said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If any money has been paid to Captain Coles for his claim for the invention of the Cupola Iron Tower for ships?

replied, that as yet no sum of money had been paid to Captain Coles on account of his invention of the cupola shields; but it was intended to grant to him, on consideration of his giving up to Her Majesty's Government the sole use of his patent, both with respect to the Admiralty and also with respect to the War Office, a sum of £5,000; and further, that during the continuance of his patent, he should receive £100 for every shield or cupola which was made for the use of the public service, whether by the Admiralty or by the War Department.

said, it was not his intention to move the second reading of this Bill, but, on the contrary, to move that the order be discharged. He wished shortly to state his reasons for taking that course. He certainly should not have been deterred from proceeding with the Bill by the criticisms that had been made in Scotland on the subject; for although there were many objections urged against the Bill, yet they were of a nature so much connected with its details, and were in themselves so inconsistent, that they rather confirmed him in his impression that the provisions of the Bill were fair to the country in general, and did not lean improperly on any section of the community. That the Bill made extensive changes was true; and it was true that several sections of the community, the Established Church and the Free Church, were in turn affected by it. But that effect would have been, he thought, for the public benefit. Even the composition, of the Commission that was to carry the Bill into operation had been made a ground of opposition to it. It was said that the Commission was composed of persons who were otherwise occupied. He wondered that objection was never raised to the University Commissions of 1826 and 1858 which consisted almost wholly of Gentlemen with a large practice at the bar or of Cabinet Ministers, and hardly at all of persons who could be supposed to have much leisure. He thought he should have been entirely wrong if he had not followed the same course. The country would not have been satisfied if the important interests involved had been intrusted to men not already in possession of marked public confidence by being in positions of responsibility. But, looking at the difficulties of the question, and the differences of opinion in Scotland upon it, he had thought it right, before proceeding to the discussion of the Bill that evening, to ascertain the opinion of the representatives of Scotland. He found, though there was a general feeling in favour of the measure, that there were difficulties in some quarters not easy to surmount. He thought it undesirable that he should place his hon. Friends in a position of difficulty unless he saw a reasonable prospect of success. Finding that such, a prospect could not be reasonably entertained, it would not be right, either to the House or to his hon. Friends, to enter into a discussion of something of a party character without any real practical advantage. He could have wished that he had been allowed to read the Bill a second time, in order that he might have been enabled to reprint it with amendments which had been suggested by the discussions, that had taken place, but he found that course was objected to by hon. Members opposite. Therefore, he should give notice that he would move for leave to introduce a Bill with a similar title, for no other purpose than merely to show to the country the shape in which it was intended ultimately the Bill should have been presented. The proposal of the noble Lord (Lord H. Scott) for a previous inquiry into the question was not a new one; and in the course of the summer the Government would consider whether any course of that kind could be adopted. It was thought by many friends of education in Scotland that the present opportunity might never recur of placing the whole system on a proper footing. But if an inquiry were instituted into the state of education, it would embarrass the whole question. There were many parts of the system this measure was not intended to touch; but it would be impossible to except any part of it from the inquiry. He very much regretted the course which his duty to the House compelled him to take, but he was induced, for the reasons which he had stated, to move that the order be discharged.

said, he had given notice of a Resolution, as an Amendment, to the effect that legislation was inexpedient until the House was in possession of more accurate information on the subject of education in Scotland. He could not, therefore, but express his gratification at the course pursued by the learned Lord Advocate, which he thought would give satisfaction throughout Scotland, as the objections to the Bill were general in that part of the kingdom. It was condemned by the General Assembly, and by a Committee appointed to consider it. Only one county had petitioned in its favour, fourteen counties had petitioned against it, and the remainder wished a full inquiry. No one would more readily acquiesce in a complete investigation than himself; and if the Bill had been perse- vered with, he would have been prepared with statistics in support of the Amendment.

said, he was quite sure that the public of Scotland would be much disappointed when they found that the Bill was withdrawn. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was against every liberal measure. When it was proposed to repeal the university tests they unanimously petitioned against it, and they were only acting in character when they opposed the Bill before the House.

said, he did not think it expedient to enter into a discussion upon education at that time, but he rose to express his opinion that the Lord Advocate had taken the wisest and best course in withdrawing this Bill. He was sure, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would only propose a measure to extend the parochial system, it would meet with support from both sides of the House.

said, he rose to order. He had always understood that when a Motion was made to discharge the order on a Bill a debate could not be raised upon it.

said, it was inconvenient that any lengthened debate should arise in such a case, but he would remind the hon. Member that there was a question before the House.

said, he could assure his right hon. Friend that the friends of the parochial system in Scot land courted every inquiry, and believed that the more it was inquired into the better it would be for them.

observed, that there were a number of provisions in the Bill of which he could not approve. He would not, however, oppose the Motion, although he thought that the measure had not received the amount of discussion which its importance to the ratepayers required.

