of 1859 an estimate is given of the loss of property on and around the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland, and I find that it was there fixed at £1,500,000 a-year. The Royal Commission which sat in a subsequent year confirmed that estimate. The decrease in the loss of life is an exceedingly satisfactory feature, and it is probably attributable, to a large extent, to the fact that lifeboat institutions have become more efficient than they were formerly. Lifeboats in a far greater number have been placed at different points around the coast, and there have also been considerable improvements in the Shipping Law consequent on the Plimsoll agitation. The result of that agitation has been to render the owners of vessels much more careful as to the loading of their ships, and how they are manned and equipped. These are gratifying circumstances; but these Reports give no definite indication of the sites at which these Harbours of Refuge should be placed. The Royal Commission was specially appointed in 1883 to determine and recommend what sites should be chosen; but they did not fulfil that part of their duty, and all we have at present is a general in-
  1254
  dication as to what neighbourhoods would be most suitable for the construction of Harbours of Refuge. We have, in the Report, a general recommendation in regard to the West Coast of Ireland; and we have, also, the recommendation of a site for the East Coast of England—I think, Filey. There is also a recommendation that a National Harbour of Refuge should be constructed in the Bristol Channel; and it is more particularly in reference to the Bristol Channel that I desire to call the attention of the House at this moment. The trade of the Bristol Channel has enormously increased in recent years. The development of the steam coal trade in Cardiff, Newport, and Swansea has given an enormous impetus to the trade of the Bristol Channel, and its volume is much greater than it was a few years ago. More than that, it is increasing, and is likely to increase very greatly within a few years of the present time. That Channel is, undoubtedly, an extremely dangerous one for navigation. The losses which occur there are frequent. The coast, both on the Northern and the Southern sides, is iron-bound, and affords very little protection in case of storm. I have no wish to dogmatize on this point; but I believe that if there is one place where a Harbour of Refuge is needed more than another, every independent authority will tell you that it is the Bristol Channel. At the same time, a great necessity exists all around our coasts for such harbours. Perhaps I may be allowed to call attention to the disasters which occurred in the Bristol Channel last winter. They were exceptionally severe. The loss of life was doubtless above the average; but yet, what was the actual extent of the loss of life? I have ascertained that more than 50 vessels were lost during three months, and that, at least, from 350 to 400 lives were sacrificed in that time. It must not be supposed that the vessels that were lost were vessels of a bad description, or of a low class. I have been at some pains to ascertain the character of the vessels, and I find that the bulk of them were of the highest class, well-equipped, well-found, and well-manned. Nevertheless, a few days after they left port they were caught in a storm, were unable to weather it, and foundered with all hands for want of a Harbour of Refuge. In the neighbourhood of the Bristol Channel

  1255
  there is only one opinion on this point, and that is that if a single Harbour of Refuge had been in existence many of these vessels and lives would have been saved. Upon that matter I think there can be no doubt. I have no intention of indicating any particular site in the Bristol Channel. That is no part of my province; but I could quote letters which refer to different sites from gentlemen in the neighbourhood who are fully competent to form an opinion, and who say that if there had been a Harbour of Refuge at some point or other, a large number of those lives and vessels would have been saved. I do not intend to imply that the loss every year is as high as it was during the past winter; but every year there is a large number of lives lost there and elsewhere upon our coasts. It is a matter of gratification to find that the loss of life is not increasing, but decreasing; but, at the same time, it is still appalling in its character and extent. I do not think that we have a right to fold our arms and stand idly by when we know that this loss of life might be prevented. If the loss were inevitable, we might wash our hands of the responsibility, and simply regret that be great a loss of valuable lives should occur from year to year which we were powerless to prevent. But what are the facts of the case? We have it upon the highest authority—namely, the Royal Commission, and these Select Committees on Harbours of Refuge, that if a proper course were adopted, and Harbours of Refuge were constructed, this loss of life would be largely diminished. I would venture to say, further, that not only have we this official judgment and these Reports of Parliamentary Committees dealing with the matter, but the whole consensus of nautical opinion is confirmatory of the Reports. We may naturally ask, therefore, what is it that stops the way? There is urgent necessity for something being done. All are agreed that a large portion of the loss might be prevented. Last year a right hon. Gentleman high in office delivered a speech, in which he talked of the difficulties which existed in regard to the selection of particular sites. I looked upon that as a frivolous excuse, applied, as it was, to so momentous a question. He talked of the great conflict of opinion among local persons in the neighbourhood of the suggested sites. He said
  1256
  that they could not agree among themselves; and therefore, forsooth, the Government were justified in delaying to take action in the matter. My opinion is, that the last persons to be consulted in a matter of this kind are the persons who live in the towns or ports in the neighbourhood of the suggested sites of Harbours of Refuge. I think that local jealousies, local differences, or preferences, or prejudices, should be utterly ignored. What we want is that an impartial tribunal should be appointed with power to decide the question as to the best practicable points for the construction of Harbour so Refuge. Although it may not be an easy matter to find that tribunal, yet I do not believe that there is such a lack of honourable men that the Trinity Board or the Board of Trade could nominate one that might be relied upon to deal justly and fairly with the matter. Of course, such a tribunal would hear all the evidence which local people could supply, and would hear all the testimony in favour of particular sites; and, having heard the whole of the evidence, and thoroughly sifted it, it would be for such tribunal to determine, on national grounds, where the greatest amount of good would be effected, and the greatest loss of life and property prevented. It is almost wholly upon that ground, without reference to the question of trade, that the sites should be selected for the construction of such Harbours of Refuge. There is another question in connection with the sites which appears to be one of some difficulty—namely, the suggestion that the locality where the site is selected should make a large contribution towards the cost. If that principle is adopted, it will undoubtedly, in my opinion, tend to create a great deal of difficulty. If you expect that the locality shall contribute towards the expense, you may find yourselves in this position. I presume that the tribunal which would have the decision of the question would be an impartial tribunal, and that any given point which it might determine upon for the construction of a Harbour of Refuge would, in its opinion, be most effectual for the purpose, from a national point of view; but suppose that the locality was unable, or declined to make a contribution, are you, in that case, to put the Harbour of Refuge in a worse position? My contention is, that you should put it in the

  1257
  place which would best serve the national interests, and should not grudge the locality any of the advantages it might possibly obtain, but which, in reality, Nature has conferred upon it. I grant that, if there were two sites absolutely equal in regard to the advantages they present for the construction of a Harbour of Refuge, the Government would be justified in allowing one to outbid the other. Another reason for the long delay which has occurred is that there is still a lingering doubt in the minds of some Gentlemen, even high in authority, that these Harbours of Refuge, after all, are not going to do the good expected from them. But if you consult nautical authorities, you will not get that opinion; if you go to our sailors you. will not find them back up that view, and they are certainly the persons most interested; if you consult the pilots—and I do not know an authority more competent to give an intelligent and sound opinion—they will not support that view; but they will tell you that Harbours of Refuge are of supreme importance for securing the safety of lives and property, and it is only inexperienced landsmen and theorists with no practical knowledge who will express the opinion that Harbours of Refuge are of no use except for purposes of trade. No scheme was ever yet suggested that it was impossible to find some person to oppose. The noblest project is sure to have some detractors. For instance, when the erection of lighthouses was first proposed, they were objected to as useless for any valuable purpose, and even some of the authorities were induced to take that view. Petitions, however, were got up by the seamen in favour of the erection of lighthouses on the North and South Foreland, on the ground that they would be a protection for them from the dangers of the Goodwin Sands; but the reply of the Trinity House was th at there was no necessity for any legislation of the kind, and that the erection of the suggested lighthouses would be of no use in enabling the ships to avoid the dangers that were pointed out. What conclusion are we to draw from that fact, if it is not that those who are most concerned are better able to judge than mere theorists? Who but a madman would suggest that these lighthouses are of no use at the present moment
  1258
  and who but a madman would suggest that these lights should be put out? In the case of Harbours of Refuge we have the judgment of the House as it has been given by responsible and reliable Committees, and we have their emphatic recommendation to do a certain thing. Until that judgment is reversed we are honourably bound by the recommendation we have before us from so high an authority. Another difficulty, no doubt, is the natural unwillingness of any Government to enter into any expenditure of the public money, unless they feel themselves thoroughly backed up by public opinion, and they can only be compelled to take action by the pressure of public opinion. But I will venture to say that there is a growing feeling throughout the country upon this question at the present time. There is a strong conviction that we are not doing justice to our seamen. They are men to whom we owe a great deal. Their avocation is a highly perilous one, and we do not do all that lies in our power to reduce the perils they have to encounter to a minimum. I think there is an awakening of the public conscience in reference to our sailors and to our duty towards them. I find that large public meetings have been held in different inland as well as seaport towns, at which resolutions have been passed in favour of prompt action in this matter of the construction of Harbours of Refuge. I find that in the Trades Union Congress—a representative Body—resolutions were passed of a similar character. The United Chambers of Commerce, also a representative Body, representing to a large extent the commercial intelligence of the country, at three of their annual meetings have successively passed resolutions not only unanimously, but enthusiastically, in favour of prompt action in the matter. They have also sent deputations to the Board of Trade in support of the prayer of their Petitions. And I am satisfied there is but one feeling, that if the Government would take heart and act in accordance with the sympathies of some of their own Colleagues, who have strongly, avowedly, and openly declared in favour of the movement—if they would only do this, they would be thoroughly backed up by public opinion. I am sure that such a decision on their part would be hailed with the greatest

