In answer to Lord ELCHO,

[BILL 265.] [ Lords.] THIRD READING.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, in respect of an Amendment to Schedule (A),"—(Lord Elcho,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE LORD ADVOCATE, in the first place, begged to thank his noble Friend for the manner in which he had spoken of the Bill, and for the observations which he had made in its favour. It was a great gratification to him, if he might be allowed to speak of himself, that after a great many years of labour and a great many years of difficulty they should at last have arrived close to the goal. Whether they were destined to reach it would be decided in a few hours; but he hoped they might entertain the hope that, whatever may be the materials of which this Bill was composed, it would in one shape or other be sufficiently solid and substantial to form a fabric for erecting again the fabric of Scottish education, and preserving for many generations the traditional reputation of Scotland. He wished, however, to take the opportunity of correct- ing a misunderstanding which had occurred in reference to what he said on a former occasion. He was represented to have said that even in Scotland the provisions of this Bill were not understood. He had never said so—he never meant to say so. What he did say was, that it would be very difficult to convey to the people of Scotland the proposals and the recommendations of the Government in reference to a measure which had been so completely altered in "another place;" and. what he meant to say was, that if the Bill had not been reprinted, it never would have been possible for the people to have understood what the proposals of the Government were. In illustration of that, he had said he found that, notwithstanding their having re-printed the Bill, there were in some quarters still difficulty in knowing what their proposals were. Everybody knew that had the Amendments of the Government only been placed on the Paper, and the Bill had not been reprinted, it would have been impossible for many of the people in Scotland to have become acquainted with the views of the Government. In regard to the proposition which his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had made, that the heritors' contribution of the minimum salary should stand in the Privy Council administration as a voluntary contribution—that matter had been considered by the Government, and he was glad to consider that that obstacle might be removed out of the way. Having considered the matter, the Government thought that the whole of the heritors' contributions should be reckoned in the sum which was to be received from the Privy Council. With that observation he could only trust that they might cherish the expectation that before many hours were past this Bill would become law.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Order for Third Reading discharged.

Bill re-committed in respect of Clauses 13, 16, 21, 23, 28, 65, and the Schedule." — ( The Lord Advocate.)

Considered in Committee, and reported, with. Amendments; as amended, considered.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

Acts read; considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in rising to move that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Merchant Shipping and Navigation, said, that on an early day in the present Session his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave a pledge that before the close of it he would lay on the table of the House the long promised Merchant Shipping Bill. When the present Government came into Office they found that very little advance had been made with it; in the interval incessant work had been applied to it at the Board of Trade, and the result was that they were now able to redeem that pledge, and the Bill, the size of which, he feared,

would alarm many Members, would shortly be in circulation. At the same time his right hon. Friend had thought that it would not be right to the great interests concerned that they should present such a Bill to the House without some explanation of the changes proposed in it; it would be waste of labour for anyone without some guide to travel through the 800 clauses of the Bill, and, by comparison with the existing law, to ascertain those changes; he had, therefore, permitted him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to make a statement with reference to them, which he promised should be as short as possible. Before doing so, however, he should wish to say a few words upon the present condition of our merchant shipping compared with what it was when last this great subject was before the House in 1854. In 1854 the registered tonnage of this country and her possessions was 5,155,000. It was now 7,232,000 tons, of which 5,700,000 belonged to the United Kingdom, showing an increase of 41 per cent. The real increase, however, had been even greater, for in 1854 the Register was in a very bad state, and was encumbered by a very large number of vessels which did not exist; great pains had since been taken to clear that Register of these non-existing vessels, and it now represented within a few thousand tons the actual number and tonnage of vessels. Another return of the vessels belonging to and actually employed in the United Kingdom showed the increase since 1854 to be over 50 per cent. He believed, therefore, he might take the increase of British shipping at 50 per cent. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade took occasion recently to state in public that he believed that at the present time the sea-going shipping under the British flag was equal, if not superior, to that of all the rest of the world. Exception was taken to this statement in the papers, but he believed it to have been substantially correct. The aggregate tonnage of all other countries as given in their most recent returns was 9,794,000 tons; but from this very great reductions had to be made in order to compare it with our own. The United States return included her river and lake tonnage, amounting to considerably over 2,000,000 tons. The registers of most of the Continental States included many thousands of fish-