observed, that there were several points in the measure which ought to be considered before they went into Committee, and dealt with it in detail. He hoped he should be able to suggest some amendments in its provisions, which, if adopted, would render it much more palatable to the ratepayers of the country. The Bill proposed to place the management of the roads exactly under the same system as that of the Poor Law. Now, though it must be generally admitted that the Poor Law of this country was administered in an admirable manner, he thought it was exceedingly doubtful that the application of the same administration to the public roads would be equally advantageous. In the first place, the expense of such an administration would be exceedingly great, and out of all proportion to the amount of the funds absolutely necessary for the repair of the roads. The sum expended on the roads was not one-third as much as was required under the Poor Law. He would take for example the county of Northampton, which was rather a small one. He did not think it was possible to put the system proposed by the Bill in operation in that county, under an extra expense of £3,000 a year. The present outlay on the roads was £32,000 a year; so that the expense of management would be nearly 10 per cent on the whole sum required for the roads. There would be at least as many districts for road as for Poor Law purposes. As there were seventeen Unions in Northamptonshire, there would therefore require to be seventeen districts of roads, each of which would include, on the average, about 200 miles of roads. There would, of course, have to be a surveyor for each district, and, on the lowest estimate, his salary would be £80 a year, and £40 for the keep of a horse. For surveyors alone there would therefore be an annual charge of £2,040. A number of clerks, a treasurer, a place of meeting, &c, would also be necessary, and would cost £50 a year for each district, or £850 for the whole. The total expenditure on account of the working of the measure would ! therefore be £2,890 a year; and yet it was very doubtful whether the roads would be better managed under the new system than at present. Farmers were interested in taking care of the poor, who were their labourers, but they cared little about the public roads. If farmers, as individuals, cared little about the roads, why should it be supposed that farmers, when constituted a body for the management of roads, should take much care about them? He was glad to perceive that a wise alteration had been made in the Bill—namely, that which declared that the local magistrates should ex officio be entitled to seats at those boards. He, however, protested against the power of voting those expenses being lodged in the Court of Quarter Sessions without the ratepayers having the least power over them one way or another. The Court of Quarter Sessions was aristocratically constituted; it did not contain a single representative of the taxpayers. To avoid that objection he should move an Amendment in one of the early clauses of the Bill, providing that no district should be formed until the consent of a majority of the boards of guardians had been signified in writing. He admitted that the guardians as guardians of the poor had not much to do with the roads; but, as they were the only representative bodies which existed in the counties, he thought that in them might properly be reposed the power of preventing the formation of these districts. At the same time, he should not, if it was thought more desirable, object to repose that power in the vestries. In conclusion, he doubted whether the Bill would produce any results adequate to the expense which it would entail upon counties, and he should much prefer a Bill which would make it necessary for each county to appoint one or two surveyors, whoso duties should be to inspect the roads, not to repair them, and to make their complaints of the acting overseers, as complaints are now made, to the justices in petty sessions. The salaries of these surveyors would not amount to more than a tenth of the expenses which would be caused by the system contained in the Bill now before the House.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Nottingham-shire (Mr. Barrow), that the Bill had been allowed to arrive at its present stage with but a small amount of discussion, considering the large interests involved. He was bound to say that he had heard from that part of the country to which he belonged opinions expressed of a diametrically opposite character regarding the merits of this Bill. In many cases the measure was viewed as a positive evil, whilst other persons declared that it was one which was much required. Now, that fact alone showed the difficulty of dealing with the subject. His two objections to the Bill were these: he thought that it had too much of a centralizing character, and that it trenched too much upon the control ex- ercised by the ratepayers. It appeared to him that those were two important points, which ought to be closely considered. No opportunity, however, had been given to the House of dealing with them in a regular debate. There were, however, on the paper certain amendments bearing upon the subject, which he trusted would meet with the approbation of the House.

said, as there was a general wish that the Bill should pass, he did not wish to oppose any obstacles; but if it were to be a permissive Bill, he should prefer to the Amendment of which the noble Lord had given notice one which he had himself placed upon the paper, providing that the final order for the formation of a district should not be made if within forty days after the issuing of the provisional order, the vestries of a majority of the parishes proposed to be formed into such district should object to its formation.

said, he had received a great many communications from his constituents, which showed that their objections to the Bill were strong, he believed almost universal, and entertained by persons of political opinions as various as those represented by the noble Lord the Member for Northampton (Lord Henley). The House would, perhaps, permit him, in his character of a representative, to lay before them the feeling of the county of Warwick in reference to this measure, so far as he was informed of them. His constituents felt that there was little need of any interference in the matter of highways. Nevertheless, if the House were of opinion that some legislative interference should take place, and that in some parts of the country the public roads were neglected, it was their conviction that all that was needed was the appointment of some officer who should have power to enforce the duty of repairing the roads incumbent on the parish. The law provided amply for the process by indictment. It further provided the means by which a combination of parishes in a particular district were enabled to improve the roads. The existing law, therefore, provided the requisite machinery for the improvement of the public highways. All that was needed was an additional motive power. Now, whether they considered the state of the roads or any nuisances which needed remedy in towns or districts, what did they find? Why, they found universally existing shyness on the part of individuals to put the law in force. That was the origin of the whole machinery of the quondam Board of Health. There was a law regarding nuisances, which, if put in operation, would have been quite sufficient, but individuals were not found willing to take the initiative in such matters. Consequently, the law became almost a dead letter. So with the question of roads. It was his firm conviction that all that was needed was some such provision as this—that the magistrates in Quarter Sessions, or some other recognised authority in each county, should appoint a surveyor of roads, and that that officer should have a sufficient number of subordinates to take a general survey of the roads; that he should be the recipient of all complaints; that on receipt of such complaints the state of the particular road or roads in question should be investigated; and if the complaints were found correct, it should be the duty of the officer to institute an indictment. By that means they would not disturb the existing parochial organization. The Bill made the magistrates accusers and judges of the matter, then administrators, and then judges again. That was a highly objectionable feature of the measure. By adopting his suggestion such a confusion of authority would be altogether avoided. Entertaining a strong opinion upon the matter, and finding himself supported by his constituents, he felt it to be his duty to urge that opinion upon the consideration of the House. His constituents thought the law was quite sufficient regarding the repair of the roads. They desired that it be left to the parishes themselves to find out what was the best course to take to effect that object; by the appointment of the officer he alluded to they would ensure the work being done effectually. He confessed he viewed with great alarm the centralizing system that would be established by the Bill. He believed it was the general feeling of the country, that if it were possible to avoid interference by the Secretary of State in matters of local government, it would be better to do so. It had been said that the Secretary of State would only interfere as a mediator. He believed that such interference was rendered necessary only by the confusion which the Bill itself produced; for what other reason for such interference could there be than to prevent the representative bodies quarrelling with the magistracy, or the magistracy quarrelling with the representative bodies? He believed that every- thing connected with the improvement of the roads could be accomplished by simply appointing an officer to put the present law in force, which law, when so enforced, would be amply sufficient to ensure all due facilities of transit.

said, if the hon. Gentleman looked to the 36th clause he would see that no magistrate was to act on a bench with regard to any matters in which he might have been concerned as a member of a highway board. The judicial and administrative functions were not conjoined; but, on the contrary, they were carefully kept distinct. Again, so far from the Bill promoting centralization, it appeared to him to be rather a Bill for increasing the powers of local self-government. At present the roads in a particular district were under the management of a surveyor, who was simply a ministerial officer, and the control over him was vested in the magistrates; while under the Bill the control was to be given to a board elected by the ratepayers of the district. In fact, it was a Bill to constitute, so far as roads were concerned, a local parliament; it gave increased powers to local bodies. The hon. Gentleman also said the law was quite perfect, and all that was wanted was to put it in force. Well, that was just the point where the present law broke down. Nobody did put it in force. As in other cases, what was everybody's business was nobody's. Doubtless, any patriotic individual might put the law into operation; but what would he have to do? He must summon the surveyor of highways. First of all he would have to go to the magistrates to get the summons; next he must go to their clerk; next he would have to appear on the day when the summons was made returnable; then the magistrates would go and view the road, or appoint some one to view it for them. Meanwhile the surveyor might have taken some steps to put the road into decent order; and then the complaining party, having given his time, would, perhaps, lose the costs also. As to indicting the parish, that was a most expensive business. Doubtless there existed a remedy, but the machinery for putting it in force was most difficult. What the Bill proposed was the substitution of machinery of a simple kind, by forming a board consisting of representatives elected by the ratepayers of different parishes, and giving each parish an interest in making the surveyor do his duty. So far, then, from the Bill being one to do away with local government or add to the existing expense, its purport was to effect the object by an easier and a cheaper method.