  1259
  satisfaction throughout the whole of the country. One other reason I may refer to as the cause of delay is one which, I am sorry to say, is the strongest of all. It is this—that our sailors have no political organization, and no mouthpieces in this House. It will be found that our miners have an organization, and its influence is very great. They have even their own Representatives in this House—men who watch carefully all legislation affecting their interests, and who influence and mould that legislation. But what about our poor sailors? The shipowners are here, but there are very few who openly take a deep interest in the welfare of the sailor. We know that he is not able to bring pressure to bear upon this House as others can. He is deprived of the opportunities which other men enjoy of entering into a powerful organization, and bringing great influence to bear upon the House. Will anyone tell me that if the sailors had the same power of organization and of bringing pressure to bear upon the House of Commons, they would have been so long deprived of the benefits and privileges of the Employers' Liability Act, which is enjoyed by all other classes of the community? In my opinion, it is due entirely to the fact that they are unable to exorcise such influence; that they do not possess the advantages of the Employers' Liability Act; and that the recommendations of the Royal Commission and of successive Select Committees of this House have not had effect given to them during all this long series of years. The question of the cost of these Harbours of Refuge is, no doubt, an interesting one. We heard the late President of the Board of Trade say last Session—and I think he ought to be an authority on the subject—that the highest sum he had heard mentioned as necessary for the construction of Harbours of Refuge was £6,000,000 sterling. That is, of course, a higher sum than is mentioned in any of the Reports to which I have referred; but the estimate includes the commercial ports and fishing harbours. But, taking it at that sum, the Select Committee which sat in 1883–4, and reported in the latter year, suggested that the money required for the purpose of constructing those Harbours of Refuge should be raised on Terminable Annuities, spread over 99 years. If that suggestion were
  1260
  adopted, what would be the yearly payment to cover the interest and pay back the principal upon £6,000,000 sterling? £250,000 a-year would do it, and leave a very fair margin for maintenance. What is the case on the other side? Apart from the saving of life, what is the estimated saving of property? The loss amounts to £1,500,000 a-year; and, according to the Report of the Committee which sat in 1858, the probable saving may be put down at 30 per cent. But taking it at no higher a figure than 20 per cent, and assuming that 20 per cent of the vessels which are now lost were saved, that 20 per cent would represent a sum of £300,000 a year. In other words, looking at the question from a national point of view, the expenditure of £250,000 a-year would be met on the other side by a saving of £300,000. I hope I have made myself clear upon that matter. The point which I wish to present to the House is that at present the loss is £1,500,000 a-year, and that, if only 20 per cent of that loss is preventible, there would be a saving of £300,000 a-year—a sum more than sufficient to cover the entire interest on the cost of constructing the Harbours of Refuge that are asked for. It may be asked, why not place the cost upon the Consolidated Fund? I think there is a very reasonable objection to any proposal of the kind. My own conviction is that the entire cost should not come out of the Consolidated Fund, and for this reason—that the incidence of taxation would not be the same. The fact is, that these Harbours of Refuge, by saving property and life, will have a tendency to cheapen the price of imported goods; but it is not the whole of the community who have an interest in the cheapening of goods. I need only remind hon. Members of the case of the farmers. I do not think the farmers have any interest in cheapening the importation of produce, and, therefore, it would be unfair to tax them for the erection of Harbours of Refuge. There are other cases which might be mentioned, such as those of Railway Companies, and others of a similar character. Although it would be perfectly legitimate, from the national point of view, to spend some £250,000 in saving ships to the extent of £300,000, and to save in addition a large number of lives, yet it would not be altogether

  1261
  proper to place the whole of the expenditure upon the Consolidated Fund. It is a popular notion that the underwriters would be greatly benefited by the construction of Harbours of Refuge, and that they have some personal interest in the matter. That is altogether a mistaken notion. Of all men in this country they are the very persons who are least interested in the saving of property at sea. There can be no doubt that, being humane men, they deplore the destruction of life; but it is quite clear, on a closer view of the matter, that they are not interested personally in the saving of property, for this reason—that if we were to annihilate maritime risks we should destroy their profession. When the risks are high, the payments are high also. What they are interested in is, that there should be no fraudulent insurances; but they have no personal interest in diminishing risks and losses at sea. Then, again, as to the shipowners, it may be asked why should they not be treated like other employers of labour—the owners of factories and of collieries, and Railway Companies, who have to submit to the most stringent legislation, which compels them to take the utmost care and to go to all the necessary expense in order to prevent the loss of life? "Why," it is said, "should not the same thing be done in the case of shipping? "I should like to point out that the lighthouses around the coast are paid for out of the light dues, and, therefore, the duty of the shipowner in providing for the safety of life and property is really recognized by the State. But the light dues are only a cheap form of insurance. The light dues are imposed in return for the advantage of having lights around our coast. If the lights were put out, the shipowners would have to pay an enormous premium in the shape of insurance. Applying the analogy of the lighthouses to the case of Harbours of Refuge, I maintain that the shipowner would recoup himself by saving in insurance premiums, a very large portion, if not the whole, of what he would have to expend in Refuge Harbour dues. If £1,500,000 worth of property is lost in each year, we may be perfectly sure that that is the exact sum which is paid in insurance premiums, plus the profit of the underwriters. If £300,000 of that could be saved, there would be £300,000 less insurance premiums to be paid; be-
  1262
  cause the competition among the under writers would soon bring it down to its proper level. Therefore, it may be argued that the shipowners would be almost entirely recouped the outlay they would be required to make in the shape of Refuge Harbour dues. Let us look, on the other hand, at the obligations of the Government. One of the greatest objects to be secured by these Harbours of Refuge, we are told, consists in the making provision for naval defence, and in all probability such Harbours of Refuge would have to be made all the more strong, and the construction would be proportionately costly on that account. If that strategical consideration is to be entertained, it is a strong reason why the Government should contribute a substantial sum towards the expense. There is also another reason. I have said that the shipowners pay the light dues; but they have a grievance in regard to those dues, and that is, that the Admiralty never contribute one farthing towards the maintenance of the lighthouses. Although Her Majesty's Navy have the full advantage in navigating around these shores of the lights and lighthouses, they have never, so far, contributed one farthing towards the expense which is incurred in order to keep these lighthouses in existence. That appears to me to be most unfair, and, in my opinion, it justifies the expectation that the Consolidated Fund should make a large contribution to Harbours of Refuge as some compensation for not having paid light dues in past years. There is one other point in connection with the question of finance. I have stated that, primarily, it is the duty of the shipowner to look after the lives of his sailors; but I believe that, from a humanitarian point of view, this country will look with favour on a contribution from the National Exchequer of a considerable sum, in order to meet the expense incurred in saving the lives of our fellow-countrymen, and preventing the destruction of life and property which has been going on for so many years While I think there is no ground why the Consolidated Fund should bear all the expense, I think, on the other hand, there are strong reasoons why this large expenditure of £250,000 a-year should be apportioned between the shipping interest and the National

  1263
  Exchequer. In the Bristol Channel several sites for Harbours of Refuge have been suggested. I will not refer to them further than to mention the fact that the estimated sum for one of those sites is £400,000. The highest and most expensive estimate puts the cost at £1,500,000; but taking the least expensive of these sites, and assuming that £400,000 would be all that is necessary, £20,000 a-year would cover interest and repayment for 99 years as well as the cost of maintenance. If the National Exchequer were to pay one-half of that, the charge upon the shipping interest in connection with the navigation of the Bristol Channel would only amount to £10,000 a-year. The total trade entries and clearances in the Bristol Channel show that the registered tonnage amounts to more than £22,000,000, and one-eighth of a penny per registered ton would cover the whole cost which would devolve upon the shipping interest. One-half would be paid by the National Exchequer, and the other half would amount to about one-eighth of a penny in the pound on all vessels entered in and cleared from the Bristol Channel. Assuming that the more costly harbour were constructed which is estimated to cost £1,500,000, the cost per registered ton would be about a halfpenny on all vessels entering and clearing from the Bristol Channel. I know that the shipowners are, like other traders, passing through a time of depression, and that they are ill able to bear any additional burden; but I desire to point out that for this one-eighth of a penny per ton they would recoup themselves by the saving they would effect in insurance, and at the same time they would do their duty to their seamen; in addition to which they would have the satisfaction of knowing that their own interests were consulted at the same time. Although I have entered into these suggestions with a view of endeavouring to bring the matter to a practical issue, I do not think the Government would be induced to pay the whole sum. It would be a matter of satisfaction if they would consent to pay one-half of the cost. My Motion, however, does not even involve that. The Resolution which I submit to the House simply points out that there is a large amount of preventable loss of life, and that it is
  1264
  the duty of the House and of the Government to take immediate action in order to stop that loss. Surely, that is a proposition which no one can object to. If it be admitted that within the borders of the United Kingdom and immediately around there is a preventible loss going on from year to year, I think it is the bounden duty of the State to find out who is responsible for that loss—whether it is the Government or anybody else; and I maintain that it is the duty of the Government to stop the loss. We claim to be a practical and business-like nation, and we get credit for it among the Continental nations; but, I would ask, is it a business-like thing to palter with a question like this for more than a generation, and not take any practical action in the matter? I think it is almost incredible that this important question should have been delayed so long, I suppose that we should, as a nation, resent the imputation of being grossly inhumane But, Sir, we are scarcely innocent of such a charge. I remember a case of a little child being drowned in one of the parks, when not one of the bystanders would wet his clothes in order to save that child. The Press commented in strong terms upon the gross inhumanity of the act. But we are doing something very like it now. Are we not lookers-on at that life and death struggle which is going on round our coasts? We have the power of doing something towards stopping it; but we will not take the trouble to do so. I, therefore, maintain that we are largely responsible for the lives which are needlessly sacrificed. I beg to move the Resolution which I have already read.
  COLONEL HILL: I rise with much pleasure to second the Motion which has been so ably and forcibly brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Glamorganshire (Mr. Yeo). Alter his very full exposition of the subject, I think I should be best consulting the convenience of the House if I make my remarks as brief as possible It is not inappropriate that I should second the Motion, representing, as I do, the largest port in the West of England, which gives its name to the channel to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, over whose busy waters passes and re-passes so large a proportion of the shipping of the United Kingdom.