ing boats and small craft of all kinds down to canal boats. Making these and other deductions which seemed proper for the purpose of comparing with our own figures, he could not take the aggregate of sea-going foreign tonnage to be more than 7,150,000, against 7,230,000 of this country and her possessions. When they looked at the materials of which it was composed the difference was still greater. He did not hesitate to affirm that the tonnage of our sea-going steamers was more than double that of all other countries put together. These proportions were more favourable to us than at any previous period. While our tonnage had increased 50 per cent in the last fourteen years, the tonnage of France had remained nearly stationary, and had actually diminished the last ten years by 3 per cent. Dutch tonnage had decreased 13 per cent. The seagoing vessels of the United States had diminished 50 per cent in the last ten years. Much of this last was, doubtless, due to the destruction of their commerce during their great war; but it was also due in great part to the commercial policy since the war. A very large number of vessels were during the war transferred under simulated papers to our flag; but at the close of the war Congress passed an Act prohibiting the re-registration of these vessels as American, on the ground that having fled the flag during the time of danger, they were not entitled to share in its advantages in time of peace. They had also adopted a tariff which had almost put an end to their shipbuilding trade. He would take again the shipbuilding trade as a test of progress. The tonnage built in this country had increased from 196,000 tons in 1854 to 379,000 tons in 1868, a year of much depression, as compared with two or three previous years. During the same period the tonnage built in France had diminished from 94,000 tons to 81,000 tons; in Holland from 55,000 to 25,000. In the United States the building of sea-going vessels had almost been extinguished. In Norway alone was there any increase — namely, from 29,000 to 43,000. One further illustration he might give. In 1854, of an aggregate of 18,669,000 tons entering and clearing our ports for foreign trade, 10,744,000 tons were British, 7,924,000 under foreign flags—a proportion of 57 per cent British to 43

per cent foreign. In 1868, out of 33,680,000 tons, 22,660,000 were British, and 11,020,000 foreign, showing an increase of 120 per cent for British against 37 per cent foreign, the new proportion being 67 per cent British to 33 per cent foreign. Having described the progress of shipping, he must say a few words of their crews. While the tonnage of the United Kingdom had increased 50 per cent, the number of seamen had increased since 1854 from 162,400 to 197,500, or 21 per cent. Of these 8 per cent were foreigners in 1854, and 12 per cent in 1868, showing an increased proportion of foreigners, although by no means an alarming one. The proportion of men to tonnage in our coasting trade had remained about the same; but in our sailing vessels employed in the foreign trade the proportion of men had fallen from 3·97 per 100 tons in 1854 to 2·90 in 1868, and for steamers from 7·69 to 5 men per 100 tons. Taking the whole force of merchant vessels there had been a reduction of one man for every 100 tons. In other words, if the same number of men were now required to man these vessels as in 1854 we should want 55,000 more sailors. This reduction had been due, in some respects, to the increased average size of our vessels; but it was also due to greater economy of all kinds in working them, to the use of machinery, and to the adoption of double topsails, patent block, steam windlass, and other means of economizing labour in our sailing vessels. As an illustration of this economy, he had been able to procure the actual number of men employed on twenty-two large sailing vessels at three different periods. In 1849, the crews of these vessels numbered 463, of whom 227 were able seamen. In 1859, their crews were 417, of whom 188 wore able seamen; and, in 1869, the crews of the same vessels, making very much the same voyages, were 348, of whom 153 were able seamen; showing a reduction of 25 per cent since 1849. Had this economy of labour tended to increased risk? He found it difficult to answer the question. Accurate information on the relative proportion of casualties was not to be had; till lately the wreck returns were badly kept. From the information, however, he had received from Lloyds, he believed it was safe to say that there had been a reduction in the premiums for insurance on