said, he rose to thank the Government for having introduced the Bill, as he could state several instances which had come under his personal observation to show that the present system was very inadequate and most unsatisfactory. Although justices had power to unite parishes when invited to do so, it rarely happened that such invitations were addressed to them. In a particular area, with which he was familiar, there were six separate vestries, surveyors, and ratings, and the cost of maintaining twenty-eight miles of road exceeded £36 a mile. In another parish quite close to it, of about equal extent, there was one united administration, and the roads were kept in as good, if not better, order for £12 a mile.

said, that his chief objection to the Bill was the additional districts it would create, which would necessitate a separate staff and additional machinery. No doubt an enlarged area was required, because the conflicting jurisdiction of small parishes prevented a uniform system of roads. He thought the administration of the high ways might be advantageously intrusted to boards of guardians, whose duties in many cases were very light. The main object to be secured was not great lines of road running parallel to the railways, but good serviceable roads leading from railway stations to the great centres of population. He did not see why the expense of maintaining the road should not come out of the poor rates.

said, he had not understood the hon. Member for Nottingham to conclude with any Motion; he believed the debate, as far as it had proceeded, was intended merely as a preliminary discussion. In answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, he felt bound to remind the House that, after full consideration, the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by a large majority, that the substance of the measure had been more than once before the House and before Select Committees, and that really very little that was novel could now be said either for or against the Bill. The objection to it on the ground of centralization was revived, and its machinery had been compared to that of the Poor Law. But although District Boards were to be elected on the same principle as boards of guardians, there was this distinction between them, that under the Poor Law system there was a general Board meeting in London, and exercising supervision over all the others. As regarded highways, there would be no such central Board. The intervention of the Secretary of State had been referred to, but it was only to be exercised by way of ultimate appeal, and for the sake of greater security against the effects of hasty decisions which the magistrates might adopt. The Home Office, moreover, was the ordinary channel through which accounts were obtained and furnished to Parliament, but there would be no interference by the Secretary of State of his own motion, and the local management would be left untouched, except that it would cease to be parochial. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) had remarked upon the great change which railways had brought about, and upon the necessity of keeping in repair the country roads which formed the communication between railway stations. Now, surely that was not a matter to leave to parishes. In the North of England a parish might consist of many townships, each of which for the purpose of road repairing constituted a parish in itself. Some science and skill were necessary in constructing and repairing roads, and these were not generally possessed by the parish surveyors. An hon. Member had observed that opinions in reference to this Bill were conflicting; that from some parts of the country he received statements that it was necessary, and from others statements that it was not required. Well, in places where the former opinion was entertained no doubt the magistrates would bring the provisions of the measure into operation, and in places where a contrary impression prevailed that impression could be acted on. The Bill was not a compulsory one. At first it was his opinion that it ought to be a compulsory measure; but he had yielded in order to meet some of the objections urged against the scheme. With regard to the question of expense, he apprehended that in the end the Bill would tend to diminish greatly the cost of maintaining roads As the principle of the Bill had been affirmed repeatedly in that House, he hoped any further discussion on its provisions would be taken in Committee.

said, there was so much conflict of opinion on the subject, that he did not believe the Government or the House of Commons would succeed in passing any Highway Bill which would be satisfactory to the counties. Though not an ardent admirer of the Bill, there were many parts of it which met his approval; and he trusted "it would go through Committee and then be submitted to the country, where its merits and defects would have fair trial at the hands alike of the magistrates and the ratepayers.

said, the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) had stated that the roads were generally bad, and yet that no one could be found to complain of them; but, surely, if the roads were in such a wretched condition throughout the kingdom as to jeopardize people's necks, the community would rise to a man to take advantage of the existing law, which, it was said, provided an ample remedy. He held it to be unreasonable and unjust to require any class of people to pay others for performing a duty which they themselves were able and willing to perform. Look to the position of the farmers. They had teams and servants; many of them had conveniently situated stone-pits or gravel-pits; and they were ready and willing to perform the repairs which the roads in their localities required. Under the Bill, however, they would be called on to appear at the board sitting in a remote town, where those local advantages would be lost sight of. Again, in villages there would always be found poor men who, although not able-bodied, might be advantageously employed in breaking stones, repairing the roads, and generally keeping them in order. The Bill would have the effect of depriving them of that employment. Again, the village bricklayer and carpenter were occasionally employed in doing slight repairs to bridges, or in repairing or erecting posts and rails. That occasional employment they would lose under the operation of the Bill; and if they were thus broken up for want of sufficient employment, what would persons in the country do for the intelligent bricklayer and carpenter who repaired their dwellings, their barns and stables, and their farming implements? He should go into the lobby with the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire if he divided the House.

said, he had no wish to prejudge the Bill; but he thought the argument of the right hon. Baronet, that the measure did not tend to centralization, a somewhat extraordinary one. He thought that something in the nature of a Poor Law authority would be desirable in a measure of this kind. Magistrates, being land-owners, were too much disposed to shut up footpaths and bridle-roads. He should not oppose the Committee, but hoped that the Bill would be considerably modified.

Do I understand that the hon. Member for South Nottingham-shire intended to make a Motion?

No, Sir.

said, he would propose an Amendment, the object of which was to introduce the principle of representation before taxation, and providing that the consent of the majority of the boards of guardians of the said county should be first signified in writing.

pointed out that it would be very inconvenient to require the consent of the boards of guardians of the whole county, whereas these applications might be made in respect of particular portions of the county only.

remarked that the clause gave power to the magistrates at Quarter Sessions and no power to the ratepayers. It would deprive parishes of any sort of representation, and would be a compulsory Bill so far as the landowners and ratepayers were concerned. He did not think the state of the roads required any such interference.

said, the observation of his hon. Friend commended the Bill to his approval, for he objected to permissive legislation altogether. He hoped the Committee would steer of mixing up boards of guardians with districts. Boards of guardians had enough to do in carrying on the business intrusted to them, and ought not to have fresh administrations placed in their hands. How his hon. Friend could stand up and intimate that the roads in his part of the country did not require supervision and improvement was surprising. He had recently an opportunity of seeing some of those roads, and never had he met with any carried on in a manner so utterly subversive of all principle of effecting good, and confirming every notion that could be enter- tained of money thrown away. Some of the materials used were neither stone nor metal, but simply broken drain tiles, which were so placed that neither man nor horse could get on without suffering.