  1265
  No persons feel more keenly the want of a Harbour of Refuge than those who are interested in the shipping of the Bristol Channel. I do not propose to advocate the claims of any particular locality for the construction of a Harbour of Refuge. I prefer to take the more general terms of the Resolution, and to urge upon the House that it is desirable a provision should be made for Harbours of Refuge on all parts of the coast where they may be found desirable. Of course, it has to be shown that a need exists for this Harbour of Refuge, otherwise we cannot apply to any Chancellor of the Exchequer with any hope that he will provide the money. And here I venture to differ from my hon. Friend as to the reasons why this matter has been delayed. I do not think it has been from any want of consideration for the welfare or lives of our sailors, either from past or present Governments, or from any past or present Members of the House; but it has arisen solely from the circumstance that the construction of a Harbour of Refuge is a very costly matter, and it requires a large amount of pressure by public opinion upon the Government of the day to show them that this particular object is one which ought to have their first attention. It has been said that the question has been frequently under consideration, and the hon. Member for West Glamorganshire has referred to the Report of a Royal Commission which sat some 28 years ago, and fully investigated the whole matter. The Royal Commission, as the result of their investigation, unanimously reported that there was a need of Harbours of Refuge, and they recommended a certain expenditure of money upon their construction. Since that time, little, if anything, has been done towards carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. What have been the losses that have occurred since then? It is computed that something like £52,000,000 worth of property has been lost, and that some 25,000 sailors have been drowned, leaving 18,000 widows and some 50,000 orphans, many of whom have had to be provided for by the ratepayers. During two heavy gales which occurred last autumn, there was a loss of some 2,000 lives around the coasts of this country,
  1266
  and the House has already been informed how severely those gales were felt in the Bristol Channel. I do not say that if Harbours of Refuge had been erected everywhere in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission all these lives would have been saved; but there can be no doubt that a large number of lives and a great deal of property might have been saved. One of the first duties of a civilized State is to do all in its power to protect the lives of its people; and, if that be so, then I say there can be no class which has greater claims upon the people of these islands than our sailors. We owe to them much, not only of the luxuries and of the necessities of life, but that naval and commercial maritime supremacy which is necessary to our very existence. I would venture to think that a sufficient case has been made out, and there is a general consensus of opinion that the time has come when something should be done in the direction of constructing Harbours of Refuge. I do not think that the provision by way of loans, which has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade, will suffice to provide what is required, because a National Harbour of Refuge is a harbour which cannot be placed, as has already been pointed out, in any particular locality, in connection with any particular trade, It is quite-true that there may be some places where the local trade of a district requires a harbour, and where an existing harbour, by enlargement and otherwise, may be made to serve the purpose of a Harbour of Refuge. In such a case the locality might be assisted by means of loans. But loans would not answer in the case of what I may call the great national harbours, simply because, in many instances, there would be no one to pay the dues, and no local authority to borrow. It is patent to everyone, I think, that the position of a Harbour of Refuge cannot be determined by economic considerations. Two considerations have to be brought in; one is the saving of life, and the other is the provision of harbours for Her Majesty's Navy in the event of war. That is a subject which I hope will be touched upon hereafter by some of the hon. and gallant Admirals who are Members of this House, and who understand the matter better than myself. But there

  1267
  is one fact we cannot help knowing, and that is, that our Fleet is dependent upon coal for its motive power, and our ships cannot now be kept for an indefinite time watching ports as vessels under canvas could in former years. Our vessels are constantly in want of coal, and we must have harbours in such positions that our ships may be able to defend the entrances to our channels. This is particularly the case with regard to the Bristol Channel, which is the centre of an important coal district and a great steam coal depôt, where a hostile fleet, sailing up the Channel, could destroy our coal ports and do an amount of damage that can hardly be calculated. I wish to say, therefore, that, in my opinion, these national harbours can only be made by means of money grants from the Consolidated Fund. That principle has already been acknowledged by the Government in the construction of harbours at Portland, Dover, and now at Peterhead; and what we press for is an extension of that principle, and that other ports should be constructed around the coast. During the 28 or 30 years which have elapsed since the Royal Commission made their Report, pointing out the need of Harbours of Refuge, our Mercantile Marine has quadrupled and the wealth of the country has largely increased. There ought, therefore, to be no difficulty in finding the requisite funds for this very necessary work. I am quite satisfied that the taxpayers of the country would willingly pay for the work, if the sums granted from the Consolidated Fund were judiciously expended, and it was shown to them that the money was required for the purpose of saving life and to preserve the commercial and naval supremacy of the country. I am quite sure that the working classes of this country—in my own constituency, at all events—take a deep and lively interest in the matter. They feel that the sailor ought to have his dangerous employment made as little hazardous as possible. With these observations I would venture to express a hope that the House will be pleased to accept the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for West Glamorganshire (Mr. Yeo).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, having regard to the recent fearful sacrifice of life in the Bristol Channel, and to
  1268
  the constantly recurring losses of life and property around the coasts of the United Kingdom, it is, in the opinion of this House, urgent that Her Majesty's Government should immediately take action to diminish these losses by the construction of suitable Harbours of Refuge."—(Mr. Yeo.)
  MR. J. A. BLAKEsaid, that he entirely agreed with the Motion, but was unable to agree with the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gower Division of Glamorganshire (Mr. Yeo) who moved it. The speech of the hon. Member dealt entirely with the construction of the larger description of Harbours of Refuge. These were, no doubt, very valuable; but if their efforts were to be confined to them and large sums expended upon them, it would very likely tend to the exclusion of a class of harbours which would be just as valuable. Nearly 40 years ago—when he entered the House—a Committee recommended very strongly the construction of Harbours of Refuge. In 1883–4 there was a Select Committee of that House appointed on the subject of Harbours of Refuge. That Committee was very ably presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), who, he hoped, would state his views to the House upon this subject. Out of that very numerous Committee there were only half-a-dozen Members now in Parliament, and he trusted that they would make such statements as would impress the House with the desirability of carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee. He was glad to find that the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston) had already shown a very great interest in all subjects relating to the preservation of life and property at sea, and he hoped that this debate would lead him to give further attention in the direction of constructing Harbours of Refuge. It had been truly said that the Mercantile Marine had the protection of insurance; but it must be admitted that although those ships were protected by insurance their destruction led to a certain amount of loss to the nation. It was, however, impossible to prevent the loss of life by insurance, and this matter should be very seriously considered. he urged the hon. Member to go to a Division with his Motion in order to test the very strong opinion which prevailed upon the subject.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, that the Motion now before the House was different from the Motion under which the Committee of 1883–4 was appointed. That was a more general Motion, and had reference to harbours of accommodation all round the United Kingdom, and was not limited or confined to Harbours of Refuge. He was desirous of pointing out that a very valuable shipping trade passed round the North and North-West Coasts of Antrim, and that the county was destitute of any harbour for many miles round its coasts. Amid the many claims which were urged for consideration, he could not refrain from putting forward that of Antrim.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, that few Members had taken part so frequently as himself in debates upon Harbours of Refuge, and it was quite refreshing to find this old subject taken up by a new Member, and treated with so much ability. The Motion before the House, however, was of a rather peculiar character, as it advanced a local claim first, and, in order that it might be swallowed, advocated Harbours of Refuge around the coasts of the United Kingdom. The question of Harbours of Refuge had been practically settled years ago. The Commission of 1859 recommended that various sums of money be spent on stated places for the purpose of constructing such harbours. But when the House came to consider the practical question of how the harbours were to be made, who they were to advantage, and how to be paid for, they passed the Act of 1861—which was discussed at so much length the other day. Government after Government had held to the doctrine that the money should be granted from Imperial funds to aid existing local harbours in order to meet local wants, and to be repaid by the localities which received the grants. The Public Works Loan Commissioners must deal with these matters on a very different scale if they desired to encourage local effort in that direction. If they would take 3¼ per cent.—he believed that his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) had named 3 per cent instead of 4—it would go far in that direction. If Her Majesty's Government were now about to consent to make a Harbour of Refuge in the Bristol Channel, they must in all fairness
  1270
  refund to the people on the Tees and the Tyne, and many other rivers, the money which they had spent on such work themselves, so that all might start again on an equal footing. But it had been over and over again clearly demonstrated that Harbours of Refuge would have the effect of saving comparatively only a very few lives indeed. Years ago Mr. Milner Gibson pointed out that even if £1,000,000 had been spent on a harbour at Filey it would not have saved 15 lives in six years. Whilst that was the case, however, there might be a national duty with regard to harbours, not Harbours of Refuge, but national harbours, of a very different description from trade harbours, for the protection of English commerce in time of war—for sheltering our Navy and Merchant Services. The hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Resolution had answered his own question, for he said that if the ships in the Bristol Channel were charged one farthing per ton they could pay for the works themselves. £3,000,000 had been spent on the Tyne by the people there out of their own pockets, and on the Tees they had taxed their iron to the extent of 3d. a-ton for that purpose. Great sums had also been expended on the Tees, where there was now no bar, and where he lately saw a large steamer during a gale come in at low water and drop her anchor securely inside the breakwater. Surely the rich districts along the Bristol Channel could in the same way pay for their own works. If, however, national harbours were to be made, they could well be constructed on the North-East Coast, where an enormous amount of slag from the ironworks could be utilized by the Government. They had there proved by experience that breakwaters of slag, with concrete, could be made in the deep waters of the German Ocean, and they were turning to waste out now into the ocean from 30,000 to 40,000 tons of iron slag every week. It was placed there, in the first instance, at the expense of the ironmasters; but it might be brought into shape and moulded into breakwaters, in which the Government, consequently, could form a superstructure at very little cost indeed. As had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), the extension of the fishing harbours would, in his (Sir Joseph Pease's) opinion, do far