the principal voyages of vessels engaged in the long sea trade; but it was also stated that much of this reduction was due to increased competition among underwriters. It would, however, be satisfactory if the ratio of losses remained the same; because that would shew that the economy effected in the number of the crew had not increased risks, and had not, therefore, been effected without reason. He had quoted these figures in no spirit of boasting, but with the view of showing how vast were the interests affected by the Bill he proposed. They showed how idle were the fears of those who dreaded the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and they were also, on the whole, testimony to the general well working of modern legislation affecting shipping. That legislation might be said to have commenced in 1850, when the late Lord Taunton, then Mr. Labouchere, first provided for the examination of masters and mates of foreign-going vessels, established shipping offices for the protection of seamen, and provided for inquiries into wrecks. The next great change was in 1853–4, when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, then at the Board of Trade, placed the Trinity House under the control of the Board of Trade, and threw open our coasting trade to foreign vessels, and, lastly, consolidated all previous legislation in the great Act of 1854, which had since been the groundwork of our shipping laws. In the course of this he provided for a complete revision of the ship registry, for a new system of measuring tonnage, and for a limitation of the liability of owners in cases of collision. Since that time not a year had passed without additions or amendments to that Act. In 1856 seamen's savings-banks and money orders were established. In 1862 Mr. Milner Gibson extended examinations to engineers, laid down rules as to lights, and provided summary proceedings in salvage cases. In 1864, the Anchors and Chain Cables Act was passed. In 1868, Admiralty jurisdiction was given to County Courts, and this year an important Act was passed with reference to colonial merchant shipping. In the same time shipping had been relieved from a variety of local charges, passing dues and charitable charges; exemptions in favour of particular vessels and differential dues against foreign vessels had been disposed of. He had men-

tioned but a few of the changes, but, in fact, seventeen or eighteen Acts had been passed since 1854 regulating the business of shipowners, and interlacing one with the other in such a manner that on a subject in which, above all others, it was important there should be clearness and certainty, so that he who sailed might read, there was so much complexity and uncertainty that only experts could say what was the law. Consolidation, in fact, was almost as much needed now as it was in 1854, and although there was not so much field for improvement, there was still much to be done in detail. It was proposed, then, in the Bill which he should ask leave to introduce, to consolidate all these Acts, and include one great branch which was omitted in 1854 — namely, the Acts relating to harbours and the protection of navigation, the working of which had since been placed under the Board of Trade, and to take this opportunity of introducing a number of Amendments which the experience of the last few years had shown to be desirable. In doing this they had the advantage of the aid of Mr. Farrer, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, who assisted in the preparation of the Act of 1854, and all subsequent Acts, and who had been concerned in their good administration. In describing the proposed changes, he thought it would be most convenient to the House that he should advert to them in the order in which they appeared in the Bill. He should be able to do little more than indicate them, without going at length into the reasons which had induced them to adopt them. The first item related to the registry and measurement of ships. It was proposed in future to make more stringent rules against the change of the name of a ship. A clause in the Act of 1854 was aimed at this, but as it only affected British ships, and did not prevent the registration of foreign ships under any name coming into the hands of British owners, advantage was taken of this and vessels had not unfrequently been sold under simulated bills of sale to foreigners, and resold for registration under new names, and thus vessels had been able to get rid of a character and underwriters and the public had been taken in. This would be prohibited in the future. It was also proposed to give greater facilities for the