said, he believed the roads in his district to be as good as the roads in any part of England. There was not one over which a light four-wheeled carriage could not be driven without danger. In Newark, and some by-lanes in Lincolnshire, perhaps, there might be some such roads as his hon. Friend had described; but he (Mr. Barrow) had never seen any roads made of broken tiles.

said, in his district of Sussex the board of guardians had very little to do. That representation and taxation should go together they were all agreed; and if it was not advisable to mix up the boards of guardians, the power of assenting to the formation of districts might be given to the majority of the parish vestries. He believed the Bill, as at present framed, would not work. It might be necessary in the north of England, but in other parts of the country the law was sufficient as it stood.

said, he could not support the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Northampton. Some of the guardians of a Poor Law union might belong to another county, and might in that case he called on to deal with a matter in which they had no concern. To the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. S. Booth) he was prepared to assent. The parishes concerned ought to have a voice in the question. If the majority of parishes objected to the formation of a district, the process ought to stop, though one parish ought not to stop the formation of a district. He should be best contented to have no Bill at all. The roads of the country were gradually improving under the present law. The efficiency of the Bill would all depend on whether they got good or bad surveyors.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the principle for which he contended would be carried out by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire.

said, he would then move the following addition to the clause:—

"Provided always that no such final order shall be made, and all powers of the justices in that behalf shall cease and determine in cases where a majority of the parishes proposed, under any provisional order, to be united in any Highway district, shall, by their vestries specially summoned for that purpose, object thereto, and signify such objection before the time for making such final order, by petition addressed to the Court of Quarter Sessions."

said, he thought, that if they allowed the parishes to have much voice in. the matter, there would be hardly any use in passing the Bill. Seeing how wisely the Poor Law Commissioners had exercised the powers intrusted to them, there was no reason why the magistrates, who were usually the largest ratepayers, should not be intrusted with these powers as to the roads.

said, he thought that the Amendment would very much impair the efficiency of the Bill. If there were ten parishes in the district, each parish would have an equal voice, but one parish might have a population of 20,000, and another a population of only 500—one parish might have twenty miles of road, and another not half a mile. Being unequal in extent, population, and length of roads, the minority in interest might overrule the wishes of the real majority, simply because they were more numerous.

observed, that the parishes proposed to be included in a union must take action, and acreage gene rally bore a proportion to mileage. The Amendment appeared to be a valuable one, and he trusted the Committee would assent to it.

said, he cordially approved the Amendment. It did not require the consent of a majority of parishes to be asked. It only gave power to a majority of parishes to object.

said, there was an argument from precedent which seemed to him material. Under the existing law, six counties in South Wales were subject to a system very similar to that which it was now proposed to introduce into the rest of the country. They were divided into districts for highway purposes. The districts were formed of parishes or townships. The county road boards were called upon to divide each county into districts, and there was no option, and no appeal to the vestries or inhabitants. Being an inhabitant of one of those counties, he could state that the Act had given general satisfaction, and had tended to improve the highways without increasing the expense. By the 3rd section of the Bill, "parish" meant any place maintain- ing its own roads, so that a district might be formed of one or two large parishes, and might also contain several townships. According to the Amendment, a majority might consist of small townships, and they would be able to overpower the larger, more populous, and more wealthy parishes which composed the numerical minority. He hoped the clause would be maintained, as it was his opinion that the Amendment would materially impair the efficiency of the Bill, if not altogether destroy it.

said, he wished to ask how the county road boards in Wales were elected.

said, they were composed principally of magistrates. There were few elected members. He was not speaking, however, of the constitution of the county boards, but of the compulsory power to form districts without reference to the opinion of the vestries.

said, the distinction was manifest. The Welsh Bill was a compulsory Bill, and the boards had simply to divide the counties into districts. The Bill before them was a permissive Bill, and the vestries ought to have a voice as to whether the discretion of the magistrates should be exercised.

said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, looking to the fact that many of these townships had no vestries, he thought the Amendment would work.

said, the language of the Amendment could be easily altered, if necessary, when the Bill was reported; but it put in issue a great principle, whether the ratepayers should have a voice in the question of coming under the operation of the Bill, and he should cordially support it.

said, that the parishes of England did not wish to be placed under martial law in regard to roads, like those in Wales.

said, that whether the principle for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) contended was desirable or not, the Amendment did not assert it. So far from asserting it, it was calculated to mislead. In the part of the country in which he lived, a district would be composed of two or three large parishes and a considerable number of small parishes. His belief was, that the large parishes would generally agree to the new Bill, and the small parishes would object to it. It was in the small parishes that the roads were most neglected, and the surveyors most incompetent. According to the Amendment, the small parishes, with a population of only one-third or one-fourth that of the larger parishes, would overbear the opinion of the larger, wealthier, and more enterprising parishes, where the rate-payers desired to see the roads properly managed. He objected altogether to such a test of public opinion, and should there fore support the clause.

said, he would advise the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to withdraw the Bill if the Amendment were agreed to, because the effect would be to make the measure inoperative.

said, he thought that the arguments against the Bill were futile. He had always found that the ratepayers, where the roads were exceedingly bad, were the least conscious of their defects.

said, there were certain townships in which endowments existed for the maintenance of the roads. It would be manifestly unjust that a town hip of that kind should be united with an adjacent one in which there was no such endowment. He should therefore move, that the last proviso of the clause be omitted.

supported the Amendment.

said, the words proposed to be omitted formed no part of the original Bill, but had been adopted in the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred, by nine to three. Though he had supported the proposition in the Select Committee, he thought great weight was due to the objection of the hon. Gentleman, and that the Bill would be better without the latter part of the proviso.

said, it was only fair that parishes of much greater extent and population should have a larger number of waywardens than other parishes. He begged therefore to move to insert the following words in the second paragraph:— "Regard being had in fixing the number to the amount of population and the acre age of such parish or district maintaining its own highways."

wished to ask, whether the hon. Gentleman meant that if one parish had 1,100 and another 1,000 acres, the former should have two waywardens and the latter only one?

said his object was, that the justices might see that the number of waywardens should be in some measure proportioned to the extent and population of the district.

said, that the population and acreage of the parishes would, as a matter of course, be taken into account in appointing waywardens; but he thought the vagueness of the Amendment would be likely to perplex the justices in fixing the number to be appointed.

said, he should oppose the Amendment, as he did not see what the population of a district had to do with the extent of its roads.

observed that it was the practice under the Poor Law to allow more guardians in populous districts than in parishes of less magnitude.