  1271
  more to save life than the construction I of Harbours of Refuge. He must repeat that if the Government were going to change their policy in this matter, they would have to refund the large sums of money which had been paid by the localities to which he had alluded.
  ADMIRAL MAYNEsaid, he thought that there were two matters which in that discussion ought to be kept distinct. There was, on the one hand, the question of large harbours for the Meet, which must cost an enormous sum, and the localities for which should evidently be decided by the Admiralty; and, on the other hand, there was the question of life-saving harbours, with which the Board of Trade ought to have to do. After various Commissions and Committees had sat and made various recommendations, they had arrived at the point which the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) had so well put the other night when he said that the Board of Trade should have more power in regard to the lending of money for harbour works. The right hon. Gentleman wished that the Board of Trade had undertaken the duty of discriminating somewhat more clearly what harbours should receive public assistance at all, because the principle acted upon up to the present time was that whenever aid was asked for, provided the necessary security was given, a loan was granted irrespective of how far the works were necessary or cheap; and he might have added that at present there was no guarantee that the money advanced by the Board of Trade would effect the objects for which it was obtained. With regard to the Bristol Channel it had been well said that it was perfectly well able to look after itself. As to Lundy Island, it was now an excellent Refuge, and as such could not be improved without an enormous outlay; and it should not be made a national harbour unless they were prepared to fortify it and to have a sufficient garrison there in time of war. During the Crimean Warthey had no ship of war and not a single sailor that could possibly have gone to Lundy Island to protect it. His opinion was that having Milford Haven—the best port in the Kingdom—on the North side of the Bristol Channel, if a harbour was wanted, as he thought it was, it should be made on the South side of the Bristol Channel at some point
  1272
  like St. Ives. It had been remarked that where there were most wrecks shown by the Wreck Chart, there were no harbours or loans for harbours asked for. There were many places, both in Ireland and England, where it was desirable to have harbours, but whore it was impossible to give security for loans to construct them. For instance, in his own district there was the port of Fishguard, where he thought it most important to have a harbour, but where it was impossible to give any security. If he were to suggest a loan for Fish-guard, the Public Works Loan Commissioners would look upon him as a sort of lunatic, because he could not offer adequate security. As he was discussing the general question, however, he should prefer going out of his own district, and would ask what security the people at the Butt of Lewis, where a Refuge was most required, could give? He should like to know how it would be possible to give security for loans for the construction of a harbour or harbours on the coast of Cornwall? The people had nothing on which they could give security to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and, therefore, it was necessary that some assistance should be given to them. He maintained that Harbours of Refuge would certainly mitigate the loss of life at sea, and contended that the inferences to the contrary drawn from the Wreck Chart were not sound or well-founded. If Harbours of Refuge had not been constructed or loans had not been asked for their construction in places where they were wanted, the reason was not far to seek. It was simply because the people knew that it was useless to ask for loans when they had no security to give. That was the case in Pembrokeshire, and he should like to know whether it was not possible to extend some consideration to places which were in the position he had described? It was solely for the purpose of advocating their claims that he had joined in this debate.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he did not think that the Resolution, if carried, was at all likely to advance the cause which the hon. Member for the Gower Division of Glamorganshire (Mr. Yeo) had at heart—that of helping to improve the harbour accommodation of the United Kingdom. In the first place, his hon. Friend, at the

  1273
  outset of his speech, said he excluded commercial and fishery harbours. Now, he maintained that the harbours which were important to this country were the commercial and fishery harbours; and if they were excluded from the harbours of Great Britain what would you have left? He was afraid very few in deed. He was willing to adroit that it was a matter of concern for the Military and Naval Departments of the State to have great fortified ports; but he did not believe that a few harbours capable of taking in a fleet, and of being a means of defence to the country, would at all meet the everyday wants of our ordinary seamen and fishermen around the coasts. It had also been pointed out that, after all, if they had put down a Harbour of Refuge at a particular place, it would not save a great deal of life. That was hardly a fair statement of the case. The case was this—that a big Harbour of Refuge, put down at a given place, would not save one iota more life than a much smaller one. What was wanted for saving life was, not a harbour into which a great fleet could run, but harbours at reasonably close intervals all the way round the coasts, with a certain amount of water at all states of the tide, into which a vessel could run when in distress in their immediate vicinity. It was to provide such harbours that he believed the whole efforts of those who were anxious to improve the harbour accommodation of this country should aim. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke and Haverfordwest (Admiral Mayne) had instanced the case of Fish-guard to show the difficulty of harbours giving reasonable security for the loans. he did not quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point, because what he (Mr. Marjoribanks) hoped the Government would do was very much to extend the powers of localities to give security. It seemed to him that if that course were followed it would be very beneficial. It was a course which prevailed in Ireland, where baronies might pledge their rates in security for such loans. At Wicklow, for instance, an excellent harbour had been constructed at a cost of £40,000, for which 11 adjacent baronies had given their rates as collateral security. He would apply that principle to this country also, and allow whole counties to come for-
  1274
  ward and pledge their rates for harbours at such places as might be really suitable for the purpose. If they took the ease of some recent harbour works on the North-East Coast of Scotland, they would see how advantageous they had proved, and how vastly local trade and fisheries had increased in consequence of the improved harbour accommodation. He believed no better test could be given of the desirability of a harbour in any locality than the way in which the people of the locality would come forward and support it. He did not think counties would find a very serious burden imposed upon them by giving their rates in security for such works, for he believed they would produce an ample revenue to meet all liabilities incurred in their construction. What he would like to see was that some Government Department—the Board of Trade or some other Department—should see that all works executed by Government loans were properly executed, and in the places best calculated to yield the greatest amount of benefit from them to the localities. If that were done, then he thought they would find that the revenue which would accrue from such works would in all cases, or nearly all, be sufficient to pay the interest on the money by which the works were constructed, and that no burden would be thrown on the nation at all. But he was also of opinion that when necessary, and when good local effort was forthcoming, the Government might go further, and supplement local effort by a small grant. It was only two or throe years ago that that House voted £250,000 out of Irish Church funds for such purposes in Ireland. Again, every year the Scottish Fishery Board had placed at its disposal only a small sum—£6,000—of which it applied some £4,500 to the improvement of harbours. He thought it might be advantageous, in certain eases carefully restricted, to help out individual cases where the works were really going to be of great use by supplementing local efforts with such grants, and he believed that in that way they would often prevent work being carried out that, when completed, was found insufficient for the purposes for which it was intended. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not press his Resolution to a Division.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that he had taken a great deal of interest in this question for a long period. The hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease) had complained of his hon. Friend (Mr. Yeo) for arguing this question solely with reference to the wants of the Bristol Channel. But his hon. Friend had done nothing of the kind. He had dwelt on the necessity of constructing National Harbours of Refuge generally. The hon. Baronet to whom he had alluded and those who were his Colleagues from the North were fond of boasting of the grand harbours they had made, as it was paid, out of their own breeches' pocket. But, surely, those harbours on the Tyne and Tees had not been made out of the breeches' pockets of the residents in those districts. They had been made out of shipping tolls and dues. Now, were the people of the North the only people who had constructed harbours in the same way? Take the case of Cardiff, in the much-abused Bristol Channel, which had, he believed, a larger harbour than Newcastle-on-Tyne. The Marquess of Bute might, perhaps, say that he had made it out of his own pocket, but if it had not been for the magnificent coalfields behind Cardiff, and the shipping which went into that port in consequence, the port could never have been constructed. It was a prosperous port, because it was one which a great number of ships frequented. They had the Port of Swansea, the income of which, in his time as a trustee, had increased from £6,000 to £100,000 a-year. They had done much the same as the people on the Tyne. Because they had done this, and now had a prosperous harbour, was no reason why great national harbours should not be made, if and when they were required. There was an undoubted want of Harbours of Refuge around our coast, for he maintained that harbours would save lives, in spite of all that had been said to the contrary. They had been told that the late Mr. Milner Gibson had said that if a Harbour of Refuge had been made at Filey it would not have saved more than 15 lives a-year. In that case he should say this proved that Filey was not a proper place for a harbour, although it had been recommended by the Government. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Joseph
  1276
  Pease) seemed to think that the ironmasters of the North were doing a great national service in throwing their iron slag into the sea to form harbours, but he (Sir Hussey Vivian) made a great deal of iron slag, and he certainly should not think of requiring any compensation for throwing it into the sea. The hon. Gentleman said that the people in the North had been recouped by the additional trade for the money they had spent on the Tyne, but he did not see how that bore on the question. Because the people on the North and on the North-East Coasts might not want Harbours of Refuge now it did not follow that they were not wanted in the Bristol Channel or at other points unconnected with any great commercial port, and from which no port would derive any commercial advantage. We wanted Harbours of Refuge to save the lives of our seamen and the property of those who brought commerce to our coasts. This was a broad, national question, and the Government ought to consider it in that light. He did not say where there should be a Harbour of Refuge, but there ought to be a dispassionate consideration by the Government where such harbours should be made around the coasts of the United Kingdom. They were told that the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of whom he was one, should be a little more liberal; but, then, it would be necessary to alter the Act under which the Public Works Loan Commissioners acted, and which bound them in a very stringent manner. The Commissioners could not advance money without proper security. They were bound to consider what the security offered to them was, and he had no hesitation in saying that, by observing the restrictions placed on them, they had saved the country from a great many bad debts. Those restrictions might, no doubt, be relaxed, but he did not think this would be prudent. It would be much safer and better to make direct grants where it was thought desirable that harbours should be constructed. It had been said the Motion before the House would not advance the cause the hon. Member had in view, because it did not deal with the general question of Harbours of Refuge. But he thought that it would be better to discuss one branch of the question at a time. They were all as anxious to have