registration of ships in foreign ports. A fine would be substituted for confiscation in the case of vessels improperly sailing under the British flag. With respect to the measurement of tonnage, on which the important question of port dues and other charges depended, there was no intention to alter the system under which the gross tonnage of vessels was ascertained by measuring their actual cubical contents. It had given great satisfaction, and had been adopted by nearly all other countries. The deductions, however, allowed to steamers in respect of their engine rooms and coal bunkers had been calculated on a system of percentages, which had given rise to inequalities, and vessels were sometimes built to avail themselves of the greatest amount of deduction. He believed that in some few cases steamers had been proved to be of a minus quantity of tonnage. It was proposed therefore to measure these deductions in the future on the same principle by which the gross tonnage was ascertained. Another point dealt with under this head arose out of the question of deck cargoes. Complaints had been made, and particularly in the Baltic trade, that vessels had been overloaded with deck cargoes; and the Board of Trade had been pressed from time to time to prohibit the carrying of deck cargoes. They had, however, objected to this on the ground that for certain trades and for certain seasons it was not unreasonable or improper to carry deck cargoes, and that to prohibit them altogether would unnecessarily interfere with trade; but it had seemed to them that if such cargoes were carried, port and other dues ought to be paid in respect of it, and, accordingly, they had provided that vessels might be registered to carry deck cargo, a proportionate tonnage being added for that purpose; but if when not so registered they carried deck cargo, they would have to pay double tonnage dues. The next part of the Bill had relation to masters and seamen. It was proposed that in future the examiners of masters and other officers should be placed directly under the Board of Trade, instead of as now under the Local Marine Boards; it was believed that greater uniformity or a higher average standard of qualification would be maintained by the adoption of this course. Already great good had resulted from these examinations, but

there was room for improvement among the masters of the smaller class of foreign-going vessels. As to seamen, coasters were to be exempted altogether in future from the obligation to have written agreements. Foreign-going ships were to be allowed to have running agreements, so that they did not extend over more than a year. And during that time they might engage men and discharge men at any port at homo or abroad on complying with the other provisions of the Act. Another change had in view the protection of seamen from crimps. He found that one of the greatest evils the seamen suffered from was that, on the termination of the voyage at our great seaports, they were generally discharged or left their ship immediately on arrival, but they were seldom paid their wages till four or five days afterwards. In the meantime they had to hang about the port without money. They fell into the hands of the crimps and other bad characters who haunted the purlieus of the docks, who advanced them money and tempted them into debauchery. The seamen often did not get out of the hands of these persons till they had lost everything, and had pledged their future wages by advance notes, going on board again ill-clothed and often suffering from disease and the effects of drink. He believed that few things would do more good than some provision which would enable the seamen at once to proceed to their homes after arrival in dock. It was provided in the Act of 1854 that the seamen should be paid one-fourth of the wages due to them on discharge from the vessel. This, however, was rarely carried out. It was proposed that the discharge at the shipping office should be not later than one day after the arrival of the vessel or the termination of the agreement, or, if not, that the wages should run on until such discharge. This would give a great inducements to owners to pay the men at once. Facilities would, at the same time, be given to seamen to authorize the shipping officers to receive and remit their wages for them, so that they might leave the neighbourhood on arrival. Other minor provisions were directed against the crimps, with whom the Board of Trade had waged a constant warfare. The next point he had to deal with was that of distressed seamen abroad. The House would recollect that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr.

Graves), a few nights since, raised a question on this point on the Vote for distressed seamen, on the ground that the Vote was yearly increasing; he complained also on behalf of the owners of steam vessels who were compelled to bring home these distressed seamen at considerable expense. The question was one of considerable difficulty. A large proportion of the seamen relieved and sent home in this way were the crews of vessels wrecked abroad, in respect of whom no one could raise a complaint. Others were colonial seamen, for whom they thought the colonies in future should pay; but others were men who had been discharged from their ships, or had deserted in foreign ports, and who had afterwards been found destitute and unable to find a berth in a ship. The obligation to return these men to their homes was one which they owed to the country in which they were found. It was like the case of the removal of paupers to the parish bound to support them, and the question was at whose expense ought this to be carried out. In old times any voyage was presumed to be out and home, and no voyages were terminated in a foreign port. Now, however, it was different; voyages were often seeking voyages; many vessels were sent out for sale. The Bill they proposed would give facilities for the engagement and discharge of men in any part of the world. But they still thought, on the whole, that the principle of the Act of 1854 should not be departed from, and that the ship taking men out to a foreign port and there discharging them should be liable to the expense of bringing them home again if they were unable to find other employment, or if they were destitute there. The clauses of the Act, however, were ambiguous, and they only applied to foreign ports, and not to colonial ports. It was proposed to simplify them, to extend them to colonial ports, and to provide that no seaman should be left abroad without a discharge from some functionary, with whom the wages or a sum sufficient to bring the man home should be deposited. As between the Government and the shipowner, the ship was to be liable for expenses incurred on behalf of the man, except in cases of proved desertion. As between the seaman and the ship, the ship was only to be liable when the man was discharged