said, he would admit that under the Poor Law the number of guardians varied, but there were no words in the Poor Law Amendment Act making it imperative upon the Commissioners to be governed by the population or acreage. The hon. Gentleman did not mention property, which was a point that might well be considered by the magistrates. A proportion in accordance with population alone would be an injustice towards small parishes, which would obtain no real representation.

said, he was willing to add the word "property" to his Amendment.

said, that even I then, if the proportion was strictly observed, the small parishes would scarcely get any representation at all. He thought that the Bill was quite sufficient as it stood to effect the object it contemplated.

observed, that the treasurer, clerk, and district surveyor were to be appointed for an indefinite period, subject to removal. The result would be that unless actual fraud were committed, no one would propose the removal of such officers. He thought some stimulus to active exertion should be given by making the appointments for a limited time, subject to re-election. He would move as an amendment that the officers be elected for three years, subject to removal.

said, he thought the experience of the Poor Law Board was against making officers removable after short periods. He doubted whether an insecure tenure of office would be found a stimulus for the proper discharge of its duties. So long as the Board had the power of removal for due cause he could see no harm in electing the officers for an unlimited period.

said, he thought that when officers were removed a notice ought to be given of the intention to appoint fresh officers, in order to prevent even the appearance of a job. He would therefore propose, as an Amendment, that in every case of a fresh appointment a week's notice should be given by publication upon the church doors throughout the district.

said, he agreed that there should be some interval between the removal and the new appointment. He would look into the practice in similar cases under the Poor Law, with a view to consider whether a similar provision could not be introduced into the Bill before the Committee, and would communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

said, he wished to move as an Amendment, the addition of the following words:—

"Provided that before the Treasurer enters upon the duties of his office, the Board shall take sufficient security from him for the due performance of the duties of his office."

inquired whether in cases where banks were the treasurers, security would be required?

said, that under the Poor Law banks were sometimes treasurers, but the requirement of security was the rule.

suggested the insertion in the Amendment of the words "not being a banking firm" before the word "treasurer."

said, he thought the treasurers should give some security.

was of opinion that the words "not being a banking firm." should be inserted.

said, that under the Poor Law Acts it was the practice that a member of a banking firm might be treasurer, but not the firm; and that it was the invariable practice to require good security, and not to give any salary.

said, he could not see the least reason why good security should not be given on behalf of the ratepayers.

said, he wished to simplify the proceedings in cases where roads were out of repair. He thought there should be only one summons instead of two, and that the justices should be allowed, if they chose, to hear and determine the case when it first came before them. He moved an Amendment to that effect.

said, the clause as framed was carefully considered by the Committee, who were of opinion that every precaution should be taken against a hasty decision which would affect the liability of the parish.

said, he would suggest that the average of the expenditure during the last three preceding years, instead of the last year only, should be the basis of the calculations as to the proportion which each parish should contribute to the district fund. He moved an Amendment accordingly.

complained that the clause contained a most extraordinary power over the occupiers of land. In point of fact the Bill gave the board of way-wardens power to tax the parish to the extent of 2s. 6d. in the pound, or about six times what the farmer paid for income tax, without the parish having a voice in the matter. In his part of the country, with very good roads, the average payment was 6d. in the pound. By the old Act the parish could not be taxed more than 10d. in the pound without the consent of the vestry. If, as he thought it should be, the tax were thrown in reality on the landlords and not on the tenants, it would render the Bill a little more just in its operation. He would suggest that wherever the rate exceeded 10d. in the pound the tenant should deduct it from the rent.

said, he considered that the point required grave discussion. A tenant took a farm on a calculation of the average rates, and he might, under the Bill, be assessed at three times the amount. The Bill, by suddenly defeating in that way the arrangements under which land had been taken, would inflict great injustice on tenants.

said, the clause fixed the same maximum rate as was leviable under an existing Act. There was no reason to suppose that that maximum would be reached in practice. Indeed, he believed that economy would result from the measure, and that the rates would be lowered. No rate exceeding 10d. in the pound could be imposed without the consent of four-fifths of the ratepayers present at a parish meeting.

said, that the three rates of 10d. each made up the half-crown for the whole year; and he maintained, that if the roads of the country were anything like as bad as they had been described, the economy promised from the measure must prove wholly illusory.

said, he rose to move the addition of a proviso to the clause to meet the case of certain districts in Oxfordshire, called the Beechwood districts, some of which were rated to the highway rates while others were not. By strict law none of them were liable to be so rated, a decision having been given to that effect last century; but in some districts advantage had been taken of the decision, and in others it had not. It would produce a great disturbance if the proprietors of that description of property were not left to go on as they had been accustomed to do; and therefore he had drawn up his proviso. Some of these proprietors said they used the roads and were willing to pay for them. He believed that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire were the only counties in which the circumstances to which he had referred existed. The proviso he begged to move was as follows:—

"Provided that in any parish where, for a period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the passing of this Act, it has been the custom of the surveyor of highways for such parish to levy a highway rate in respect of property not subject by law to be assessed to poor rates, the monies payable in pursuance of the precept of the Highway Board shall not be paid by the overseers, but may be raised and paid by the waywarden of such parish out of a highway rate, to be assessed and levied in manner and in respect of the property in and in respect of which the same would have been assessed and levied if this Act had not passed."

said, he should support the proviso, which would extend to his county (Cornwall), where there were copper and other mines, some of which were assessed to highway rate, while others enjoyed exemption.

said, he thought the terms of the proviso would meet the necessities of the case, and he had no objection to its insertion.

said, he would move to insert words providing that for the space of seven clear days immediately following the day to which they are made up, the accounts shall be open at the office of the clerk, or in some convenient place for the inspection of the ratepayers.

proposed the omission of paragraph 7, thinking it unreasonable to call on farmers to pay for the carting of materials, when they had teams and waggons of their own.

said, that great difficulty was found in inducing farmers to draw stone. It was necessary that the operation should be performed while the roads were dry, and at such times the farmers had work enough of their own for their teams to do.

thought the omission of the clause would lead to much practical inconvenience.

then brought up an additional clause, which he stated had already received the approval of the Committee, but by some mistake had not been printed with the others. The clause was one containing a provision "for the discontinuance of the maintenance of unnecessary highways."

said, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Egerton) he would move the insertion of a clause giving power to Highway Boards to borrow money. There was a general feeling among the ratepayers in favour of the clause.

said, he must object to the clause, which had been rejected by the Select Committee.

said, he thought the clause was necessary, but he would suggest that the Boards should not be empowered to borrow a sum exceeding the gross amount that might be levied in any parish for a period of three years.