  1277
  fishery harbours as well as national harbours. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution was as anxious for the former as the latter, but he (Sir Hussey Vivian) thought he had done well not to mix up the two branches of the question in the same Motion. He trusted that the Government would take the whole of this matter into their best consideration. He thought the time had gone by when we should allow the loss of life and property which had gone on for so many years in consequence of Government after Government failing to deal with the subject. He trusted that the Government would at last make up their minds to deal with the subject in a large and generous spirit.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, that if the House wanted any evidence of the extreme difficulty of the subject they would find it in the speech of the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Hussey Vivian), and who exemplified in himself the great conflict of opinion which existed among those who claimed to speak as experts on that question. The hon. Baronet was somewhat inconsistent, inasmuch as, in his capacity of a Public Works Loan Commissioner, he had urged upon the House the extreme danger of relaxing the hold of the Commissioners upon the expenditure, and in the same breath he recommended the Government to adopt a vast scheme of Harbours of Refuge, without explaining how the expense of such a scheme was to be met. Of course, the question of expenditure was most important; but that question did not so much concern the Department which he had the honour to represent as it did the Treasury. It would, however, be his duty to point out some of the financial difficulties with which this great scheme was beset. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) had put the matter in a very clear and practical shape when he explained how from 1859 downwards this question had been repeatedly considered, and how, in the opinion of those best able to form a judgment, it was beset with great and overwhelming difficulties. The hon. Baronet also touched upon the practical question whether Harbours of Refuge would have the desired result of
  1278
  saving life. In 1861, when Mr. Milner Gibson was President of the Board of Trade, he entertained a very strong opinion upon that point, and certainly the action of successive Governments seemed to have confirmed his view. At that time it was suggested that about £360,000 a-year should be advanced for making various harbours, and the suggestion was considered by a subsequent Commission, but as far as he knew was never carried out. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for the Gower Division of Glamorganshire (Mr. Yeo) who introduced the subject, the statistics quoted by him did not appear strictly accurate. That was not to be wondered at, if he drew them from the source to which the hon. Member alluded—namely, the society which he termed the National Refuge Harbours Society. That was a bogus society, and if the hon. Gentleman wanted any information as to the person who called himself the secretary he would obtain it by applying to the Charity Organization Society. It was a common mode of obtaining notoriety, or something better, to appeal to sympathy; but when so serious a matter as that under discusssion was brought forward in the House serious information was required.
  MR. YEOsaid, he had not drawn his figures from the society in question.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he was glad to hear that the hon. Member had not done so, and wished to say that, if that society had used his name as Secretary to the Board of Trade in connection with itself, such a use was wholly unauthorized, and he had directed his secretary to call upon them to withdraw it. The hon. Member had admitted the immense difficulty of the task which he had undertaken, and he had told the House that from 1831 down to the present time this question had been considered by successive Governments. The natural conclusion that must be drawn from that fact was that those successive Governments, while having every wish to provide for the safety of our sailors, had found this subject of Harbours of Refuge one of almost insuperable difficulty; first, with regard to the localities where they were to be constructed; and, secondly, with regard to the financial means by which these large works were to be car-

  1279
  ried out. The hon. Member had said that the late President of the Board of Trade had anticipated that it would require some £6,000,000 to construct those harbours; but it was to be feared that that sum would be totally inadequate to pay for the immense works that would have to be executed if this scheme were to be fully carried out, seeing that the 17 harbours that had been already constructed had cost about £23,000,000, the greater portion of which had been provided by private enterprize. The hon. Member had anticipated that some £300,000, being 20 per cent of the annual value of British ships now lost, which amounted to £1,500,000, would be saved to the country, and that, therefore, that amount would balance the interest of the capital of £6,000,000 proposed to be expended, and that if there was any deficiency it might be made up by a tax upon our shipowners. It seemed to him, however, that it would be rather hard to impose the whole taxation necessary for carrying out a national system of Harbours of Refuge upon one trade, which was certainly not in a prosperous condition just now. In the view of the Government, it was not desirable to impose additional burdens upon our commerce and upon our shipping interest at the present time. The hon. Member had suggested that the proposed harbours might be constructed by convict labour, but convict labour could not be obtained free of expense, while its employment interfered materially with other forms of labour. It must be remembered, in dealing with this important subject, that there were three classes of harbours—first, those which had been constructed at the national expense, which were chiefly used by Her Majesty's ships, and which were under the control of the War Office and the Admiralty; secondly, the small fishing harbours, for the construction and improvement of which loans were advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners; and, thirdly, the National Harbours of Refuge. The use of the latter could not be restricted absolutely to that of Harbours of Refuge, and they must necessarily partake of the character of commercial harbours. To construct such harbours would, therefore, be to promote commercial rivalry between different ports, and to promote one class, of trade at the expense of the
  1280
  others. With regard to the number of lives which the proposed Harbours of Refuge would save, he held in his hand statistics which would show that these harbours would not operate very largely in the saving of life. He had had a Return prepared which he should be happy to lay on the Table of the House, and which threw a great deal of light on the question as to how far harbours affected the amount of loss of life at sea. This Return was a statement showing the number of sea casualties attended with loss of life during the five years ending June 30, 1885. It showed the whole of the life lost from British ships in that period, both exclusive and inclusive of collisions. Exclusive of collisions, 14,188 lives were lost, of which only 3,751 were lost on the coast of the United Kingdom, on or near; and deducting from this 1,158 lives lost in 210 vessels missing near the coast of the United Kingdom, there were, it would appear, 1,993 lives lost on or near the coast from stranding, foundering, and all other causes, except collisions, during five years. Examining the facts as they bore on that portion of the coast referred to in the hon. Member's Motion, it appeared that, taking a wide margin—namely, a line from St. David's Head to the Land's End, and half-way across St. George's Channel, including, as it did, part of the highway to Liverpool, without including collisions or missing vessels which might or might not have been in the district at the time of the loss, 289 lives were known to have been lost in that district in five years, or about 58 yearly. For the purposes of comparison he would take a contiguous district—namely, the quadrilateral bounded on the south by a line from St. David's Head to Carnsore Point, County Wexford, and on the north by a line from Fair Head, County Antrim, to the Mull of Cantire. This would include all the traffic from Holyhead to Dublin, all the traffic in and out of Liverpool, Fleetwood, Barrow, &c, and all the traffic in and out of Belfast, Stanraer, and the ports along the West Coast of Scotland, including the Clyde. Excluding lives lost by collisions and missing vessels in this vast area, with its capacious ports on both sides of the Channel, with their great facilities for refuge, 390 lives were lost in five years. This afforded some evidence that loss of

  1281
  life was not greatly diminished by the proximity of harbours. This was not a Party question, and the Board of Trade had, for some years past, directed its attention to finding out some remedy for the loss of life at sea. There was a great conflict of opinion as to where the Harbours of Refuge ought to be constructed, and there would also be immense difficulty in finding the necessary funds. Governments were trustees of the public purse, and he did not think that any Government would propose to spend a great many millions on what might, no doubt, be ultimately useful, but what was, in the first instance, an experimental expense. The Estimate of £6,000,000 was manifestly below the mark, for 17 harbours had cost £23,000,000.
  MR. YEOsaid, this amount included the cost of docks attached to the harbours.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSaid, that, at any rate, the expense would be a very large one. One Gentleman suggested that the charge should be placed on the Consolidated Fund, and another that the charge should be covered by a system of insurance levied on the shipowner. The latter suggestion would not be fair to the shipowners, and was not likely to meet with acceptance in that House. Another suggestion, which was a very plausible one, was that facilities should be given to Local Authorities to raise money through the Public Works Loan Commissioners to facilitate the construction of small fishing harbours. That seemed to be the most practical suggestion that had been made. The proposal to raise the money by making Her Majesty's ships pay dues was futile, for it would only be making one Department pay money to another. He hoped that the hon. Member would be satisfied with the assurance that the Government, in regard to the construction of small harbours by means of loans obtained from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, wished to do all in their power to secure the safety of British merchant seamen, and to prevent loss of life at sea.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) had left the question in an altogether satisfactory position. One Department was playing itself off
  1282
  against the other—the Treasury and the Board of Trade—and, in the meantime, the interests of the harbours went to the wall. He pointed out that successive Governments had not kept faith with them as to the terms and conditions on which loans were to be issued. The Treasury ought to revert to the original bargain, and give them money at 3¼per cent. They ought to give up fighting amongst themselves, and unite in making a demand on the Treasury to give them money at a low rate of interest. That, he thought, would be better than squabbling amongst themselves as to which particular locality was to get a grant. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks) had rather over-stated the case in saying that Scotland got £6,000 a-year for harbours. They really got only £3,000 a-year from the Government. The rest came out of the fishermen's own pockets, being the surplus of the herring brand money. He should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade a question. He understood the Loan Commissioners were in direct communication with the Board of Trade; and he wanted to know, with regard to the Scottish harbours, whether the hon. Gentleman had taken steps to ascertain the opinion of the Fishery Board of Scotland, or to bring that body into working communication with the Board of Trade? If he did so, he had no doubt the Board of Trade would get very good advice. He hoped, before this debate was closed, they would hear from the Government on what terms they would give this money. If they would consent to give it at the rate originally promised, it would have the effect of stopping these demands that were constantly being made.
  MR. LLEWELLYNregretted that the statement of the Representative of the Board of Trade had not been more encouraging. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had spoken of certain fishery harbours as natural Harbours of Refuge; but, as a matter of fact, masters of ships would never think of making for those ports in bad or thick weather. On the West Coast, from Holyhead to the Land's End, there was no harbour for which a ship could run. At Lundy Island a National Harbour of Refuge might be