without fault on his part, but not otherwise. Another change to be noted here was one due to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty. Under the present law any seaman might leave his ship for the purpose of entering the Royal Navy, and for that purpose might demand his clothes and wages without regard to the convenience of the owner or master of the ship he left. This privilege had at times been abused, and had caused great complaints from shipowners. Though the practice had been much less frequent of late years, the practice of hanging out the red shirt in presence of a ship of war was still occasionally resorted to. But his right hon. Friend had consented to forego this privilege of the Navy except in time of war. The next part of the Act had relation to safety and provision against accidents at sea. The present law contained numerous minute regulations as to the number of boats, the use of lifebelts, the safety valves of engines, compasses, and other such like matters. It was proposed to simplify these and to leave it to the Board of Trade to decide what in the case of passenger ships should be the actual requirements. A provision would be inserted empowering the master to throw overboard dangerous goods if they had been sent on board without his consent. At present the master might refuse to receive such goods, but once on board he was bound to carry them. Another change had reference to the inquiries into wrecks and the misconduct of officers. It would be admitted by everyone that there was no more legitimate and proper function of Government than to inquire into these cases of loss. He believed they had done much good in bringing home responsibility to owners and masters. As at present constituted, the courts of inquiry combined two functions—-the one to inquire into the cause of the loss of the vessel, the other to determine the innocence or neglect of the master and officers; and, as the latter was followed, by most serious consequences — namely, the loss of their certificates and ruin in their profession —the inquiries were too apt to be eon-ducted as if they were penal proceedings against the officers, instead of being inquests before which everything should be brought out bearing upon the loss of the vessel. It was proposed, therefore,

in the new Bill to separate these two inquiries, and to hold an inquiry or inquest on the loss of the vessel, on which there should be a general report of the Board of Trade; and, if there were sufficient cause, to hold a separate inquiry into the conduct of the officers. A complaint was made that in such cases the Board of Trade were at once prosecutors and judges, appointing the assessors; it was proposed that in future the assessors should be appointed by the Admiralty Court. With respect to wrecks which happened on our coasts, they had carefully revised the Bill with a view of strengthening the law against the robberies which too often occurred. He need hardly remind the House of the scandalous cases which had been reported to it within the last three or four years arising out of the wrecks of the North, the Kit Karson and the Olivia. These and some other cases which had occurred to foreign vessels had given us a very bad reputation abroad, and no efforts should be spared to prevent a recurrence of them. They proposed that where wrecks had occurred, and property was found in possession of persons in the neighbourhood presumedly taken from them, the onus should be thrown upon, the holders of showing that they came honestly by it. He trusted that, with some other amendments, and with a more careful administration of existing laws, which the Board of Trade had lately arranged, they would be able to put a check upon these scandalous cases. He might here mention another change clue to his right hon. Friend at the Admiralty with reference to naval salvage. At present salvage in respect of merchant vessels might be claimed by officers and men in the Royal Navy, and proceedings might be taken by them against the ship in any Admiralty Court. Before final adjudication, however, the consent of the Admiralty must be given. His right hon. Friend proposed that in future such claims should only be made by the Admiralty itself; and the owner would be relieved from having his vessel taken into port and detained by the local Admiralty Court pending proceedings. The number of claims of this kind was already very small, and it was believed that this proposal would further reduce them, and prevent any claim being set up except in cases where there was substantial cause for some recompense for