said, the insertion of the clause would prevent the adoption of the Bill in many parishes.

said, he was satisfied, that if the waywardens were empowered to borrow, there would be no end to their extravagance, and they would become very unpopular with the ratepayers.

said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause prohibiting the cut ting of turf on the sides of highways.

said, he had no objection to the clause, but it did not come within the scope of the Bill. It was not intended to increase the power of Highway Boards.

said, that if the clause were agreed to, it ought to be made to go further, and prevent horses being turned out and eating the turf.

said, he doubted whether the turf belonged to the highways at all.

proposed the following Amendment:—In p. 24, line 26, to leave out from "due" to "and" inline 27. Line 28, after "thereof" to insert "or of a release of freight from the shipowner." He said there were three parties in the transaction—the shipowner, the owner of the goods, and the wharfowner. The shipowner kept a stop on the goods till the owner paid the freight. He then gave the owner a receipt, which he kept. He also gave him a release, which he delivered to the wharfowner, and thus got his goods. The document given to the wharfowner was not the copy of the release, but the release itself. This Amendment was simply to make the clause consistent with the usual practice.

assented to the Amendment.

proposed the following Amendment:—In p. 24, line 32, at end, to insert "without prejudice to any other remedy which the shipowner may have for the recovery of his freight." He said the shipowners had expressed alarm lest there might be collusion between the wharfowner and the owner of the goods, and that they might have as much difficulty in getting the money from the former as the latter. In London the shipowner was protected by the Sufferance Wharves Act, by which he could insist upon the freight being paid into the bank, but these words were desired by the shipowners in the outports.

assented to the addition of the words.

said, the Amendment on Clause 22 would be brought up on the Report.

said, that in the Act of 1853 the words "sea-going ships" were used in reference to the subject-matter of the clause. He did not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should propose to leave out these words, and to make a distinction between steamers and sailing vessels.

said, the object of the Amendment was, that in case of injury to life, or personal injury, the tonnage of a ship which was to regulate the liability in damages, limited by the old Act at a maximum of £15 a ton, should be the gross measured tonnage, and not the registered tonnage in the case of sea-going steamers. In this case, the registered tonnage was estimated after deduction of engine room from the gross tonnage. Unless, therefore, the provision was inserted, it might be possible for a very heavy steamer, having very large engine room and comparatively little stowage, to do great damage, and yet afford very little capital to go against, if she were estimated only at her registered tonnage, that is, her gross tonnage less her engine room. Injury might be inflicted by a ship of little intrinsic value, which yet might be the property of an opulent owner, and it would be unjust that he should escape payment of the penalty.

said, as to the likelihood of fraud to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he did not see how that could be the case, as it was the Government that fixed the registered tonnage, and not the owners. The proposal of the Government appeared to be a complete departure from the basis of the Act of 1853, which provided that the maximum liability in the case of steamers as well as sailing vessels should be £15 per registered ton. In the case of light dues and harbour dues steamers were taken according to their registered tonnage, and he did not see why that should not be done in the case of damage also. If the present proposal were adopted, it would have the effect of throwing impediments in the way of improving the engine-power of vessels. He had been informed that in the case of the Scotia her liability would be raised to £56,000 by the proposed change of the law, whereas at present it was £36,000, which was surely a sufficient liability for any damage that she might inflict. If it was thought proper that there should be a smaller liability in the case of a sailing vessel than a steamer, lot it be on the registered tonnage. At the proper time he should be prepared to move words which would have the effect of making the liability of both classes of vessels depend on the registered tonnage.

observed, that the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded upon the principle that they were increasing liability, which was not the case. By the common law the liability for damage was to be measured by the loss and injury sustained. They ought to be cautious in limiting liability, because it was from incurring liability that persons were cautious, and owners took care to put their vessels in the charge of vigilant and careful persons. With regard to the Scotia, she would be liable, under the present law, to her full value, together with the value of the freight she was earning, and that would be considerably more than £56,000. Therefore the clause before the Committee would limit her liability instead of increasing it. But what would be the effect of adopting the registered tonnage in some cases? If a tugboat were to run down a valuable cargo of silk, ought the liability to extend to only £8 per ton on the registered tonnage? If the tugboat was of seventy tons, her registered tonnage would probably be only twenty tons. If taken on the gross tonnage, her liability would be eight times seventy, or £560. Ought it to be only eight times twenty, or £160, on the tonnage registered? Besides, it should be borne in mind that liability was caused only by culpable neglect, and therefore the Committee should be very cautious in diminishing it. Lord Campbell's Act left shipping, like rail- ways, liable to an unlimited extent; the Merchant Shipping Act confined the liability to the value of the ship and the freight, and now it was proposed that the owners should be liable for a sum estimated on the gross tonnage of their vessels. There might, indeed, be a little increase of liability under the present scheme, as far as the owners of ships were concerned; but that was quite right, because an old ship, or one of small value, might do great damage, and might belong to a wealthy owner or company. Ships of the largest tonnage were those which did the greatest damage, and therefore it was not unreasonable to give ships, as against one another, that amount of claim which depended on the tonnage.

said, he was astonished at the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman argued the question. The case of steam-tugs was exceptional. They were all engine room, and furnished no analogy for the principle when applied to passenger and cargo steam-ships. He simply asked the Committee to adhere to the principle laid down in the Act of 1853. All agreed that a limit of liability should be fixed, and, in his opinion, it was properly determined in the Act to which he referred. There was no connection between railways and steam-vessels in the present instance.

said, the real question for consideration was the mode of ascertaining the value of the ship. The principle hitherto adopted had been that the owner should be responsible to the full value of his ship. The Government did not intend to depart from that principle, but they endeavoured to find some rule by which the value could be ascertained. The measurement on the register was Simply the carrying power of the vessel, and not its actual capacity. In the case of steamers, the more the engine room the less would be the value of the ship according to the system recommended by his hon. and learned Friend. He thought that the true basis on which to proceed was the entire capacity of the ship. The real difficulty, however, was that the shipowner found himself responsible for the lives of his passengers. He took one passenger in the receipt of a large income— say £10,000, and another with £1,000 a year. They all paid the same passage money; but if any accident happened, the shipowner found himself an assurer of the life of each passenger, according to risks of which he had no knowledge. It seemed only reasonable, that if persons thought their lives of such extreme value, they should themselves assure them, and not call upon the shipowner to be the assurer because he happened to be the carrier. The shipowner ought, he con tended, to be at liberty to limit his responsibility for each life on board his vessels.