  1283
  established with great advantage to seamen. When satisfactory security could not be given by a locality to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the money ought to be provided, in the first instance, by the Government, and a toll might then be imposed on the shipping making use of the new harbour. In the Bristol Channel 1 d. per ton imposed on every cargo entering the Channel and leaving it for Ireland or foreign parts would produce £40,000 a-year. If the same toll were imposed on the coast trade, £10,000 more could be raised. That Harbours of Refuge were sadly needed on the West Coast was proved by the experience of the Bristol Channel pilots. About once in six months a pilot vessel was lost whilst beating about at sea, simply because there was no harbour near the mouth of the Bristol Channel into which she could run. The Motion before the House would have his support, because it raised a distinct question which he thought the public now fully realized—the saving of the lives of merchant seamen.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSONsaid, that he was sorry he could not give his vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for the Gower Division of Glamorgan (Mr. Yeo), though the idea of National Harbours of Refuge was one that was very tempting. He (Mr. J. C. Stevenson) had been interested in the question for a long time, and had followed the controversy for years before he had a seat in the House. In 1859 the Royal Commission was issued on account of the disastrous wrecks of sailing colliers on the North-East Coast. These colliers accumulated in fleets in the then unimproved coal-ports of the Tyne, Tees, and Wear, and being caught by sudden gales and having only bar harbours to run back to, the coast was strewed with wrecks. Parliament met the necessity, and saved the nation large sums of money by promising loans at a low rate of interest to improve these trading harbours. They had thus, out of their own resources, solved the problem themselves on the North-East Coast; and the Bristol Channel ports, which they had just been told possessed one-fifth of the trade of the country, could well afford to provide a Harbour of Refuge for themselves if it was really wanted. These vague ideas as to National Harbours of
  1284
  Refuge had often been heard before, but had never stood the test of a debate in that House. The Motion carefully avoided going into details, and laid down a general principle; but the principle could only be understood by going into details, and here the various Bristol Channel ports could not agree on a site for the Harbour of Refuge which they wanted, and therefore the Mover of the Resolution proposed that the Government should choose the site and pay for the harbour, which was to be national, in the sense that the nation was to pay for it. He should vote against the Motion; for it was the wrong way to deal with an important matter. The right way was to assist with loans at a low rate of interest the trading harbours; and he believed that if the fishery harbours were so improved as to admit fishing boats to enter at any time of tide, many more lives would be saved, and at a very much smaller cost than by the expenditure of large sums of money in so-called National Harbours of Refuge of doubtful utility, the only thing certain about which would be their enormous cost.
  MR. GILESsaid, he should be glad to vote for the Resolution, in order to affirm the principle that Harbours of Refuge were required in order to save the lives of our seamen and to protect our merchant shipping. But they were in the position of being between two stools, because it did not seem, after the remarks of the Secretary to the Board of Trade, that they were likely to get either large harbours or small harbours. The Government had, however, established precedents by constructing harbours at Plymouth, Portland, Dover, Holyhead, and Peter-head, and they had even gone as far as Colombo for the purpose, so that he thought they should go on applying the principle already acted upon. When they could afford to spend many millions a-year on our national defences, it seemed hard that we could not spare £200,000 or £300,000 a-year for Harbours of Refuge which were admitted to be necessary for the saving of life and property. In most parts of our coasts a fair Harbour of Refuge might be constructed for £1,000,000 or £1,500,000; but if we could not have large harbours, might we not have smaller harbours of refuge for the protection of our Fishing Fleets?
  MR. C. T. D. ACLANDsaid, that whatever Government was in Office the country was bound to recognize the importance of the primary object of this Motion, being the saving of the lives of our sailors; but the question was how they could most cheaply and most quickly arrive at the object they had before them. Certainly, it was not to be expected that through the employment of convicts they could save either time or economy in this matter. He was almost as certain that the object could not be attained by waiting for the creation of great national harbours. He spoke on behalf of the County of Cornwall, which had 200 miles of coast. Now, nothing could better test the reality of the need of these harbours than to offer to Cornwall the facilities which were already agreed upon between the Board of Trade and the Treasury. He pressed upon the Government that they wanted an early settlement, and as large a circulation of those easy terms as was possible. Then he believed this question of Harbours of Refuge would solve itself in the most practical and the cheapest manner.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he thought the hon. Gentleman who last spoke (Mr. C. T. D. Acland) had stated very clearly and very fairly what seemed to be the requirements in the present case. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff) had asked him whether he would state specifically the terms on which these loans were to be made to localities. Before doing so, he desired to point out that the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion (Mr. Yeo), in an admirable manner, with great clearness and fairness, seemed to be under the impression that funds might be raised for the repayment of these sums of money by taxing shipping. The hon. Member, perhaps, had overlooked the fact that a few years ago the light dues were reduced, and that, consequently, the fund out of which the monies were proposed to be repaid was fast galloping on to bankruptcy, and the idea of raising those dues would not be very popular. The fact appeared, also, to be rather overlooked that we had at present on our hands two Harbours of Refuge which answered to the description which the hon. Member appeared to have on his mind—namely,
  1286
  Peterhead Harbour and Dover Harbour. Peterhead Harbour was being constructed by means of convict labour. The original estimate of the cost of this harbour was about £250,000. Subsequently the estimate was enlarged to £500,000, and afterwards again it was enlarged to more than £750,000. Unless the information which came to him was very unreliable, he thought there were very few men of practical experience who attached any very great importance to the value of that harbour, even when it was constructed at the enormous cost. We also had Dover Harbour on our hands—a question which was still unsettled. A sort of resolution was arrived at that it was desirable to provide a Harbour of Refuge and Defence at Dover. It was to be built by means of convict labour, and about £50,000 or £60,000 had been already expended in providing quarters for convicts. No plan had been settled upon; no estimates had been made; and he did not believe that any hon. Member had the smallest idea what the ultimate cost of that harbour would be if it were carried out. He was assured by those who knew something of the question of the employment of convicts at Dover that not only would it not lead to any economy, but possibly there would be an increase of the cost of the works if it were carried out. Therefore, the difficulty of dealing with those large Harbours of Refuge was a very serious one, and it was one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to take very seriously into consideration before entering upon it. They had heard a great deal lately about the efforts that were being made to effect some economy in the Public Expenditure. Not only every Member of the Government, but every Member of the House, ought to support the Government in trying to keep down that Expenditure. The Government could not, at that time, look with favour on a proposal which would involve advances of large sums of money by the Treasury even for such valuable purposes as those in question. The Government desired to help, as far as possible, those who helped themselves—to aid local effort—and it would hardly be just to districts which had made those efforts and expended large sums of money that other districts—possibly competing with them—should have advantages given to them

  1287
  by large grants of public money. In the debate which took place a few days ago in that House, lie admitted that he thought a strong case had been made out by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) and the hon. Member for Banff for the careful consideration—if not reconsideration—of the question of the period of repayment which was to follow the rate of 3¼J per cent. In the last debate he (Mr. Jackson) stated that the rates which were then in force were 3¼ per cent and a period of 30 years; 3½ per cent and a period of 40 years; and 3¾ per cent and a period of 50 years. At that time he promised, when the negotiations were completed and the Minute had assumed its final form, he would place it upon the Table of the House; and that would be done. When that was accomplished he thought the hon. Member's point would be attained. He could assure the House that the question had occupied the attention of the Government. He did not admit that there had been any breach of faith; but he was authorized to say that the Government considered the last proposal of the hon. Member for Banff a reasonable proposal, and when collateral security to the satisfaction of the Public Works Loan Commissioners was given, the Government would be prepared to extend the period of repayment at the 3¼ per cent rate to the full period of 50 years. He hoped the House would accept that as a satisfactory solution of a very difficult question which had long been pending. He had ordered a clause to be drawn up, which would be inserted in the annual Bill of the Public Works Loan Commission, to enable localities to give security and to extend the opportunities which they had of pledging their security to the Commission. He hoped the hon. Member would therefore see that the debate had not been without good effect, and that his Motion had accomplished his purpose, and that he would not press it further.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that while he thought the concession in regard to the 3¼ per cent was a matter of the very greatest importance, he at the same time doubted whether the rural districts in England would be able to provide the necessary collateral security. In Ireland, where that system had been tried, those districts had, with few ex-
  1288
  ceptions, been unable to provide that security. Fishermen were helpless because they did not know how to combine, and how to get their case properly presented to the House; that was why their case broke down as had been stated. He was convinced the future of Ireland depended on the development of its fisheries; therefore he was profoundly interested in the question. He thought that sufficient weight had not been given to the recommendations of the Committee of the House which had reported on that subject. From his experience as a member of the Piers and Harbours Board in Ireland he had come to the conclusion that sufficient assistance was not given by the Exchequer to develop the maritime resources of the country. He complained that the Government had not redeemed their promise which they made when they came into Office that they would take into consideration the question of providing harbours in Ireland for fishery purposes. He thought Harbours of Refuge were of more importance than large ports. He complained that the whole of the Irish administration were absent from their places when a question of such importance to Ireland was being discussed.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, that he must take very strong exception to the statement that 17 Harbours of Refuge had cost £23,000,000 sterling. A very large portion of that amount was not devoted to refuge purposes at all; but to other purposes peculiar to great commercial harbours. This question should not be considered from the same point of view from which they were bound to consider it a few years ago. Harbours could now be constructed at very much less cost than a short time ago. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms), who spoke on behalf of the Government, said that he could not conceive of a Harbour of Refuge being such that it could not be applied to commercial purposes. But Lundy Island was a case in point. With regard to Lundy Island, there was no idea in the mind of anyone of converting it into a port of any other kind than a port of refuge. There were other places round the coast which, like Lundy Island, could be made Harbours of Refuge at a comparatively small outlay. At Lundy Island, for a comparatively small outlay, they could

  1289
  produce a very large amount of refuge. He was not prepared to maintain as a general principle that they ought to expend very large sums for harbours peculiar to refuge purposes only. They ought rather to work in both directions—downwards from the great military and naval harbours which were required for naval purposes, such as that contemplated at Dover and other places, and upwards from the fishing and commercial harbours. He imagined that if that were done there would not be any great necessity for the creation of special Harbours of Refuge involving a large outlay. He was glad that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) had been able to announce that the Government had agreed to accept with regard to loans what appeared to be the general view of the House. He (Sir Edward Reed) should vote for the Motion, not to embarrass the Government, but in order to avoid giving his sanction to what appeared to be the general drift of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade—namely, that this great Imperial State, which boasted of its worldwide commerce, had no course open to it save that of sitting down with their hands by their side and saying people must drown around our coasts, because we could not afford to give funds for Harbours of Refuge.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 80: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 93.)