services rendered. He now came to the last subject which he had to mention— the vexed question of pilotage. There were, no doubt, very strong arguments against the compulsory pilotage. It was alleged, with truth, he believed, that where pilotage was not compulsory, pilots were as numerous and as experienced. On the other hand, there was a very strong desire to maintain it in some parts of the country with a view to insure the supply of competent men. The Government thought that even if it were desirable to put an end to compulsion it would not be well to raise the question on a Consolidation Bill. There were, however, anomalies in the existing law which the Government thought ought to be amended. Great injustice and absurdity had arisen from the law which exempted a ship from liability for damage when in charge of a compulsory pilot. The chief question in many, if not most, recent cases had been not which ship was to blame, but was either of the ships in charge of a compulsory pilot. The consequent refinements, absurdities, and injustice was very remarkable. To meet this it was proposed that where ships were not otherwise exempted from compulsory pilotage they should pay for a pilot, but should not be bound to employ him or to be placed under his charge. The money would be paid, where a pilot offered and was not employed, to the pilotage authorities, to be devoted to the pilot fund, as they might determine. The Government proposed, also, that the exemptions from pilotage which now existed in the Thames and the outports should be extended to other pilotage districts; and further that the recovery of pilotage rates should be by civil process, and not, as at present, by criminal proceedings. They proposed also to give the Trinity House power to license pilots for the seas surrounding Great Britain outside the present pilotage districts, but not in any way to make their employment compulsory. It was also intended to take more stringent powers to compel local authorities to keep their lights in a satisfactory condition, and, if they failed in doing so, to enable the general lighthouse authorities to take them in hand. Power would be given to the Board of Trade to prevent injury to navigation by throwing ballast into navigable waters or by taking shingle from

the shores. Power also would be given to local authorities to remove wrecks which were an obstruction to navigation, and to charge the expense on the property. The Government also proposed to give the Board of Trade power to prepare provisional orders dealing with those cases of local charges upon shipping or passing dues which still existed, and which only survived because of the expense of applying for local Acts. He had now gone through the details on which the Government proposed changes. There were numerous other amendments, having for their object greater simplicity or more perfect remedies, which it was unnecessary to notice. The House would perceive that the tendency of the amendments proposed was not in the direction of more minute regulations or further inspection. The experience of the Board of Trade was not favourable to such legislation. It tended to shift the responsibility from the shipbuilder or shipowner to some inspecting officer, and in some cases had certainly retarded, improvements. The Bill he asked leave to introduce had been prepared by the Board of Trade out of the materials and experience at its hand; but he by no means wished to exclude the possibility of further amendments. The object of presenting it at this period of the Session was to give full time to those who were interested in this great subject to examine it during the Recess, and the Government would gladly receive from them their criticism and suggestions. He hoped they would recollect, however, that it was the duty of the Board of Trade, in considering these suggestions, to hold the balance between the various conflicting interests, and to regard them from the point of view of the public interest. In conclusion, he could not express a better hope than that the Bill, when it passed into law, might be succeeded by a period in which the extension of British shipping would be as great in proportion as in the period which had preceded it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.

Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Merchant Shipping and Navigation.

House resumed.

Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 267.]

LORD ELCHO, in rising to call attention to a Memorial signed on behalf of 30,000 Miners, praying for a special inquiry into the recent accidents in Coal Mines that have resulted in great loss of life, and to move for Papers on the subject, said, the public journals continually furnished their readers with the accounts of accidents in mines, which were attended with great loss of life. On one occasion 350 men were suddenly hurried into eternity, and in July and June last two explosions were attended with the death of something like sixty men on each occasion. Knowing that the men engaged in these mines attributed the constant recurrence of these accidents to the absence of proper inspection, he had some short time since asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would not, even at that late period of the Session, introduce a measure which would have the effect of making the working in mines more safe than it now was, and whether he would not in any case exercise the powers vested in him to order the inspection of such mines. In supposing that the minds of these men would be greatly excited by these accidents he was not wrong, because a meet-