said, in the case of steamers carrying passengers it might be desirable that some limit should be fixed. But there were many steamers that never carried passengers at all, and it was hard that an absolute limit of £15 per ton should be fixed without allowing for the space for the engines. If a man made arrangements for expensive machinery, and allotted to it a sufficient space for its proper working, the practical effect of the Act would be to fine him for taking such precautions. He thanked the Government for the concessions which they had made in the case of sailing vessels, in reducing the liability from £15 to £8 per ton; but he thought they would do a grievous injustice if they exacted from the shipowner an amount of liability calculated on the gross tonnage of the ship, allowing nothing for the space occupied by the engines and machinery.

said, that he had no objection to the clause on principle, but he objected to its form, because it contained no apportionment of the £15 per ton— that was to say, it did not declare how much was to go where loss of life occurred, and how much where only loss of goods took place. There were no words in the clause which distributed the damage, and therefore the putting it into force would be attended with disputes and difficulties.

said, he agreed with those who thought that great injustice would be inflicted upon owners of steam-ships if the clause were persevered with, and it would also be injurious to the public, because a premium would really be put upon the diminution of engine power on board steamers. The result of an insufficiency of engine power had been proved in the case of the Royal Charter.

urged, that the owners of steam shipping were somewhat hardly dealt with. He should ask the Committee to strike out the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, and revert to the original intention of the Bill. It was proposed originally to have only such a rate of liability as would give something like a fixed value to each ship. It was a fact patent to all that before the rupture of the United States the Americans were becoming the great carriers of emigrants, I even to our own colonies; and within the next three years but little of that passenger traffic would have been left to English shipowners. The reason was that English shipowners were under heavier liabilities for loss or damage than those of any other nation. As to the conveyance of emigrants, the American shipowners were under no restrictions whatever. The clause violated every previous agreement and understanding with regard to steam ships. The measured tonnage differed from the registered tonnage, and in steamships a great portion of the carrying power was taken up by the engine. By his Amendment he simply proposed to give such a distinct definition of the liability as should represent an equal degree of it both for sailing ships and steamers.

said, the clause set up no new liability for shipowners. It should be borne in mind that there was a third party, the general public, whose; interest they were also bound to consider. The liability could only arise in cases of culpable fault on the part of those who actually did the damage; in that case the owners were, in accordance with the general law of the country, liable for the acts of their servants. The Bill did, to a great extent, limit the liability of shipowners. It was a question of degree; many persons objected to any limitation at all. The principle of unlimited liability had been broken in upon, and the Government had now made a further reduction in the amount of it; but, on the whole, he thought they had gone as far as they ought to in justice to the public. By placing the particular amount on the tonnage of the ship they did away with all differences between the liability of a valuable ship and of a ship of comparatively small value, and they also carried out the unanimous recommendation of the Committee.

said, the question was, upon what principle would they make a distinction between steamships and sailing vessels? The proposal of the President of the Board of Trade offered a premium to shipowners to diminish the engine room, and he thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns) the better and more acceptable of the two.

said, that Lord Campbell's Act entailed a statutable liability upon shipowners of which they had no idea at the time, and it was proposed to mitigate it. It was mitigated in 1856, and it was now proposed to carry the mitigation further. All parties agreed that it was reasonable to do so. But the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade was to put an equal value upon all ships per ton, because they did not want bad ships at sea, forgetting that there were different classes of ships. It was clear that the large class of sailing ships and steam-ships had been well looked after, in contradistinction, not to the old and bad, but to the small and valuable ships. Steam-ships were worth more per ton, taking class for class, than sailing ships; but, instead of putting more liability on steam-ships and less on sailing ships, the President of the Board of Trade accommodated matters by a new system of measurement for steamships. There was no principle in what they wore about. Whether rough justice or rough injustice would be done he did not pretend to say, but he rather thought that rough injustice would be done to the humbler class of shipowners—men who owned coasting vessels of from 100 to 200 tons.

said, he concurred in the opinion that a positive premium would be offered to give as little steam power as possible. He also thought that the clause would inflict gross injustice, and he therefore hoped the Committee would support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast.

said, it was admitted that the liability of the shipowners ought to be limited, and it seemed to him a reasonable principle to regulate the liability according to the value of the ship. The difference between sailing ships and steam-vessels was obvious. In the one case the whole space was available for freight, while in the other a considerable portion was occupied by the machinery. It was for the interest of the public that the machinery of steam-vessels should be of adequate power, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had several times stated that the Report of the Committee of 1860 was in favour of the pro- visions in the Bill. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman, and would read the recommendation of the Committee—

"At present the law inflicts a heavier punishment upon the owner of the vessel best adapted to provide (from her superior construction) for the safety of passengers; and the responsibility of the owner actually increases with the increased means he employs for the health, safety, and comfort of those who embark in his vessel. Your Committee are therefore of opinion that an absolute sum of £15 per ton gross register—[that meant registered tonnage without deduction]— should be established as the definite value of the ship, and that all consideration of freight should be excluded."

said, he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman in the construction he had placed upon the Report of the Committee. If the Committee meant the registered tonnage only, they would have said so; but the terms used were the "gross registered tonnage." Why was the word "gross" used, except as embodying a meaning different to that of "net"? Did any one suppose that a steamer was not worth more than £8 a ton on her gross tonnage, though that was the proposed limit of liability? The proposal made in the Bill reduced the liability below the limit fixed by the Committee; but the Amendment would restrict that liability further, and to an extent which was not consistent with the public interest. They were asked to take the registered tonnage of steam-ships, though the engines occupied perhaps half the room, and whilst in the case of sailing ships the liability was £8 a ton upon the whole of the tonnage of the ship.

said, he held that what the steam shipowners required was not exemption from liability, but that the liability should be a fair one. Take the Holyhead vessels: was there any analogy between them and the ordinary Cork carrying ships, and was it fair to make one of those vessels, one half of which was necessarily engine room, liable to the same extent as the others? The result of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would be to induce the owners of these packets to reduce the motive power, in order to reduce the engine room chargeable as tonnage, and the public would suffer in proportion.

said, he joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman as to the meaning of the Committee in their Report. The Committee agreed, that in stead of taking the actual value of the ship, a certain sum for registered tonnage should be fixed, so as to be fair between the shipowner and the public; and that was, indeed, suggested by Mr. Farrar, an officer of the Board of Trade, who must have known very well what he meant when he spoke of registered tonnage.

said, he would desire hon. Members to recollect that the question related not merely to the amount of registered tonnage, but to the pecuniary rate per ton. The Committee recommended an absolute rate of £15 per ton; but while retaining that sum where life was in question, he had reduced it to £8 for goods.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman had completely changed his ground. He first said that he supported the recommendation of the Committee, and then departed from it. He believed the shipping interest preferred the proposition of the Committee without the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

complained that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the proposal he formerly made to the shipowners to fix the rate at £15 per ton, allowing a deduction of a third for engine room.

said, that the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was made in a confidential conversation; it was not accepted by the representatives of the shipping interest; and he thought it ought not to be used upon the present occasion against the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would not make the charge upon the gross tonnage, as he proposed to do.

said, he would propose his Amendment.

said, that the Committee having agreed to the rate of £8 per ton, he could not assent to reducing the amount of the tonnage chargeable. The existing liability of the Scotia steamer for goods was upwards of £ 100,000; his Amendment would reduce it to £56,000; and the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment upon his Amendment would reduce it to £30,000. Rather than agree to the omission of these words he would prefer the rejection of the clause.

said, that singular misconception had prevailed in the Committee on the whole subject, according to his view of the meaning of the words "registered tonnage."

said, he could not understand the great tenderness which hon. Gentlemen seemed to feel for steam-ships causing damage to other ships which they met. If he were not officially connected with his right hon. Friend, but were exercising an independent judgment on his proposal, he should say that that proposal failed in this, that the true principle which ought to be applied to damage done by steam-vessels or any other instruments conducted by man must be the value of the damage done—not the quality or the value of the instrument causing it. If there was any fault in the proposal of his right hon. Friend, it was that it went too far in mitigation of the liability of steam-ships for damage, and he hoped that the House would not do anything so manifestly unjust as still further to limit their responsibility.

moved to add the following words:—

"Nor shall such damages, in each case of loss of life or personal injury, exceed £100 for each first-class, £80 for each second-class, and £50 for each third-class passenger."

said, that he did not know by what means the hon. Member had arrived at his estimate of the value of the life of first-class passengers, and at the conclusion that it never would be worth more than £100 in any case. He could not agree to any such proposal; but he must leave damages to be assessed by juries according to the laws of the country, without laying down any arbitrary rule.

said, he proposed to retain the clause. It was a mere question of saving a little to the public without diminishing the efficiency with which proceedings under the Act would be carried on.

said, he wanted to know why a clerk of the Customs was to be at liberty to come into any record court in the kingdom, and prosecute in cases of misdemeanour under the Act, instead of a solicitor or barrister. He thought that the party under such circumstances would not have fair play afforded him. A mere clerk might do that which a professional man would not dare to do. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would let those prosecutions be conducted as they had hitherto been. The number of misdemeanours created by the Act was enormous, and it appeared to him that the power proposed to be given by the clause was monstrous, and contrary to the ordinary rules of justice.

said, he coincided with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire in his objection to the principle involved in the clause.

said, he confessed he had no particular predilection for the clause, but it was intended by it only to enact what had been enacted in the Customs Consolidation Act. He would not, however, press the clause.

said, he proposed to leave out the 47th clause, and to insert another in. its stead, to give summary jurisdiction to two justices of the peace in. salvage cases, and to prevent Unnecessary appeals and litigation.

said, he thought that the clause ought to be framed so as to give the magistrates an option whether they would act or not in cases of the kind. As the clause stood it was to be in the power of the Secretary of State to appoint the rota which was to try these cases.

said, that the jurisdiction of the two justices had been found to work well, and he did not expect more appeals than formerly under this clause.

said, he thought the Home Secretary would not appoint a justice without his consent. But he would confer with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; and if a few words could be added to effect the purpose, it should be done, and the amended clause brought up on the Report.

said, he wished to move the following clause: —

"That on and after the 1st day of January, 1863, all chain-cables, and anchors bought or sold for use on board British ships registered in the United Kingdom, shall be impressed with an official proof-mark as evidence of having been subjected to an authorized proof equal to the tensile strain applied by Admiralty regulations to all cables and anchors used in the Royal Navy; the Board of Trade to be empowered to make such rules and regulations thereon as may from time to time appear necessary to insure the general efficiency of ships' ground-takle; to grant licences to public and corporate bodies; to apply the required test and authorized proof to all such cables and anchors; to impress a proof mark, and to give proof certificates thereof for production when required."

said, he feared it would be considered very vexatious to the merchant service if no ship of any kind should be permitted to purchase cables unless marked with a proof mark. But, at any rate, before they were pre vented from so doing, machinery ought to be provided for testing anchors and chains in all parts of the kingdom. The Board of Trade would likewise have duties imposed upon them which, as at present advised, they did not think they could well perform.

said, that as a Member of the Select Committee which sat upon the subject, he wished to remind the hon. Member that the Committee had been very unwilling to recommend any compulsory measures. He could only say that the information which reached him with regard to the intentions of the Committee of Lloyd's differed very much from that which had been received by the hon. Member.

said, he was willing to withdraw the clause for the present, but, at the same time, he would state his intention of submitting it again in an amended form upon the bringing up of the report.

said, he would move the addition of the following clause, to follow Clause 52:—

"Insurances effected against any or all of the events enumerated in the Section last preceding shall not be invalid by reason of the nature of the risk."

said, his objection to the clause was, that all the risks referred to were provided for by the law as it stood.

wished to caution the Committee against idly introducing a clause of the description pro posed, which would only have the effect of throwing doubt on the existing law.

suggested that the clause should be withdrawn, and that the Government should take the best advice between that time and the report whether the law was uncertain or not. He (Mr. Henley) had heard that the law upon the subject was at present doubtful.

observed, that the doubt arose from the possible want of interest in the person insuring, and that some declaratory enactment perhaps ought to be passed to prevent open insurances on the lives of persons in whom the insurers had no interest.

said, he concurred with the opinion of the Solicitor General that there was no doubt in the world about the fact that the clause was uncalled for.

said, he would take the recommendation of the right hon. Member for Oxford, and consider the clause before the bringing up of the report.

said, he understood that the Bill not only altered the mode of examining the assistant county surveyors, but transferred their appointment from the grand juries to the Lord Lieutenant. He hoped that part of the Bill 'would be expunged.

said, the simple object of the Bill was to alter the existing system of examining county surveyors. He would take care that the clause complained of by his hon. Friend should be amended.

said, he objected to that Portion of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman had called attention. At the same time, he thought that the other; portion, which related to the transfer of the examinations of surveyors to the Civil Service Commissioners, might be beneficial.

complained of the uncertainty which prevailed as to the hour when Irish business would come on.

said, he would express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would give a distinct assurance that he was prepared to adopt the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Kerry, and withdraw that portion of the Bill to which he had raised objection.

said, he would strike out the objectionable clause.

said, he would withdraw has Motion.