  POST OFFICE—SUNDAY DELIVERY OF LETTERS.—RESOLUTION.
  DR. CLARK, in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that, on and after Sunday the 26th of June next, the Sunday Delivery of Letters, Ac. by letter-carriers and rural messengers should cease throughout the United Kingdom, except in those districts where, after the date named, the receivers of two-thirds of the correspondence of the district petition the Postmaster General for a Sunday Delivery,"
  said, he would formally make the Motion, as he understood that the Postmaster General would offer no opposition to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the matter. Under the circumstances, he would gladly accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton (Sir John Kenna-
  1290
  way) proposing a Select Committee to inquire into Sunday labour in the Department outside the Metropolis. Under the present circumstances they had three conditions of things. In London there was no Sunday delivery, and there nine-tenths of the officials were free, and had complete rest, from Saturday night until Monday morning. In large towns like Glasgow, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and Belfast, letters could be had by calling for them within certain hours in the morning; and in smaller towns they had a delivery of letters to all persons who did not apply to be exempted. the hon. Gentleman quoted figures showing that several thousands of persons in Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, and other places availed themselves of this provision, and had applied to be spared the infliction of letters on Sunday. If London, with its 5,000,000 of inhabitants, and the centre of the whole business of the earth, did not suffer by the Sunday rest, he did not think other places could suffer. Moreover, he did not see what inconvenience could arise with their system of cheap telegrams. It would not be found that the wages of those who delivered on Sundays were higher than those who did not, and it would be impossible to reduce wages lower than they were. At present it would be difficult to determine the two-third receivers; and, therefore, one modification of his Resolution was to make the question depend on two-thirds of the rate payers, and another was to carry out the London system compulsorily. But he was afraid that in England public opinion was not sufficiently advanced for that. A Resolution to that effect was once carried in that House, but it was shortly afterwards changed. The State, as a great employer of labour, ought to set a good example, and put an end to Sunday labour as far as possible. He doubted whether throughout the country we should anywhere find two-thirds in favour of Sunday delivery. It was purely on physical grounds that he brought forward the Resolution. As a medical man, he had had experience of the terrible exhaustion caused by Sunday labour. Postmen, who were such a hard-worked class, ought to have the great been of Sabbath rest. There was a great amount of unnecessary labour in the Post Office. A large number of merchants, knowing that there was a Sunday delivery in the

  1291
  country, were in the habit of posting circulars on Saturday with a view of the Sunday delivery. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM, in seconding the Resolution, said, he felt bound to urge that, on social as well as physical grounds, every man was the better for having a portion of time to himself, and that a larger amount of labour could be done by those who worked six days than by those who worked seven days a-week.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that, on and after Sunday the 26th of June next, the Sunday Delivery of Letters, &c. by letter-carriers and rural messengers should cease throughout the United Kingdom, except in those districts where, after the date named, the receivers of two-thirds of the correspondence of the district petition the Postmaster General for a Sunday Delivory."—(Dr. Clark.)
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY, in rising to move as an Amendment—
  " That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the whole question of Sunday labour in connection with the Post Office, outside the Metropolitan district,"
  said, that the matter was important from two points of view—first, because it was connected with the national recognition of the Day of Best; and, secondly, because it intimately affected the happiness of a great number of public servants. He attached great importance to the first point; because the national recognition of a Day of Best brought a great blessing. London compared favourably with great Continental cities in its criminal statistics; and the working classes were extremely jealous of anything which would undermine that Day of Rest which they so greatly enjoyed. He felt great sympathy with the Motion; and he thought we had to justify to ourselves the fact that, while all the other Government offices were closed on the Sunday, the Post Office should be an exception, more especially when we saw that, in London, the Sunday post could be done without. But we must recognize that the Post Office service was different from all other public services. The Government had a monopoly; and, looking to the fact that many parts of the country were entirely dependent on the Post Office for means of information and
  1292
  communication, it was necessary that we should go cautiously in anything we did. In looking at the matter, we ought to take into consideration how much had been done, especially by Sir Rowland Hill, as the Post Office had taken as the basis of its action a Minute passed in 1849, that to all connected with it, the greatest amount of rest should be afforded consistently with due regard to the convenience of the community. By a Resolution of that House passed in 1871, on the Motion of the late Sir Charles Reed, with the assent of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, it was agreed that as much relief as possible should be given to letter carriers on Sundays. The proposal of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) followed that policy in that it would enable the whole country to have the same freedom from postal delivery which was now tolerated, not to say enjoyed, in London. It was, however, a dangerous thing to ask a great public Department to regulate its business according to lines which might recommend themselves for the moment to the House of Commons; but an inquiry by a Select Committee of that House was a very different thing, and might well be assented to by Her Majesty's Government. It would then be ascertained how far an extension of the system of relief from Sunday delivery might be extended, and how far public opinion would encourage the Department to proceed in that direction. For instance, it had been stated that the system of window delivery in Scotland on Sunday had led to more work and to greater inconvenience than the delivery by carriers. The case of the drivers of mail carts ought also to be taken into consideration. He trusted that the error which was committed in 1850, when a change was made of such an abrupt nature that they had shortly to revert to the old system, would not be repeated. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. GEDGE, who had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect—
  " That it is desirable that all Post Offices throughout the country be closed on Sunday to the same extent as they are closed on that day in the Metropolis,"
  said, he preferred his own Amendment to the original Motion because it covered the whole ground, but he would second

  1293
  the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Devon, as it brought the whole question of Sunday labour in the Post Office before a Select Committee, and he understood that the Government would consent to this. In dealing with this question it must not be forgotten that the labours of Post Office letter carriers had been largely increased during the last few years, and that the present system of cheap telegrams would obviate any inconvenience that might arise from the non-delivery of letters upon Sundays. He hoped that in the end such an arrangement would be come to as would enable people in the country to have the same enjoyment that people in London possessed of being without letters on Sunday.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word '' That'' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider the whole question of Sunday labour, in connection with the Post Office, outside the Metropolitan district."—(Sir John Kennaway.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WADDYsaid, he rather regretted that any proposal should be suggested that might appear to diminish the strength of the original Resolution. He represented a large agricultural constituency, consisting almost entirely of small towns and villages, and he had received a practically unanimous request that Sunday deliveries should be discontinued. He believed this would be considered as a perfect and entire blessing. However, while preferring the more definite proposal of the hon. Member for Caithness to that contained in the Amendment, he felt bound to give his assent to the latter if it was agreed to by the Government.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)said, he had listened with great satisfaction to what had been said upon this question, especially as this was a matter as to which opinions had been held rather warmly, and had been expressed rather strongly outside that House. It was, therefore, all the more agreeable to him to find hon. Members expressing their views upon the Question inside that House with so much moderation. The Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness
  1294
  was of a very moderate nature, and his proposal ran in the groove of the principle which had been laid down by the Post Office with the view of reducing as far as possible the Sunday labour of the letter carriers in the country. By the proposal of the hon. Gentleman unless the recipients of two-thirds of Sunday letters in any particular district petitioned for a Sunday delivery that delivery would not take place. He, however, trusted that the hon. Member and the House would proceed carefully and warily in this matter; and, for his own part, he preferred the proposal contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Devon, to refer the whole subject to a Select Committee of that House, to that contained in the original Motion, which, if adopted, would probably have the effect of substituting throughout the length and breadth of the land a window delivery of letters on Sunday instead of delivery by letter carrier, irrespective of the requirements of any particular district. He held in his hands statistics which had been prepared at the instance of the late Mr. Fawcett showing the manner in which people utilized the system of window delivery in the large towns in Scotland, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and in Belfast. In Edinburgh and Glasgow the window post was but little used. In Aberdeen, however, on one Sunday 983 persons called for letters, 364 of whom had their walk for nothing, and the remaining 619 received 2,427 letters; 26 officials wore employed on this task, just the number that it would have taken to make a letter delivery. Upon another Sunday, the statistics for the 10 large towns in Scotland were 3,175 persons who called for letters, 960 went empty away; the number of officials engaged in serving these persons was 283, and it would have taken 530 to perform a regular delivery. So that though the amount of Sunday official work was thus diminished, it was at the expense of considerable Sunday work on the part of the public. It certainly would, in view of these figures, appear to be a doubtful advantage to institute the system of window delivery throughout the whole kingdom, and the choice appeared to be between the present system of Sunday delivery and the suspension of all Sunday delivery. This is a very grave question, and one that could not be settled off-hand in a debate

  1295
  in that House. Therefore, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Devon was calculated to relieve the House of a great difficulty. On the main point, he completely agreed with the hon. Member's sentiments regarding this question. The desire of the Post Office was to minimize, as far as possible, the labour of its servants provided it could be done without undue inconvenience to the public. When, in 1850, the late Lord Shaftesbury carried his famous Resolution in a small House, the result was that after a few weeks the old system of Sunday delivery had to be revived. For the dignity of this House and the efficiency of the department, and especially out of consideration for the officers of the Post Office, it was highly undesirable that such a thing should occur again. It would be very hard on the officers if in one week Parliament adopted a Resolution leading them to suppose that Sunday work would be discontinued, and a few weeks afterwards reimposed that burden. It was far better to proceed carefully and after due inquiry. A great number of Petitions had been presented to this House in favour of the abolition of Sunday delivery; but one could not gauge the strength of a popular movement by the number of Petitions presented. Some did not exactly know what they were signing, and he had received a Petition from the Town Commissioners of Belturbet against the Motion, in which it was stated that several Commissioners who had signed the Petition in favour of the Motion had done so by mistake. It was 15 years since an inquiry was held into this subject, and the time, he thought, had come when a further inquiry might advantageously be made. He had endeavoured to deal with this subject without touching on the religious and social aspects of the matter, though he could assure hon. Gentlemen that he was not at all indifferent to these points, and he was most anxious that the inquiry should be as careful, thorough, and complete as it was possible to make it, so that the Post Office might be able to base upon it such a satisfactory adjustment as would be both for the public convenience and for the benefit of the officials concerned.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would do away with all Sunday labour wherever it was possible,
  1296
  and compel those who imposed Sunday labour upon others to pay heavily for it. That had been found by the trade unions most efficacious in cutting down Sunday labour. He hoped that the Telegraph Department would be included within the scope of the inquiry.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he understood the words "Post Office" in the Amendment to include the Telegraph Department.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked whether there would be any reduction in the wages of the employés if the amount of their work should be reduced.
  MR. RAIKES, in reply, said, that that was a question with reference to which it would be desirable to await the advice of the Committee. But he would point out that if no reduction should be made in the wages of those whose labour was reduced, it would follow as a logical consequence that additional payment must be made to those who should continue to work on Sundays.
  MR. JOHNSTONsaid, he was in full sympathy with the proposal, and hoped that the Committee would set to work with an earnest desire to arrive at a conclusion that would tend to the advantage of those whose ease they were to consider. A severe strain was put on a body of hard-working men by the present system, therefore he sincerely trusted the Committee would be able to recommend measures of relief.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, he did not support the Motion at all from a religious or Sabbatarian point of view, but upon the ground that men could not retain either their physical or mental health without a weekly day of rest, which many of the postmen never had. He thought that the Committee ought not to put the religious aspect of the matter altogether out of view. It was a serious thing that some 30,000 men in one of the public Departments of the country should be kept at work Sunday after Sunday, and so prevented from attending a place of worship. The difficulty might be met by such of the public who desired their letters on Sunday being allowed to have them upon sending for them.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he would suggest that the Committee should be instructed to report how the Sunday labour of the ser-

  1297
  vants of the Post Office might best be reduced. If the Amendment were carried in its present form it might not have an operative result. If it should be resolved to lighten the labours of postmasters and letter carriers on Sunday by relieving them of part of their duties it would be necessary to appoint substitutes and pay for their services. And it was right that the House should bear in mind that it was not merely letter carriers who had a claim to consideration—postmasters were very much tied to their posts, and if they were to be relieved—as they ought to be—on Sundays, some other persons must be employed to take their places. He suggested that the Secretary to the Treasury might well consent to unloose the purse-strings a little. When the Post Office was first established it was not thought that it would ever be a contributor to the public revenue. Contrary to expectation, however, it had become a large contributor; and, consequently, the Treasury need not grudge a small expenditure for the purpose of effecting a beneficent change in the interests of the servants in the Post Office. He hoped that if the House agreed to the Amendment, it would be on the distinct understanding that the Select Committee should be a reporting and not a mere shelving Committee.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, he thought there was a great deal of nonsense talked about Sabbatarianism in this country. At the time that they were making these efforts to reduce the Sunday labour of postmen, efforts were being made to permit boating on the lakes in the parks on Sunday. They should bear in mind that Sunday was the only day when many working men were able to attend to their correspondence, and care must be taken that the Post Office was not entirely closed to them on that day. He could assure the Government that if they seriously intended to interfere with the convenience of the public in Ireland in regard to the postal service on Sundays there would be a bigger fight than had been made to-night on the Motion now under consideration.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  1298
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the whole question of Sunday labour, in connection with the Post Office, outside the Metropolitan district.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MARK STEWART, who had given Notice to move—
  "That, in the present depressed state of the Agricultural interest, it is expedient to secure further Government support in aid of higher Agricultural -Education by carrying out successive experiments in different parts of the Country in cereals, grasses, dairying, contagious diseases of animals, and the production of meat, in order to ascertain on what points the British Agriculturist can most successfully compete with the Foreign producer,"
  said, if they left London and went North, South, East, or West, they would find the same story—landlords not getting their rents, and having to shut up their houses and lease them in order to economize; tenants, if not bankrupt, on the verge of bankruptcy, quite unable to meet the demands made upon them, and living, as it were, from hand to mouth; agricultural labourers, who, no longer able to get an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, were leaving their country homes and flocking into the largo towns; and tradesmen and shopkeepers, especially the small shopkeepers, were in worse straits than they had ever Previously been in. All that pointed to the fact that there was very serious depression, and that, if possible, some remedy ought to be found for it. Although he did not profess to give a conclusive remedy, yet he thought he should be able to suggest, before he sat down, several points which, he hoped, the Government would consider and act upon. It had become practically impossible to cultivate cereals at a remunerative price; and they found, from the Returns presented to the House, that the average price of wheat for the last year was 31s. a-quarter, the average price of barley was 26 s. 7d., and the average price of oats 19 s. Under such circumstances, it was absolutely impossible, rent or no rent, to cultivate cereals; and, unless a remedy were provided, the cultivation of cereals must go out altogether. That alone was a matter calling for very grave consideration. The land, in many places, had been stimulated by artificial manures, and was now suffering from the results of

  1299
  that enervating process. The cultivation of grasses was now attracting more attention than it had formerly done; but education was slow, because the experiments were few. What was wanted, and what he would like to see, were experiments conducted on a larger scale, with perhaps more scientific knowledge, in order that the country might see how to bring good for the future of agriculture out of the present evil. In the matter of dairying, we got our best instruction from America and Denmark, and anyone desiring to learn the best manner of following out that business must go to those countries. There was something wrong in that. Up to the present time, owing to the enterprise and vigilance of the British tenant farmer, we had been able to cope with our foreign competitors; but, now that those countries bad the assistance of technical schools, there was danger of their outstripping us in the race, and the present seemed a fitting opportunity to lay down some definite basis on which they could give great assistance to those who were being instructed and those who were anxious to impart instruction to others. In that business the breed of cattle had to be very carefully considered.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eleven o'clock.

MINUITES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) (63).
Committee—Report—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment* (51); Isle of Man (Customs) * (56).
Third Reading—Army (Annual)* (55), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Limerick Water) * (42).

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
(NO. 63.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the primary object of the measure was to effect arrangements which would render it unnecessary to fill up the vacancy in the Irish Court of Common Pleas caused by the elevation of Chief Justice Morris. The Bill would abolish the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Division, and substitute a Puisne Judge for the Chief Justice. It provided, in similar manner, that when a vacancy should occur in the office of Chief Baron of the Exchequer, that office should also be abolished, and that a Puisne Judge should be substituted in place of the Chief Baron. The two Divisions would be merged in the Queen's Bench Division; the merger operating immediately in the case of the Court of Common Pleas, and in the case of the Exchequer on the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of Chief Baron. Two or three years ago Mr. Childers had introduced in "another place" a measure for the re-adjustment of judicial offices in Ireland. That measure had a larger scope than the present one, and it was the intention of the Government to legislate upon its lines when a fitting opportunity should present itself. In the meanwhile, he would ask the House to read the present Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
LORD DENMAN, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that if it were passed, it would have results analogous to those effected in this country by the Judicature Act, which, he affirmed, had not been a success. As the result of the abolition of the old Courts great confusion had been introduced into the cause lists, and, in consequence, suitors in England never knew what their exact position was. He feared that similar inconvenience would be caused in Ireland by the abolition of the old distinctions between the Courts. It would also interfere with the dispensation of patronage. The present system had worked well; and he felt it to be his duty to oppose the Bill, and to point out evils which would follow from its passing into law. At all events, such a measure ought not to be passed until the office of Chief Baron became vacant.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he would suggest that the Committee stage should not be taken before Friday. The measure, which went much further than was originally intended, and provided for the assimilation of the judicature of Ireland—and created a large Queen's Bench Division—to that of England, was right in principle, and he hoped his noble Friend (Lord Denman) would not persevere with his Amendment.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he thought that this question of law reform in Ireland was a very important one. It was a field in which Her Majesty's Government might do very large and useful work. As far as he understood the Bill, it met with his entire approval; for it really put the Law Divisions in Ireland in the same position in which they were now placed in this country. He should have been glad if the measure had gone rather further in the direction of the Bill introduced in 1885 in the House of Commons by one of his Colleagues, and he thought that in Committee the Government could with advantage consent to its amendment. However, he accepted the assurance of his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, that Her Majesty's Government were not

1241
disposed to oppose proposals to carry law reform in Ireland still further.
LORD DENMANsaid, he objected to the abolition of these offices in England, and still retained his opinions. He, however, would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

IRISH LAND LAW BILL.

  QUESTION.
  EARL SPENCERasked, Whether the rumour that the Government would propose the second reading of this important Bill on Thursday next had any foundation? There seemed to be some doubt about it.
  THE LORD PEIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN), in reply, said, that it was his intention to move the second reading of the Bill upon Thursday next.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that as the second reading of the Irish Land Bill stood first for Thursday, the Railway Traffic Bill could not come on at a convenient hour on the same night, and he would ask his noble Friend in charge of the Bill to fix it for a time when it could be fairly discussed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON)said, that it had been his intention to take the Report of Amendments stage of this Bill upon Thursday next; but as the second reading of the Irish Land Law Bill would be taken upon that evening, he would postpone the Report upon this Bill until Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.