ing was hold only the other day at Manchester, which was attended by 120 delegates, representing a body of 30,000 men in Lancashire. He had had the honour of presenting to the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Memorial signed by these 120 delegates, and they had likewise signed a Petition which he had that day presented to that House. In that Petition they urged that they were very much alarmed at the frequent occurrence of accidents, which they believed might be guarded against; they were not satisfied with having inquiries before coroners' juries, and they prayed that that House would present an Address to Her Majesty praying for the institution of a sufficient inquiry by scientific men into these explosions. He should be very glad if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would accede to this request. He believed that these accidents might be frequently prevented by proper precautions. At all events, they might he believed, be more guarded against; because a Committee of that House, which sat for two Sessions on the question, had reported in favour of the amendment of the existing acts on mines, and the Home Secretary had brought in a Bill to render the working of these mines more secure than. it was at present. The very fact of a Bill having been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman appeared to admit that the position taken up by these men was a sound one. He did not know to what extent inspection existed in Saxony; but he observed that a lamentable explosion had taken place there by which 420 persons had been hurried into eternity; and the correspondent of The Times stated that the grossest possible carelessness prevailed there as to uncovered lights; the men, too, being allowed to go about smoking. It was not, therefore, surprising that there should be such a holocaust of victims to such reprehensible carelessness. He regretted that pressure of business had prevented the right hon. Gentleman from persevering with his Bill, because he thought it might have been passed without difficulty. No doubt there were a great many Amendments put down in reference to that Bill; but there had been. two meetings, one at his own house and another in a committee room, which had been attended by mine owners and

the representatives of miners, and also by some of the most influential men in that House, and after what had occurred at those meetings he thought that portion of the Bill which related to the measures to be taken for the security of life and prevention of accidents might have been got through without difficulty. He regretted that his right hon. Friend did not try to press the measure through the House. But that Bill having been brought in, containing such clauses, was some justification for these men feeling so strongly as they did that their interests had not been sufficiently looked after—a measure of that importance not being pressed earnestly on the consideration of Parliament. Those men believed that until a more searching inquiry was made into the accidents that occurred they would not get at the root of the evil, and he should be very glad if his right hon. Friend would do what they wanted, which was to cause special scientific inquiry to be made into this matter. They thought a mine might be made so secure that even with an uncovered light in the working part of it there would be no risk of explosion. The way in which mines were inspected was not such as to give the security required. The view taken by his right hon. Friend was that they could not have personal, actual, ocular inspection of all mines in the United Kingdom— they could only appoint a certain number of Inspectors, who, if they had reason to believe there was anything wrong, or if an accident occurred in their district, should go and inquire into it and report what had passed. The memorialists held that this was practically no inspection at all. If they looked to other countries inspection there meant actual inspection. If this question arose in America thorough and complete inspection would be given. There were no inflammatory gases in the American mines, but there was a great deal of timbering. They had actual inspection in America, and the way it was accomplished was this— once every year every mine had to be inspected to see that there was a proper supply of timbering to the shafts, &c, and the owner of the mine paid so much—10 cents, he believed—upon every yard inspected during the year. It had been said on behalf of the Government that the inspection of mines should be like that of railways, and

that those inspections were only had after some accident or complaint; but there was no analogy between railways and mines. A railway was perfectly made, and there it was; but mines were being continually made. No doubt it would be necessary greatly to increase the number of Inspectors if they had actual inspection, but he understood that one of the Inspectors had admitted that there ought to be more Inspectors. [Mr. BRUCE: No!] He knew his right hon. Friend would say it would take away responsibility from the mine owner if they had more inspection; but he thought there should be sub-Inspectors reporting to the Chief inspectors, which would not interfere with the working of the mine. He hoped his right hon. Friend would take this matter into his serious consideration, with a view to legislation, and that in the meantime he would not turn a deaf ear to the Petition of these miners, praying for a scientific inquiry into these accidents, for he must say, of all working men these were the most hardworking and industrious, on whom, to a great extent, depended the material wealth and the prosperity of the country.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Memorial presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, praying for special inquiry into the recent Accidents in Coal Mines."—{Lord Elcho.)

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. M'LAREN, Bill for the abolition of Compulsory Church Rates in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAEEN and Mr. CRAUFURD.

Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 266.]

House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock.