said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have during the Recess circulated queries relating to the occupation of land to the several Poor Law Unions in Ireland; and, if so, whether they will lay such queries and the answers before the House?

, in reply, said, that certain Returns had been made to the Government by the Poor Law Inspectors, and they would be laid upon the table of the House at once.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State for India has given any instructions to the Government of India as to the withdrawal of the agency of the Bank of Bengal, established at Bombay; whether any communication has been received from that Government in reply; and whether such reply indicates that the agency would be withdrawn?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend's first Question, I have to say that the Secretary of State for India, in conformity with the view which has all along been taken by the Home authorities, did, on the 20th day of May last, address a despatch to the Government of India, directing it to use its utmost influence to induce the Bank of Bengal to withdraw its agency from Bombay. In reply to his second and third Questions, I have to say that we have received communications from the Government of India which indicate that the Bank of Bengal declines to withdraw its Bombay agency.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he intends to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the Print Works Act and the Bleaching and Dyeing Works Acts?

, in reply, said, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, would, in a few days, ask for leave to bring in a Bill on the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he intends to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the Workshops Regulation Bill?

, in reply, said, he could not deny that the Act was one which required amendment; at the same time, the more he reflected on it the more expedient it appeared to consider it in conjuction with the Factory Acts. As the matter was one that required a great deal of attention, the Government had not, up to the present, been able to devote to it the necessary time. He should be sorry to return an absolute negative to the Question, but he was not able to give a positive promise. Afterwards—

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to bring in, during the present Session, a Bill to assimilate the Factory Extension Act and the Workshops Regulation Act, or to enforce the administration of the Workshops Regulation Act in districts where the local authorities refuse to do so?

, in reply, said, that he would willingly enforce the administration of the Workshops Regulation Act in districts where the local authorities refused to do so, but he was not aware that the Act gave him the power of doing so.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If any and what alterations are to be made in the organization of the Constabulary Force of Ireland, and why the vacant cadetships have not been filled up?

, in reply, said, that certain alterations, by no means of an essential character, but relating to minor points, had for some time been under consideration. There were questions between the Irish Government and the Treasury which were now on the point of being brought to a conclusion. He believed that what had called the attention of the hon. Member to the matter was that a certain number of vacancies had not been filled up. He could assure his hon. Friend, however, that there was no occasion for anxiety on the score of any public interests involved. All that had been done was by the recommendation of the Inspector General of Irish Constabulary.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether some arrangement could be made for the celebration of Divine Service in the Crypt of St. Stephen's, now perfectly ready for that purpose, once on Sundays during the Session of Parliament?

I believe, Sir, my noble Friend is perfectly right in his statement, that the crypt of St. Stephen's has been prepared at a considerable expense for the celebration of Divine service. But with regard to the arrangements for that purpose the Government consider that it rather rests with the House of Commons itself than with them to take the initiative. Consequently, I do not think we should be prepared to make any proposition on this subject until multiplied indications, like that just given, lead us to believe that it would be in conformity with the general wish of the House.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the levelling and purification of the Serpentine are being done by contract; and, if so, what date is fixed for the completion of these works?

said, the work was being carried on under a contract, which provided that it should be completed by the 15th of April next, provided there was no interruption from severity of weather or any other unavoidable cause, of which they Government engineer in charge of the work was to be the judge.

said, he would beg-to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the prevailing uncertainty as to the exact nature of the new Cab regulations in the Metropolis, he will consider the propriety of forthwith issuing and enforcing regulations whereby, in the case of all disengaged cabs, whether on authorized stands or not, the public may before hiring them have positive means of knowing, both by daytime and after dark, the rates of fare chargeable?

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that he was most disposed to adopt any suggestion that might be offered to him for promoting the convenience and comfort of all those who use cabs, but he could not say that at the present moment there was a necessity for the alteration which his hon. Friend had indicated. He might say, in the first place, that there was no change whatever in respect to charge in the case of distance. All, both four-wheeled cabs and Hansoms, charged precisely the same as they did last year. With respect to the charge for time the case was different. The Hansom cabs had adopted an uniform charge of 2s. 6d. per hour, and all four-wheeled cabs, with the exception of a very few, had adopted a charge of 2s. Now engagements per hour were usually made during the day for purposes of shopping or making calls, but engagements for distance were usually made at night. It seemed to him that there could be no difficulty in ascertaining the charge by reference to the nag or plate which the cab was bound to carry. It had been suggested that it might be possible to paint the charge on the vehicles themselves; but as he was in hopes that in the course of the spring a new order of carriages might arise, upon which it would be inconvenient to paint the charge, he was not inclined at present to press the change. His hon. Friend seemed to suggest that a plate should be borne whether the cabs were on authorized stands or other places, but great inconvenience and no little danger had arisen from cabs plying and loitering, or "crawling," as it was called. [Murmurs.] He knew from those who used cabs that there was a very strong feeling in favour of those crawlers; but the majority of the inhabitants of London did not use cabs, and to have them loitering in the streets was a subject of considerable danger and of constant complaint. The law remained precisely in the condition in which it had been during the last seventeen years; and perhaps it would surprise the House to learn that during the last year there were no fewer than 2,801 summonses taken out against hackney carriages for plying and loitering, and no fewer than 2,429 convictions. That was before the present regulations came into effect. He was perfectly aware that the loitering of cabs could not be altogether prevented, and he was quite willing to admit that it was not desirable that it altogether should be. But the evil was chiefly felt in the narrow and crowded thoroughfares, and particularly at certain hours of the day; and if police arrangements could be made to prevent empty cabs plying in those streets at those hours the objection might possibly be removed. There was less excuse now than formerly for that great abuse—the habit of loitering—inasmuch as the number of cabstands had been increased from 292 last year to 419 at the present moment; and the Chief Commissioner of Police was now engaged in securing still more of them. He was anxious, also, for the benefit of the public, to state that the use of the tickets, although hardly universal, had been very much extended, and would be of very great advantage. In nearly every case in which complaints were made to the police, either about lost property or of misconduct, a card had been shown, by which the police were enabled to trace the offender or to recover the lost property. The consequence had been that the applications to the police with regard to lost property had been increased by 30 per cent, and whereas last year the total value of the lost property recovered in six weeks was only £136, and the value of the largest article recovered was only £6 10s., this year the total value recovered during six weeks was £343, and the value of the largest article recovered £158. His hon. Friend hoped the regulations that had been made would be enforced. It was and always had been their intention to enforce those regulations, but his hon. Friend must be aware that cabmen, with all their excellent qualities, were not very amenable to State discipline, and it took some time and some perseverance before they could be induced to obey new regulations. He could, however, assure his hon. Friend, on the part of the police and also on his own, that no effort should be wanting to enforce the regulations.

said, he wished to know whether it was intended to enforce the law as to lamps?

said, he had always thought that the remission of the duties made last year was to form the fund out of which the improvements in cabs might be made, to which the House and the public had a right. The charges now borne by hackney carriages amounted to £5 3s. annually—namely, £2 2s. which they paid in common with all other carriages, £2 more which they paid for the licence and for supervision, and a further £1 1s. for the two horses which had to be maintained for each cab. He was assured by the cab proprietors that the cost of two lamps for each cab would be no less than £9 8s. a-year. He had had careful inquiries made of the cost, and the lowest estimate of its amount was about £6; but he would not undertake to say that was more correct than the estimate framed by the cab proprietors. He had taken much pains himself to ascertain whether the value of a lamp would be worth that expense, and every hon. Member was as capable of judging on that point as he was. As far as his own observation went, generally speaking, an approaching cab could be detected by a person using ordinary vigilance; and he was bound to say that in his experience lamps were not any great additional security. Their object was by every means in their power to promote the public convenience by securing better cabs and better horses. The fund out of which that was to be done was the remission of taxation, and if that fund were applied in providing lamps, without giving additional security, they could not expect to get as improved a description of cabs and cab-horses as they might otherwise obtain.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government of the United States of America has offered to re-open negotiations for a settlement of the "Alabama" difficulties; if so, whether such negotiations are to be conducted in London or Washington?

, in reply, said, the Government of the United States had not made an offer to re-open negotiations on the Alabama claims. Should negotiations on this subject be renewed, they would be so at Washington; but he begged leave to refer his hon. Friend to the Papers that day distributed to hon. Members on this subject, as they contained the fullest and latest information relating to his Question.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there is any reason for retaining, at a cost of £2.000 a-year, a Consul General or Minister Plenipotentiary in Hamburg, considering that that City has been since the events of 1866, a part of the North German Confederation, and therefore not in a position to contract Military or Commercial Treaties?

said, in reply, that when this Question was considered by Her Majesty's Government during the Recess, they were of opinion, having regard to the altered state of things in the North of Germany, that it was no longer necessary to maintain a diplomatic representative at Hamburg. Before the opening of Parliament, therefore, a despatch was addressed to Colonel Ward, the Minister resident there, informing him of this opinion, and fixing a day for the termination of his mission.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government will, in the course of the present Session, introduce a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Registration of Voters in the Boroughs of England and Wales?

, in reply, said, he was afraid that the pressure of other business would prevent the Government from bringing forward a measure on that subject this year.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether there will be provision made in the Estimates of the current year 1870–71 for the payment of the Regium Donum Grant to nonconforming Ministers in Ireland, the Act of Parliament passed last Session not coming into operation till the date of January 1st, 1871?

said, the Government did not intend to propose any Vote for what was commonly called the Regium Donum, or for the other small grants which stood on the same footing; and that conclusion of theirs they had every reason to believe was in harmony with the wishes of the great body of the Presbyterians of Ireland. The clause of the Act referred to by the hon. Member had no bearing on that point, because from the moment the Parliamentary Grant ceased the payment of the stipends of the existing ministers of the Presbyterian Church devolved upon the Church Commissioners.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any Despatches have recently arrived from the Governor of Western Australia upon the subject of free emigration to that Colony, and referring to the fact that Convicts had been received solely on the condition that an equal number of Free Emigrants should be sent out at the expense of the Imperial Government; and, whether, at the present condition of the labouring population of England, the Government are prepared to take steps for sending out the number of Free Emigrants required to complete the arrangements made with the authorities of Western Australia?

said, in reply, that when Western Australia was made a convict station, the Imperial Government undertook to send out a free emigrant for every convict it received, subject to the condition that the colony really required and could absorb and provide for them. Information on that subject was asked from the Governor, and a despatch, to which his hon. Friend's Question referred, had been received from him. That despatch was now under the consideration of his noble Friend Earl Granville. No decision had yet been come to on the matter, but he was afraid the information that had been received was not very definite.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that by the 59th section of the Act 23 & 24 Vic. c. 154, commonly called Mr. Card well's Act, tenants, in all ejectments in Ireland, are in the enjoyment of a jurisdiction in equity in the Quarter Sessions Courts, which, in such cases, deal with landlords in strict law only, and not in equity; and, whether tenants in England or Scotland are in this respect, at the present time, as favourably placed as the Irish occupier?

said, that in answering his noble Friend, he must go a little beyond his Question, which referred only to a single section of the Act (23 & 24 Vict.), otherwise the inference the House would draw from the Question and the answer to it would be totally inaccurate. It was true that the section of the Act to which the noble Lord alluded enabled, not all tenants ejected, but tenants ejected in Ireland by the County Courts, to plead an equitable defence, and so to be protected from the enormous expense of a suit in the Superior Courts; but it was also true that the same Act conferred most important and special powers on the landlord, because by another section the Irish landlord was enabled to bring an ejectment for non-payment of rent on equitable grounds, from which he would be debarred in this country. And, what was much more important, an Irish landlord, under the same Act, was able to eject a tenant from year to year for non-payment of rent without notice to quit or power of re-entry—powers totally unknown to the landlords in this country.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in pursuance of the recommendation of a Select Committee of last Session, it is his intention to bring in a Bill to relieve the Metropolitan Board of Works from the obligation to construct a Viaduct on the Thames Embankment from Hungerford Bridge to Wellington Street, Strand; and, whether, "having regard to the improvement of the Metropolis, and as a security against its further disfigurement," he intends, in accordance with a further recommendation of the same Select Committee, to recommend to Parliament that the Standing Orders be amended, so—

"That whenever any public company or corporate body applies for Parliamentary powers to enable it to execute any works or erect any buildings in the Metropolis, or to raise money for the execution or erection of such works and buildings, it shall, before coming to Parliament, deposit at the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, plans and elevations, designs, or models, in like manner as Railway Companies are now obliged to deposit plans and sections at the Board of Trade?"

said, in answer to the first Question, he might state, that when the measure was originally before the House to which the Question referred, for constructing that street from the Bridge to Somerset House, he himself strongly objected to it, and expressed an opinion that the street never would be made. Therefore, when he was charged with his present Office, he wrote a letter to the Metropolitan Board, calling attention to the recommendation of the Committee, and stating that, if in their judgment it was for the convenience of the inhabitants of the metropolis and for the interest of the ratepayers, that they should abandon the construction of that street; and, if they would take upon themselves all the pecuniary responsibilities that would result from that course, he thought it would be very desirable that they should carry out the recommendations of the Committee. He believed the Metropolitan Board of Works had taken the matter into consideration, and proposed in a Bill to take powers to abandon that work. With regard to the second Question of the noble Lord, he had addressed a letter to the Metropolitan Board of Works re- questing them, in their Annual Reports, to take notice of any works which might affect the public buildings of the metropolis, in order that he might see whether such works affected buildings under his charge; because he had no intention whatever to interfere with the business of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Whether it was desirable to alter or to take away the powers which the local authorities of the metropolis now possessed, in reference to works such as those to which the noble Lord alluded, was a question which would require a great deal of consideration. This was a matter within the province of the Home Department. While the local authorities possessed their present functions, any such course on his part as that which the noble Lord suggested would be useless. He might add that the Report of the Metropolitan Board of Works had been prepared, and would be laid on the table of the House very shortly.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, as an early reduction of Duties on articles of import is expected, and as delay and uncertainty is likely both to lessen the revenue and embarrass importers, he will fix an early day on which he will make his financial statement; and if he can now fix a day for that purpose?

Sir, in answering the hon. Gentleman, I beg that I may not be understood as assenting to his hypothesis. I am sorry to say that at this moment, and in the present state of Public Business, I cannot ask a day from my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government; but the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I am quite as anxious as he can be to get the Budget over before Easter.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of reducing or altogether removing the Duty on Sugar, an allowance of the Duty paid on the raw article will be allowed on stocks of refined Sugar in the hands of refiners when such reduction takes place?

Sir, in answering this Question, I must not be supposed to concede that there is any possibility of my taking the duty off sugar or off anything else. I can only say that, should it be my good fortune to take the duty off sugar or off anything else, I shall adopt the best means in my power to insure that the interest of those concerned shall not suffer in any manner that is not absolutely unavoidable.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends, during this Session, again to introduce a measure for improving the Financial Administration of Counties?

said, in reply, that, having regard to the very extensive programme of performances already issued by the Government, he was afraid that he should scarcely have an opportunity of passing such a measure during the present Session. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend as to the importance of the subject, and for that reason thought that it would be undesirable to introduce a measure relating to it, excepting at a time and in a manner which would secure for it such full consideration as might result in some settlement which could be accepted as satisfactory.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to fill up the vacancy in the Court of Queen's Bench, caused by the death of Mr. Justice Hayes?

Sir, I have conferred on this subject with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. The House will remember that, before the last General Election, three extra Judges were appointed with the view of their discharging the duty of trying Election Petitions. That business has almost entirely gone by, and, consequently there is a great abundance of judicial strength. Therefore, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to fill up the vacancy which has been created on the judicial Bench. Indeed, there is a special reason for not doing so now, because Bills, having reference to the Higher Courts of Judicature, have been announced in the Speech from the Throne. There may be some inconvenience arise from the relative strength of the judicial Bench in different courts pending the consideration of those measures; and, with the view of supplying a remedy for that temporary inconvenience, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will introduce a Bill next week in the House of Lords.

in rising to move—

"That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleaded to defend the rights of the Crown over Epping Forest, so that the Forest may be preserved as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public,"

said, that the subject to which he desired to direct attention was one of great importance, because the decision of Parliament upon it would involve the question whether one of the most important open spaces in England should continue to be enjoyed by the public, or whether a policy was to be adopted which might facilitate the enclosure of all the forests in the kingdom. It would be necessary for him to give a very brief history of the Forest of Epping. It originally formed part of very extensive grounds over which the Crown possessed rights of hunting. Whilst these rights existed nothing could be done which would in the slightest degree interfere with this sport; no coverts could be destroyed, and no ground could be broken up. Further so long as these forestal Crown rights were maintained, it was impossible for any part of the land to be enclosed, and the Forest would consequently remain an open space where, by the permission of the Crown, the public could freely wander, But, as everyone knew, the Forest was being so rapidly encroached upon that, if something were not done to put a stop to this proceeding, the Forest would soon cease to exist as a place of recreation for the people. All the facts which he should lay before the House would be drawn from official sources, and the first document to which he should refer was the Report of the Land Revenue Commissioners made in 1793. At that time the Forest consisted of 9,000 acres, and the Commissioners said in very strong language that it was most important that nothing should be done to countenance its enclosure, and especially so because of its close proximity to the metropolis. That recommendation, however, appeared to have attracted but little attention, for during the next half-century the Forest was constantly encroached upon, and there was too much reason to fear that these encroachments were encouraged by the officers of the Crown, whose duty it was to protect the Forest. The result of this course of proceeding was that in 1850 the Forest had been reduced from 9,000 to 7,000 acres. In 1848 a Select Committee of the House was appointed to inquire into the management of the Woods and Forests. To be perfectly candid he was bound to confess that their Report was generally in favour of disafforestation. It must, however, be recollected that associated with this recommendation there was a very strong clause relating to Epping Forest, recommending that everything possible should be done to preserve a portion of that Forest for the enjoyment and recreation of the public. This being so, it would be impossible to quote this Report as a valid argument against him, because their stipulation that a portion of that Forest should be reserved to the public had been taken no notice of, and the result was that the extent of the Forest had been reduced by more than one-half, and that it was being further reduced every year, while no steps whatever were being taken to reserve any portion of it for the recreation of the public. There was too much reason to fear that before many years the whole Forest would have been enclosed, without a single acre being reserved for public purposes. In 1849 a Royal Commission was appointed, at the head of which was Lord Portman; and their Report bore so strongly in favour of this Motion that he might almost rest satisfied with quoting it, and allowing the House to form its own conclusion upon the matter. That Report emphatically recommended that the Crown rights over Epping Forest should be defended, observing that no injustice to private proprietors could result from the adoption of such a course, inasmuch as they had taken the lands under the original grants with the full knowledge of the existence of the Crown rights, which had always been recognized as attaching to the property, and had affected its price when sold. He thought that had the recommendations of this Commission been more generally known to the House, the events of subsequent years would never have occurred. In 1851 an Act was unfortunately passed, under which the Royal parks were handed over to the Commissioners of Works, on the understanding that they were not to be devoted to purposes of revenue, but that public money should be voted for their adornment and maintenance for the recreation of the public. The other Crown lands, on the contrary, were handed over to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who interpreted the intention of Parliament to be that the property and the Crown rights should be devoted entirely to the purposes of public revenue. The result was that between 1851 and 1863 the Crown rights over no less than 4,000 acres out of the 7,000 of which Epping Forest consisted at the former date were sold, and thus the public had for ever lost their hold upon this vast tract of country. He was aware that it would be objected that where the Crown rights over land were sold enclosure did not necessarily follow, but he should meet that argument by contending that where the Crown rights were sold the great security against enclosure was lost. Where the Crown possessed rights over laud the property could not be enclosed without its consent, but when once those rights were sold the question rested simply between the lord of the manor and the copyholders, and the House could understand what a slender chance there was of the lands not being enclosed. It was true that the Master of the Rolls, in his recent decision in the case of Berkhampstead Common, had shown the lords of the manor that they were not at all powerful in the matter; but still, if the Crown rights over the Forest were sold, the only slender security the public would have against its enclosure would be the rare accident that among the copyholders would be found one of ample means and possessed of sufficient public spirit to cause him to enter into long and expensive litigation, in order to prevent the enclosure of the land. Now, what was the magnificent sum the Government realized by the sale of the rights of the Crown over the 4,000 acres of Epping Forest to which he had alluded? Would the House believe that £18,603 16s. 3d. was the whole result of this miserable piece of contemptible economy. Instead of selling the Crown rights over public land, why did not some ardent friend of retrenchment seek to abolish certain sinecure offices, such as that of the Lord Privy Seal, by the abolition of which they might secure ten times as much for the Exchequer of the country. Happily, however, through the intervention of an hon. Member who formerly sat on the opposite side of the House, this polity of selling the rights of the Crown was summarily checked. In 1863, Mr. Peacocke carried in that House an Address to the Queen, praying her that she would not sell any more Crown rights over land within fifteen miles of the metropolis—so as not to facilitate the enclosure of such lands. He mentioned this circumstance to show that this was not in any way a party question. In the same year a Select Committee was appointed, over which a Gentleman who also was no longer a Member of that House presided. That Committee recommended either that the Crown rights might be defended or that such a plan of enclosure might be originated as would effect the preservation of certain portions of the land in the public interest. But of neither of these recommendations had any notice been taken. Associated with these recommendations was another, by which the Government was reminded that it was their duty to resist all encroachments which had been made on lands the Crown rights over which had not been sold. It curiously happened that a gentleman had since that period set the Crown rights at defiance, and, having refused to purchase those rights over the property, had enclosed upwards of 300 acres of the Forest, cutting down the trees and ordering the Crown officer off the land. From that hour to the present no notice had been taken of these illegal acts; and he had been permitted to enjoy the property unmolested. In 1865 another Select Committee was appointed, whose recommendations were of a still more decisive character. They recommended that everything should be done to prevent encroachments on the Forest, and they expressed their regret that the encroachments that had been made up to the time had not been re- sisted. They further declared their opinion that the rights of the Crown should not be devoted to purposes of revenue, but should be upheld with the view of promoting the enjoyment and recreation of the public. The Report of that Committee led to the passing of the Metropolis Commons Act, which was introduced by the right hon. Member who now sat for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple). In the course of the debate upon that Bill a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), as to what he intended should be done with the rights of the Crown over Epping Forest, and the right hon. Gentleman gave the clear and important reply that, with the entire sanction of the Queen, those rights would be dealt with in accordance with the wishes that had been so frequently expressed in Parliament. During the same year the present Prime Minister proved the sincerity of the pledge he had given by introducing the Crown Lands Bill, a clause in which transferred Epping Forest from the Office of Woods and Forests to the Office of Works; and the result of the passing of those two measures—namely, the Metropolis Commons Act and the Crown Lands Act—was to enable Epping Forest to be brought under separate management, and to give the officials of the latter office the power of applying public money to the maintenance and defence of the Crown rights over it. The Forest was regarded as ail the more secure when in 1868 the right hon. Gentleman who had done so much for Epping Forest became Prime Minister, and had for his Colleagues so many who could be ranked among the most persistent and eloquent defenders of popular rights. But the House would scarcely believe, and no one would be more incredulous of the statement than the First Lord of the Treasury, that at no time had the Forest been in so much peril as at the present moment. He ventured to think that deputations which had waited upon Members of the Administration on the subject made a grave mistake in not waiting upon the Prime Minister himself. In May last Mr. Layard told a deputation he sympathized with them—that he was extremely anxious for the preservation of the Forest. But he evidently feared the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and accordingly another deputation, in a rash moment, perhaps, sought an interview, on the 2nd of August, with that dreaded functionary; but as they left Downing-street there was not one of them who did not feel that Mr. Layard's fears were well founded. Not only were parochial authorities, clergymen, and distinguished barristers most unceremoniously treated, but, strange as it may appear, the gentleman who came in for the worst of the Chancellor's sarcasm was the distinguished statesman who is now Prime Minister. The members of the deputation, after having been assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would do nothing whatever to defend the Crown rights, and would take no notice whatever of the recommendations of two Select Committees and a Royal Commission, as well as of the answer by the Prime Minister to hon. Members, went on to say that the rig] its of the Crown could not be defended. But the members of the deputation thought much of the answer by the Prime Minister, for it was to the effect that an arrangement had been made, with the entire consent of Her Majesty, which would bring the forestal rights of the Crown out of conflict with the general interest of the community, and enable them to be dealt with in a manner satisfactory to all the parties concerned. When reminded of this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, characterized it as very oracular; and when a member of the deputation exclaimed that the Prime Minister was too great, too generous, and too good not to fulfil a promise he had made, the Chancellor rejoined,—"I don't understand what it means; it was evidently intended to please every one, the lords of the manor included." He (Mr. Fawcett) trusted that before the evening was over the Prime Minister, who had done so much for the Forest, would give them some assurance for the future which even the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not stigmatize as either meaningless or oracular. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the deputation that those forestal rights were a remnant of feudalism, and antagonistic to the spirit of the ago; and went on to lay down the principle that it would be unjust to individuals to enforce the right for a different purpose from that for which it was originally granted. According to this doctrine, it would be perfectly proper to maintain the Crown rights over Epping Forest if it were required as a hunting ground for the Queen, but not right for Her Majesty to maintain her rights, when the object was to keep up a place where thousands and tens of thousands of her subjects found healthful recreation. The adoption of the doctrines advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would revolutionize the whole system of land tenure, for everyone knew there was no such thing as absolute ownership of land. Formerly the possession of land was always accompanied by reciprocal duties. Owners of estates were bound to perform military service; but the tenure of the land did not cease with this obligation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer disposed of the rights of the Crown as obsolete because the Monarch did not hunt in Epping Forest; but were the purposes for which the lordships of the manors were originally created less obsolete? Lords of the manors originally discharged certain military duties, the necessity for which had long since ceased. They were originally, also, dispensers of justice, and their courts were the common legal tribunals of the country, but those courts had long since been abolished. He trusted Parliament would not be guilty of the anomaly of passing a special law to give the Irish a better hold on the land—or, as the common phrase was, to root the Irish people more deeply in the soil—and, at the same time, straining the law to prevent the people from wandering over the little land still left for them in any sense to enjoy. It was almost insulting to a great nation for a Minister to suppose that the cost of maintaining these Crown rights would be any obstacle when the deepest interests of the people were involved. Mr. Godfrey Lushington had given his opinion that the cost of defending the suit would not amount to more than £1,500, and that such a suit, if entered into, would almost certainly be successful; and he had also pointed out that one successful suit would prevent future encroachments. Should the House hesitate about £1,500 when, in a few hours, twice as much was spent in bursting guns and destroying targets? Epping Forest was the product of centuries, and no amount of money could create or restore it. He had been conversing with that distinguished minister, the Rev. Septimus Hansard, who had told him that if Epping Forest were not saved he would be inclined to give up his work in the East-end in despair. Would the House commit the anomaly of allowing the destruction of Epping Forest and yet passing a Bill in the vain attempt to check drunkenness by revising the licensing system? Not 200 Licensing Bills would have the slightest effect in preventing intemperance if the people were deprived of means for healthy recreation. He earnestly hoped that the Government would accept this Motion, and he should not have introduced it at that early period of the Session if he had not felt that the question was one of great urgency. Virtually the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given permission to whoever would to appropriate the Crown rights. He (Mr. Fawcett) therefore called upon the House to support him in his endeavours to reverse the dictum. If the Government resisted the Motion, he would ask the independent Members of that House to support him in a Resolution, in which the interests of the public generally, and the poor particularly, were vitally concerned. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said he believed he was the first person in that House who had called public attention to that subject some years ago, at the time when Messrs. Howard and Gore were adopting a most ruinous policy with respect to the Crown lands. He was not surprised that the House had smiled at the humoreus description given by his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) of the interview of the deputation from the East of London with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject; but it was a calamity, and no laughing matter with the people of that locality to be deprived of a Forest which in former days, and until quite lately, was their greatest source of enjoyment and almost their greatest source of improvement. He had lived some years on the confines of the Forest, and he had never enjoyed any sight more than that of the crowds of people who thronged the roads upon a fine Sunday, with their wives and children, for the purpose of enjoying healthful recreation and the natural beauties of Epping Forest. Since that time, owing to the miserable petty economy of the Government, portions of that Forest had been destroyed. He believed, however, that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who, with an entire absence of public spirit, had sold Crown rights to the prejudice of the public, were the real offenders. The Crown rights of that most beautiful part of the Forest at Wanstead, the nearest part to London—about five miles and a half from the heart of Whitechapel—had been sold to Lord Mornington for £1,500, but he need not say that they were worth a hundred times that sum to the metropolis. Victoria Park was, no doubt, a great boon to the people at the East-end of London, but Epping Forest stood alone for rural enjoyment within a short walk of a densely-populated district. Still, notwithstanding much had been taken from the Forest, much still remained for the people; but if the policy inaugurated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not given up the Forest would be entirely destroyed. If even £10,000 or £20,000 was spent in litigation to prevent encroachments, the country would be repaid a thousand-fold by the growth of a healthier and more I moral people; he trusted, therefore, the Prime Minister would really give his attention to the subject, and set at rest the legitimate fears of a large district in; the East-end of London.

was constrained to add a few words in support of a proposition which was certainly not a party question, but one affecting the innocent recreation, morality, and education of hundreds of thousands of our fellow-townsmen. His hon. Friends had scarcely laid as much stress as they should have done upon the peculiar claims of the East-end of London. The health and comfort of the enormous population of the metropolis—a town of 3,000,000 inhabitants—was daily becoming more and more an Imperial question, for the simple reason that if London went wrong the whole body must suffer. In the face of its enormously increasing population the East-end of London—a huge city in itself, in position and in circumstances widely different from the West, and daily spreading eastward—as far as West Ham, Stratford, and Barking, was wholly deficient in public means of recreation, with the exception of Victoria and Greenwich Parks—the latter over the river—while the West-end, not so destitute or unhealthy, had, in addition to the familiar parks, Kew and Richmond and Bushey. The West-enders had a comparatively healthy and pleasant general country into which to wander; the Eastern inhabitants had only the less salubrious and less agreeable flats of Essex. In face of such a difference it would not be strange, though regrettable, if a sense of injustice were generated in the East-end. The parks in Paris were all smaller and were more easily accessible, but the Imperial Government, not content with the Bois de Boulogne, had supplied those Parisians who stand in the place of our Eastenders with a new park at the Buttes de Chaumont, and have emparked the Parisian Epping Forest, the Bois de Vincennes; so much for Imperialism: tinder a Republican regime the Government of New York have formed, at enormous expense, the great Central Park of 800 acres for the recreation of its rapidly growing population. With these examples before the House, and with the wants of the East-end plainly before them, he trusted that no pedantic precedent or more miserable economy would induce them to make themselves contemptible in the sight of civilized nations. If the Government did not accept the Motion, he trusted the House would pass it by a preponderating majority from both sides.

said, he trusted no one representing the Government would say he did not intend resisting encroachments on the rights of the Crown merely because he did not choose to pay the lawyer's bill; and yet there was nothing against maintaining these forestal rights except the cost. It was asserted that these Crown rights were obsolete, but how could this be when their existence was actually at this moment preventing the enclosure of a vast quantity of land? The custom of the Sovereign chasing the deer in the forest was doubtless obsolete; and the pleasure enjoyed by those who followed the Sovereign and witnessed the sport had passed away, but the recreation continued, though the character of it had changed; and the enjoyment of free passage over the forest remained after the hunting had ceased, and thus thousands of people to-day did enjoy such recreation as the forest could afford. He was sure our beloved Sovereign, though not desirous to follow the custom of her predecessors by chasing the deer, would derive the greatest pleasure from the knowledge that great numbers of her subjects were still enjoying recreation from her forestal rights. The lords of the manor could not complain of privileges exercised under forestal rights, for those rights were antecedent to the rights of the lords of the manor, and the ancient grants to lords from the Crown had reserved the forestal rights. With regard to Epping Forest, there were three parties who possessed rights over the land—namery, the lords of the manor, the copyholders and freeholders, and the Crown. Why, then, should the Crown withdraw its rights, and thereby increase the value of the rights of the other two parties? These forestal rights were treated by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests as matters of revenue, and their mode of treatment was, in his opinion, unstatesmanlike, and wrong. Forestal rights were not originally intended to produce revenue. The way in which the Commissioners regarded the matter was quite contrary to the opinion of the House of Commons in 1863, when a Resolution was passed to the effect that no money should be taken for these, and in 1866, when his right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister proposed a measure with the avowed object of removing these forestal rights from the control of a Department which treated them as a source of revenue, and transferring them to the Department which is charged with the employment of the public money for the general recreation of the people. Consequently Parliament, by the recommendation of the Prime Minister himself, had removed this question from the narrow ground of financial obligation; and he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not make any retrograde step. Was not the money given to the lawyers to plead this cause exceedingly well spent if it resulted in securing for the masses of the poor people of the metropolis the immense enjoyment derivable from the beauty of the Forest? Again, from a national point of view, he should be sorry to see the Forest destroyed, for it was not in the power of man to restore it. You may make parks and gardens, but you cannot make primitive forests. Supposing that the present Motion were acceded to, and that the Government were willing to take the proper steps to defend the rights of the Crown, one of the two courses recommended by the Committee of 1863 might be adopted. One of these recommendations was to endeavour to maintain the whole ground permanently open for the recreation of the people, in conjunction with the rights of the lords of the manor and copyholders; the other to come to a mutual agreement with the lords of the manor and the copyholders that a considerable portion of the Forest should be preserved as national property for ever, and that the remainder should become their property in severalty. If the latter course were adopted it would be nobody's interest to litigate with the Crown, while by mutual agreement the public would get the benefit of such a portion of the Forest as might be deemed equivalent to the rights which the Crown had inherited and now possessed. He trusted the Government would not allow matters to continue in their present condition, for if an impression got abroad that the Crown would not defend its rights people would naturally be induced to encroach upon them. He should give his support to the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, he had introduced the deputation that waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer last autumn, and he wished the House to know that that deputation was greatly disappointed at being met with the arguments referred to by the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion. They thought that enough had been already done by the action of this House, borne out, as it had been, by the language of the present Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to encourage them to hope that the Government would, in the course of the present Session, propose some scheme for preserving Epping Forest for the public. The deputation had no desire to disturb existing arrangements, but would have been perfectly satisfied with maintaining in- tact, for the benefit of the public, the remaining unenclosed portions, which consisted of many thousand acres. The deputation relied, and he hoped not in vain, upon the recommendations of the Committee of 1865, by which the forestal rights of the Crown would be maintained without regard to the question of revenue being allowed to interfere, and the present extent of forest land preserved from future enclosure. He hoped the approbation with which the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had been received in that House would induce the Government to adopt it, and prevent further encroachments.

said, he wished to remind the House that the Department of Woods and Forests had distinctly stated that they had nothing to do with the recreation of the people, and that their only duty was to turn everything they could into money. He hoped the gentlemen sitting at Whitehall would not be allowed, for the sake of a few pounds, to set the wishes of this House at defiance, and destroy the enjoyment of the people, as had been done in the case of Blackheath and other commons.

said, he thought the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had discharged, in an exemplary manner, the duties which Parliament had imposed upon them. They had regularly laid their Reports before the House, and no one who read those Reports could come to the conclusion that they had done wrong. What was now asked was, for the House to do indirectly what it ought to do directly. It would be, no doubt, very desirable to secure all unenclosed ground near the metropolis for the benefit of the people, but that result was not likely to be attained by going to law with the lords of the several manors. Litigation, which the present Motion would tend to produce, might not, improbably, lead to a highly unsatisfactory result, as it had done in the case of Leicester Square. If they went to law they would have to travel back into all the old forest rights and claims; and the securing to the Crown its rights did not of necessity establish the right of the public to go over every part of Epping Forest whenever they pleased. The better course would be to endeavour to promote an agreement between all the parties interested.

said, he felt sure that everyone who had heard the debate must feel that the object sought by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and by those who had supported him was a most commendable one, and he for one most heartily sympathized with his hon. Friend's endeavour to obtain for the benefit of the public the preservation of such a beautiful tract of country as was to be found in Epping Forest. At the present time, too, it appeared to him more than ordinarily desirable that any such object should, if possible, be attained, to remedy the results of a certain modern exclusiveness. Many hon. Members who lived in the country could testify to the fact that many beautiful spots which, when they were boys, were free and open spaces, had now been enclosed. He, therefore, approached the consideration of the question without the smallest desire to throw any impediment in the way of what his hon. Friend sought to attain, and certainly with no want of sympathy with the object which his hon. Friend had in view. Indeed, speaking for himself, if it were true that any rights of the Crown had been interfered with, in which the subjects of the Crown shared, and if it could be shown that by a simple and cheap mode the Crown could maintain its own rights, and by maintaining" its own rights maintain practically and effectively the rights of its subjects at the same time, he should decidedly approve the interference of the Crown. Indeed, he would go further, and say that if the rights of the Crown were of such a character that they could be exchanged for something of substantial value—as, for instance, if the Crown, by parting with its rights over the 3,000 acres to which his hon. Friend had referred, could obtain 300 acres elsewhere of open space, it would be a sensible and wise thing to do so. But he would ask what it was that the hon. Member for Brighton was calling upon the Government to do, and point out to the House the difficulties which presented themselves in any attempt to adopt such a course of action as that recommended by his hon. Friend. They were asked, not to maintain any rights of the Crown in which the subject was entitled to share, or in which he had the slightest interest, but they were asked to maintain certain rights of the Crown at very great expense and with very doubtful issue—in which the subject had no share whatever, which would, if enforced at all, have to be enforced in opposition to the claims of the lords of the manor, of copyholders, and of others—claims which were perfectly defensible, which the proprietors had vested in them, and of which they could not be deprived except by the ordinary mode of passing an Act of Parliament and by granting them compensation, or by adopting those friendly contracts following upon negotiations with which the Members of that House were all so familiar. Hon. Gentlemen, perhaps, were not quite aware what a forest really was. A forest, under the old law, was a precinct which was cut off from the rest of the country, subject to a very peculiar and onerous code of laws, and so reserved for the hunting of the King, and the King alone, of certain beasts of game, harts and hinds, wolves and boars. Those were the animals which the King, by the old forest laws, had an especial right to hunt, and it was for that purpose that forests were set aside. Hon. Gentlemen would find, if they consulted John Manwood and other recondite authorities on this matter, that the King with the great nobles who followed in his train, and those only to whom he gave special licence, had any right to hunt in these forests. As far as he could make out, the rights possessed by the King were four in number. He had a right to fill these forests with game; he could insist upon the maintenance of sufficient cover and browse for them to feed upon; thirdly, he had a right to exact the strict observance of the fence month, from fifteen days before to fifteen days after the feast of St. John the Baptist, during which time, it was said, the hinds dropped their young. He did not know when the wolves and wild swine dropped theirs. During that period the foresters were to go up and down the forest, and any man found within the forest would be brought before the verderers and severely punished, or, if he tried to escape, powers were given to raise the hue and cry until he was caught. The only other right that he could discover was a right to prevent such enclosures being made as would interfere with the leaping of horses and game over them, or the passing through of the wolves or boars. With that exception, any other enclosures might, he believed, be made without infringing the King's rights. He was speaking in the hearing of many hon. Gentlemen who were as well, or probably better, acquainted with the subject than he was, and he believed that they would bear him out in saying that that was a fair and accurate statement of what were called the forestal rights of the Crown, [Mr. BUXTON: Has not the Crown a right to cut wood?] Certainly not. The wood was not the property of the Crown. What they were dealing with was a case where the Crown was not the lord of the manor. In the New Forest, and others, where the soil was the property of the Crown, the Crown, besides its forestal rights, exercised the rights which appertained to the lord of the manor. But it was entirely different when the rights of the Crown were merely forestal. In these cases the lords of the manor might, he apprehended, cut wood without stint as long as they left sufficient to afford cover for the game. Wolves and boars, they knew, had disappeared, and a great deal could be done in the way of cutting at Epping Forest without depriving the game of sufficient to browse. Practically speaking, in a forest where the King was not the lord of the soil, where no deer and no beasts were to be found, the rights of the Crown were of the most shadowy description. Further, too, these rights were exceedingly difficult to enforce, for, as he believed, offences against the forest laws could only be punished by the forest tribunals and forest authorities; and for the purpose of enforcing these forest rights, if they existed, they would have to bring into existence a number of those obsolete tribunals whose judgments might not be particularly impartial, or if impartial not particularly enlightened. It was only, so far as he knew, where the Crown, was lord of the manor that such forest rights of any practical value could be enforced. He believed he had shown that what the Government were asked to do was to undertake a task of extreme difficulty, and one which, if undertaken, would not bring about the result which his hon. Friend desired. Some hon. Members might remember the case of the "Queen against Hallett," in which proceedings were taken by the Crown in the Court of Exchequer to enforce its forestal rights by information of intrusion. The practical result was that many thousands of pounds were ex- pended, and at last Mr. Hallett got tired of the business, paid £100, and a verdict was taken by consent, and there was an end of the matter; he was not restrained from doing the same thing next day. Of course the Crown could not be expected to go on spending public money at a great rate in difficult, expensive, and most doubtful litigation with lord of the manor after lord of the manor, whose direct interest it was to act on all the rights which they believed, and probably truly believed, belonged to them. Those observations he made to show the House what was the real state of the case. If the House, after hearing that, were still of opinion that this matter was to be proceeded with, of course it was not for him to object; he had no direct interest as Solicitor General in preventing the carrying on of litigation on the part of the Crown, which might involve the expenditure of a great many thousand pounds, some miserable few of which would pass into the pockets of the Law Officers for the time being. But, seriously, it was his duty to point out what was the real state of the law, that the House might not vote on the question without understanding exactly what it was about. There were other modes of proceeding which it was not for him to suggest—as, for example, by individual negotiation, or by dealing with the matter in some general measure. It might be suggested that the owners of large properties or of properties of any size, within certain limits of certain great towns, as their property got enormously enhanced in value by the wealth of those towns and by the increase of population, should come under some general law obliging them to reserve certain portions of their land for the benefit of those from whom their estates had derived that largely increased value. Again, though the enforcing of utterly obsolete and useless rights would be of no effect, some other mode might be devised by which the Government might bring about through negotiation what it was utterly hopeless to bring about by law. These, however, were not matters properly within his province, and having stated as far as he was able the legal aspect of the question, he left the House to pronounce its decision.

said, he had no doubt that the disquisition of the learned Solicitor General, however interesting in itself, would be most un- satisfactory to the inhabitants of the East-end of London. The people saw a large tract of land which they and their forefathers had long used for recreation gradually passing away from them, while the Government declared that their hands were so tied that they could not interfere to prevent it. The Crown Lands Commissioners had entirely misapprehended their position, and always assumed that they were above the control of the Government of the day, looking, moreover, on the public as their natural enemy. They had sold the rights of the Crown for a very small sum, which enabled the owners of the land in the district to exercise rights of much larger value than the money paid for them, and which, but for the improvident sale of those rights to them by the Crown, they could not possibly have exercised. It was for those who had parted with the rights of the Crown so indiscreetly to devise the means of protecting the people in the enjoyment of their accustomed rights. He hoped the Prime Minister would not be led away by the Solicitor General on any question of bears or wolves, but if he could not quite see his way to agreeing to the present Motion, would at least recognize the duty resting on the Government of preserving these lands for the recreation of the people of the east of London.

Sir, I am quite sure the House will not concur with my hon. Friend who has just sat down in disparaging the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. It appears to me that it was absolutely part of the duty of the Government—and a duty performed with remarkable clearness, great ability, and a singular absence of all legal pedantry in the speech of my learned Friend—to state to the House the legal aspect of this question, that it might understand, so far as the Government know, what can and what cannot be done in a legal point of view in the matter. But having said this much, and not being prepared to depart in the letter or the spirit from the speech of my learned Friend, I hold that there is no reason why my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) should be dissatisfied with that speech or with the action of the Government. I hope that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), nor anyone else, will think it shows on my part a gross neglect of public duty if I admit that, since the period when the answer to which he referred was given by me in the House of Commons, in 1866, my attention has been very much engrossed by other matters, and has not been directed to the prosecution of this question. Two and a half years were thus allowed to pass, when the late Government came into Office, and on our accession to Office again another year was allowed to pass without any attempt on our part to press this subject on the consideration of Parliament. And I admit that after that lapse of time my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton is perfectly justified in endeavouring to obtain an expression of opinion by the House, and in forcing upon us the responsibility of taking a decided course on the matter. I think the point my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General was most anxious to bring before the House was this—that we must not be parties to inducing the House to act with false pretences, or with expectations that we think cannot be sustained. The speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, if I understood it rightly, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge and other Gentlemen, proceeded on the supposition that by enforcing the forestal rights of the Crown we had it in our power effectually to prevent the enclosure of Epping Forest. Now, I am bound to say I wish I could affirm that proposition. I am not able, as advised by the best authorities, to affirm it. Up to what point, then, has my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton proved his case? I think he has shown that it is the duty of the Government to move in the matter, and to make themselves in good faith the advocates and champions of the desire of Parliament that everything which is practicable shall be done for the purpose of preserving for the enjoyment of the people of London whatever can be preserved. There are questions with regard to cost, questions with regard to the source from which the cost should be defrayed, on which it would be premature for me at this time to enter. The general principle on which in these matters Parliament has endeavoured, and I think rightly endeavoured, to proceed is this—That the metropolis itself should be responsible—I mean the property of the metropolis—for all that appertains to the enjoyment of its people. But this, I admit, is a case which assumes a peculiar aspect from its previous history; and I do not, therefore, at this moment, enter into the question whether it is necessary for us, in this instance, to act upon that principle in its full breadth and rigour. What I acknowledge is that it is our duty to take this matter in hand. And if it be our duty so to do, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton will agree with me in the opinion that we shall probably be able to exercise the soundest discretion in the choice of the means for attaining the end we wish to reach, provided we are not compelled too much to enter into a discussion of details on the present occasion. We have stated frankly that we doubt whether we could attain that end through courts of justice by the assertion of the forestal rights alone, and I think I am almost falling short of what was said by my learned Friend the Solicitor General. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Brighton has reminded us—although he referred to it for another purpose—that the forestal rights of the Crown over a part of the land were sold to parties for £18,000; and if they were sold in respect to a part of the Forest for that sum, it is fair to assume that the Crown's forestal rights over the rest still remain and are of some value. Our duty, therefore, evidently will be to make as much as we can of whatever value they may possess; and all I ask of my hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) is this—I do not go so far as to ask him to withdraw his Motion, but I beg that the form of it may be altered, and that it may not specifically bind and confine us not merely to prosecute the end in view, but to prosecute it by a mode of proceeding with regard to which we greatly doubt whether it can be successful and effectual. My hon. Friend's Motion as it stands is—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to defend the rights of the Crown over Epping Forest, so that the Forest may be preserved as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public."

Well, I do not want to abandon the rights of the Crown; but I think it would be better, if the House is so pleased, to leave the matter in our hands, to leave open to us the choice of means for the execution of the task, which I must frankly admit, I think we are, under the circumstances, bound to take in hand and prosecute. What I would suggest is this, that the words—"be graciously pleased to defend the rights of the Crown over Epping Forest, so that the" be omitted, and for them be substituted, "take such measures as in Her judgment She may deem most expedient, so that Epping Forest may be preserved, &c." As far as refers to the end in view, there will be no change if this be done, and as far as refers to the course of proceeding, it will be our duty when we have looked into the matter, to report to the House, and subject ourselves to its judgment with respect to the choice of the means to be adopted. I do not suggest these alterations in my hon. Friend's Motion in any hostile sense, and, indeed, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree to the suggestion I now make. I therefore beg to move that Amendment in the Motion of my hon. Friend.

said, he accepted, with the utmost pleasure, the Amendment of the Prime Minister, and begged very sincerely to thank him for it. No doubt, after what the Prime Minister had said, sooner or later, those rights must come into a court of justice; but, before that time, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General would pluck up a little more spirit, and show a little more heart than he had exhibited that evening.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Minority Clauses of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, said, that the Bill consisted of only one enacting clause, which it was not necessary to take up the time of the House by explaining on that occasion. He hoped, when the Bill came to a second reading, he would be able to show that it was not a measure of a reactionary character as it had been represented to be that morning in one of the main organs of public opinion.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persevere in the course he was about to take. If he did, it would be very like putting the Reform. Bill into a crucible to recast it. Whatever opinion the hon. Gentleman might entertain, there were a great many in that House who attached the greatest value to the Minority Clauses, which they regarded as forming a protection against the tyranny of absolute and uncompromising majorities. For his own part, he would strongly oppose the Motion without reference to what might be done at another time.

said, though he was very far from laying it down absolutely that all Bills were to have their first stage taken simply as a matter of course, yet he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Hardcastle) had a very fair case for being allowed to introduce his measure without opposition. For the opinion upon which his hon. Friend acted was not merely his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion—he would not recommend the Bill on that ground—but the opinion of the House of Commons, which sent tip the Reform Bill to the House of Lords without the Minority Clauses, and passed them afterwards in order to avoid running the risk of losing the Bill for a year. Under these circumstances, it was only fair his hon. Friend should, be allowed to introduce the Bill without opposition. On the part of the Government, he might say that it was quite right they should reserve to a later stage the expression of an opinion whether it was or was not desirable to deal with this particular part of the election, law in au isolated manner.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide that the poll at Parliamentary and Municipal Elections be taken by Ballot, said: It is a great satisfaction to me to believe that, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the introduction of the Ballot at Parliamentary and municipal elections, I am asking the House to express their willingness to take into consideration a question which is passing, if it has not passed, out of the domain of party. If anyone conversant with the Parliamentary history of the Ballot were to read attentively the evidence which was taken before the Select Committee upon Elections, and to observe the course of the examination, perhaps one of the first points which would strike him would be the progressive softening in their hostility to the Ballot evinced by those who entered upon that inquiry committed to a certain extent by their public utterances against it. I can conceive nothing more creditable to the more prominent Members of the Conservative party who sat upon that Committee, than the skill and patience with which they sifted the evidence in the first place, and the manly candour with which, in the next place, they practically admitted its cogency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, having distinguished himself throughout by the care with which he examined witnesses favourable to the Ballot, distinctly declined at the close of the inquiry to place any Resolution upon the Paper adverse to the adoption of the Ballot; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire laid before us a string of Resolutions, the general purport of which was unmistakable. It is quite true that he added one which in no very strenuous terms seemed to suggest a vital modification of the Ballot itself, but the right hon. Gentleman is, I take it, far too shrewd a politician, and far too conversant with the practical sagacity of this House, to make any proposition which was intended to be inconsistent with itself. A temporary Ballot is no Ballot at all. I can therefore only accept this last faltering Resolution as a parting shot fired by the right hon. Gentleman either to cover his retreat, or as a salvo of honour over the grave of a long-cherished but deceased opinion. But, Sir, the change which was manifestly taking place in the mental attitude of these right hon. Gentlemen towards the Ballot, was reflected by a similar and simultaneous change in the minds of the great party to which they belong. At first the evidence of this change readied the Committee in an indirect shape. So early as the second day of the inquiry we were informed of it upon good, but second-hand authority, but it was not until the inquiry reached its sixth day that we were so fortunate as to discover a bonâ fide Conservative witness who was in favour of the Ballot. This man's mind was actually in the interesting process of conversion. One eye was open to the advantages of the Ballot; the other was still closed. He was in favour of the municipal but not the Parliamentary Ballot. The same day, however, we discovered another Conservative witness both whose eyes were open; and the ice was no sooner broken than evidence was forthcoming in abundance, which proved that a great ripening had been taking place in Conservative opinion throughout the country with reference to this question. And since this is so, I feel quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, whatever may be their individual convictions, will not go the length of voting against the first reading of this Bill, with a view to stifling in its birth the discussion of a question in which their own supporters are taking a lively and rapidly-growing interest. And here, Sir, perhaps I may be permitted to remark that under these peculiar circumstances there is a certain propriety in the introduction of this measure by a private Member. A Government, ruling by party, can scarcely touch any part of our electoral system without laying itself open to the suspicion—probably perfectly unfounded—that it does so with party ends in view. As a necessary consequence, such is the jealousy with which each side of the House naturally watches the political manœuvres of the other, that debates upon these questions, when initiated by the Government, assume at the outset more or less of a party character. Party prejudices, which otherwise might have slumbered, are invoiced, awakened, and arrayed against the proposition, and we are thus insensibly but irresistibly dragged away from the simple search after truth into a trial of party tactics, party eloquence, and party strength. But when a humble individual, unconnected with the Government, and not known as a strong party man, submits a question of this character to the House, prejudice and jealousy do not necessarily take alarm, and without the least sacrifice of party strategy or even party etiquette he may receive—as he trusts he will receive assistance from all parts of the House, which may prove more valuable in the direction of its right solution than the most strenuous flagellations on the part of my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury. I appeal, then, to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government to permit this debate, and the whole discussion to take its natural course, and I would ask him, and ask him with confidence, as to his reply—whether he does not believe that there are some questions, and that this has now become one of them, which may be more conveniently and more justly settled by a general concurrence of opinion, rather than by the more usual, but more hazardous process of party debate. And, Sir, I would venture to direct his attention, in confirmation of what I say, to a speech delivered by a right hon. Colleague of his upon this very question in 1860. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said—

"The Ballot was not in Victoria, as in England, exclusively advocated by the popular or Liberal party, and opposed by Conservatives. On the contrary, some of its most strenuous advocates sat on the Conservative side of the House, and unquestionably its most formidable opponents were the leaders of the extreme democratic party. And to this I think much of its success is due. For not being a party measure, its details were honestly discussed and settled by the ablest men in the House."—[3 Hansard, clvi. 788.]

Sir, this is precisely the kind of discussion which I hope awaits the details of this Bill. And now, Sir, what is the Bill which I move for leave to bring in? It provides that the poll at every municipal and Parliamentary election in the United Kingdom shall be taken by Ballot, with the exception of that at elections for the Universities. It is only very recently that you have introduced a mode of voting well adapted to meet the peculiarity of these constituencies—namely, that the electors composing them are scattered all over the country. It would be inconvenient in the extreme to apply the Ballot principle to constituencies of this character; nor am I aware that any dissatisfaction exists with the new mode of voting, or the breath of a suspicion that those practices which render the adoption of the Ballot desirable elsewhere are known at University elections. Nor, Sir, do I propose to deal with elections for Poor Law or Local Boards. The system both of voting and of suffrage differs so materially from those which we are about to consider that if it be essential to deal with the mode of voting at these elections at all it must be dealt with under a separate statute. But, Sir, no such observation applies to the proposal to modify by the same Bill the mode of voting and taking the poll at both Parliamentary and municipal elections. These two classes of contest run so completely into one another that it is impossible to divorce the consideration of the one from the consideration of the other. Practically speaking, since the reduction of the franchise the municipal and Parliamentary constituencies are identical. With hardly an exception municipal contests are political. As a necessary consequence of these two cardinal facts the same class of persons and the same organization work both, and when we examine that working we find the same corrupt and the same sinister influences steadily pervading each. Indeed, if there is any difference it is in favour of Parliamentary elections, for "there is a general feeling," as one of the witnesses from Bradford remarked, "that you can do anything at municipal elections." So that, if you do not check bribery and intimidation at these constantly recurring contests, you leave the spawn of both untouched; you leave the Parliamentary constituency, which is identical with the municipal, a prey to all those debasing practices when they are resorted to by the same men at the Parliamentary election. And there is such a thing as voting corruptly from sheer habit, for having slowly saturated a man with bribery by the periodical administration of minute doses you may almost trust him to vote with the same corrupt bias upon the comparatively rare occasions when bribery is impossible. If, therefore, as we contend, the Ballot will check bribery and defeat coercion, we are logically bound to apply the same remedy to municipal as well as Parliamentary elections. I may now proceed to state to the House the particular form of Ballot which I propose to introduce under this Bill. The House will, perhaps, remember that a year ago I moved—not as has been stated, for leave to bring in this Bill, but an Instruction to the Committee on Elections in order to insure our taking evidence upon the various forms of Ballot actually in use upon the Continent of Europe and elsewhere, with a view to the selection of that particular form which should be thought the best adapted to the requirements of constituencies in this country. In consequence of an assurance which I received from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that such an inquiry was entirely within the scope of our Order of Reference, I withdrew my Motion, and, in justice to the Committee, I must say that the evidence taken upon this most important branch of the subject was of the most ample and satisfactory kind. When we come to deal with the clauses of the Bill, I shall be prepared by a minute reference to that evidence, to explain and defend the various provisions which they contain, but at this preliminary stage, it will probably be thought sufficient if I simply state those provisions to the House. The form of Ballot which I propose is a modification of what is known as the Victorian system. The voter will present himself, as he does now, at the polling-booth. He will find there, as he does now, the presiding officer and his poll-clerk, and two or more inspectors appointed, one by each candidate, under an existing statute, in order to prevent personation. The powers of these inspectors will be extended by the Bill, so as to enable them to watch the whole operation of the Ballot in the interest of the candidates whom they re-I present. Having identified himself as he does now with the person in whose name upon the register he claims to vote he will receive from the presiding officer a ballot card. Upon this ballot card, besides the name and date of the election, are to be printed in strict alphabetical order, and each in a separate colour, the names of all the candidates. This is done in order to meet the case of voters of very imperfect education. Many men may be unable to read, but it is hardly possible to imagine that any man can be found unable either to count as high as four or sis, or to distinguish colour. Before handing this card to the voter, the presiding officer will place his own initials on the back, in order to prevent what is known as the Tasmanian dodge. Having received his ballot card the voter takes it to a compartment which is so constructed that he may mark his card there without interruption or observation. He then strikes out from the card the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom he does not intend to vote, and—the card being perforated across the middle for the purpose—folds it across, so as completely to conceal the candidates' names. He then will return with it to the presiding officer, and the presiding officer having observed that his own initials are upon the back, will drop it into the ballot box, which will stand upon a table before him. The operation of voting is then over, and the voter will leave the booth at once. At the close of the poll, the ballot box, which, before the poll opens will be examined, sealed and locked in the presence of the inspectors, is to be opened, the inspectors still being present, the contents are to be examined—informal cards rejected and the poll ascertained, the declaration to follow under existing statutes. As soon as the poll shall have been ascertained, the ballot cards belonging to each booth will be sealed up, and that seal not broken except by the authority of a court of law appointed to try the election by scrutiny. The House will observe that this form of Ballot, so far as we have gone, is absolutely secret. The ballot cards—which are provided by the returning officer—are all alike. It is made a misdemeanour for any voter wilfully to exhibit his card in the polling booth, in such a way as to disclose his vote. This, of course, is to prevent his proving his vote to a confederate and so claiming a bribe. All the officials and inspectors take a solemn declaration of secresy, in order, that if by accident they should discover any particular vote, they may not reveal it, and they are precluded, by a clause in the same declaration, from communicating the name of any voter who has polled. This is with the view of rendering personation still more dangerous than it is now; for any man will hesitate to personate another if he is not sure he has not already voted, for to personate a man who has already voted, would expose the person who attempts it to instant discovery and apprehension. Now, Sir, I should have been quite content finally to have left the Bill where it stands, and to have made no provision for a scrutiny, except upon the point of the numbers polled by any particular candidate. The enormous advantages to be derived from a secret Ballot would, in my opinion, immeasurably outweigh any disadvantage to result from the sacrifice of a right so seldom exercised as that of scrutiny. But, Sir, it is the duty of any honourable Member who introduces legislation to provide that no other change follows the passing of his Bill, except that which is contemplated upon the face of it. We do not attempt to carry changes by a side-wind. This is not a Bill for the abolition of scrutiny, but for the introduction of the Ballot, and therefore I have endeavoured to leave the laws of scrutiny untouched. This has always been considered the crux of the Ballot question—how to combine a scrutiny with a secret Ballot. In Victoria they place the voter's register number upon his ballot card, and are thus enabled to identify votes under a scrutiny. But, Sir, I cannot but think that to adopt this system in its entirety, would be objectionable in a country in which intimidation has run such lengths and worked so persistently, and with such subtlety as it has here. You never could convince the dependant and ignorant voter that the inspectors, notwithstanding their oaths, would not avail themselves of the opportunity of ascertaining his vote which would be presented to them, while the votes were being counted, and freedom of voting might thus be seriously impaired. But it has occurred to us that chemistry which has solved so many other riddles might perhaps enable us to solve this. Why not write the voter's number upon his card in chemical or invisible ink? The secret would thus remain with the card until the ink was developed, and the Ballot would be absolutely secret still. Now, Sir, there is a chemical ink composed of chloride of cobalt, which is invisible at the maximum temperature of the atmosphere, but becomes distinctly legible when the temperature is raised some 30 or 40 degrees, again to become invisible when the temperature falls to its usual height. I propose that the register numbers shall be written upon the cards by the presiding officer in this ink, and that if a scrutiny should take place the court of law, in whose custody the ballot cards will then be placed, should be precluded from identifying any vote which it has not previously adjudged to have been invalid. Every honest vote will therefore remain absolutely secret, and, practically speaking, the assurance of secresy will be unshaken. And, Sir, it is because I am desirous that that assurance should remain unshaken that I discard in favour of a simple and transparent system of balloting, all the ingenious balloting contrivances with which we have been so worried and pestered latterly. I do not know that there is any object of human ambition except, perhaps, the production of a cup of coffee for breakfast, upon which the same amount of mechanical ingenuity has been lavished. Even the magnetic telegraph has been pressed into the service, and it has been proposed to introduce the terrified elector alone and unprotected into the awful presence of a piece of mechanism so elaborate and imposing, so full of wires and balls, of wheels and dials and needles, that the unsophisticated bucolic mind, if it were able to form any conclusion as to what was going to happen, must have concluded not only that the vote was about to be registered, but the voter's portrait taken, his vote telegraphed to his landlord and to his agent, who probably would be waiting in the street, summoned by ring of bell. Sir, the fatal demerit of all such machinery is its ingenuity, for where there is the exhibition of great ingenuity there is the inseparable suspicion and suggestion of fraud. Now, there are two systems of Ballot, each of which can be made sufficiently simple to impress the voter with his absolute security—the ticket Ballot, which is the Ballot of this Bill, and the ball Ballot, with one variety of which we are all familiar at our clubs. I have preferred the ticket Ballot for this reason—with very few exceptions, this is the system of Ballot which in one shape or another is actually in use upon the Continent of Europe, in America, and in Australia. We have, therefore, at our command a vast experience of its working. We know all the tricks to which it is exposed in operation; we know precisely what to guard against and what to prescribe. But about the ball Ballot, as applied to political elections we know comparative little, and what little we do know is not much in its favour. It stands to reason that there must be greater opportunities for fraud when it is an essential feature of the operation that a man's hand and part of his arm should be buried in a funnel than when the whole process takes place in the light of day. It can scarcely, therefore, be a matter of surprise that we hear of gross fraud in Greece, where this particular system of Ballot is in vogue, or that the ticket Ballot was adopted in preference in Australia after a long and careful investigation. Sir, I do not know that it is needful for me to detain the House. They will find, I think, when this Bill comes into their hands, that it has not been drawn without some degree of care and forethought, and that the system of Ballot which it embraces is simple, easy, expeditious, and thoroughly efficacious. For the provisions to this end, I am greatly indebted to suggestions arising out of the thorough and conscientious sifting to which the evidence was subjected by members of the Committee on Elections, and especially by those who sit upon the opposite side of the House. With great skill and ingenuity they exposed all the weak places in existing systems of balloting, and I think I may say that there is no weak place exposed by them which has not been covered by provisions in this Bill. I trust, therefore, that this measure may be regarded by the House not as my measure, or the measure of any number of hon. Members who sit near me—but as a measure resulting from the conscientious labours of hon. Gentlemen who, as they sat upon that Committee, seemed to vie with one another in probing the system of secret voting to the bottom, and thus furnishing me with an analysis of everything which we must strive to attain, and everything which it was essential to prevent. I trust that in the same spirit—having read this Bill a first time to-day, and thus expressed their willingness to take their subject into their consideration, and having on a subsequent occasion adopted the principle of the Bill after due and serious discussion, the House will proceed to revise, and, if need be, amend this measure in Committee, and thus finally to present the nation with a means of frustrating electoral crime more powerful, as I believe, than all the penal but futile legislation of the last two hundred years. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in the Bill.

said, he rose, not for the purpose of discussing the relative merits of the the ball and ticket system of Ballot, but to state that he had an innate and invincible hatred to all systems of secret voting, which he always had opposed, and which he always should continue to oppose to the utmost of his power, wholly apart from any consideration as to whether its adoption might favour one or another political party. The course the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leatham) had thought fit to adopt was a most unusual one, and it should not be allowed to pass without some remonstrance. The Committee which had been appointed by that House to inquire into the mode of conducting Municipal and Parliamentary Elections, of which the hon. Member was a most active member, and to which, among other questions, that of the Ballot had been submitted, was not an ordinary Committee. It had been appointed last year and it had been re-appointed this year, with the full sanction of the Government. It was presided over by an able Member of the Government (the Marquess of Hartington), and it had not yet made its Report. The House was waiting to see what the recommendations of that Committee would be, and it was a most unusual thing for a leading Member of such a Committee, without waiting for the Report to be presented to the House, to move for leave to introduce a Bill dealing with one of the most important questions which had been submitted to it. He hoped the House would not countenance such a proceeding, and that they would refuse to allow the Bill to be brought in, on the ground that the proper time had not arrived for its introduction.

said, he was not surprised to hear the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Liddell) say that he should oppose the introduction of the Ballot at all times and under all circumstances. For his part he should as invariably give it his support. A Committee was all very well to make a soft fall for right hon. and hon. Gentleman who had often pledged themselves to vote against the Ballot, but he (Mr. Gilpin) had no such pledges to redeem. The hon. Gentleman would recollect that the question of the Ballot had been debated in that House over and over again before the appointment of the Committee over which the noble Marquess presided; and therefore there was no reason why it should not be dealt with in the present Bill, notwithstanding the circumstance that the subject amongst others was being inquired into by the Committee up-stairs. He thought the hon. Member (Mr. Leatham) was mistaken last year when he consented to allow the direct question of the Ballot to be referred to the decision of a Committee. He should certainly support his hon. Friend in bringing the question of the Ballot before the House during the present year for decision, irrespective of the recommendations of the Committee. He was glad to know that many Members on the opposite side of the House who had hitherto voted against the Ballot, would now be found supporting the measure, and he believed that in the event of the hon. Member opposite forcing the House to a division upon the question more Members than had ever done so before would be found voting in favour of the introduction of the Ballot system.

I rise, Sir, to state that I do not propose to offer any opposition on the part of the Government to the Bill; but I hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Leatham) will pay some attention to the observations which have fallen from the other side of the House, and that he will not altogether ignore the Report of the Committee of which he has been so active a member. Now, although the Government do not intend to oppose the introduction of the Bill, yet we trust the hon. Gentleman will allow some time to elapse before the second reading is taken, as there is a reasonable probability that the Committee may agree upon their Report. As to the observations made by my hon. Friend in introducing the Bill, I think I need not take notice of them on the present occasion, but there is one which I cannot altogether pass over. The hon. Member stated that he thought this was a subject which might be more appropriately dealt with by a private Member than by the Government. On that point Her Majesty's Government wish to reserve their opinion. When the Committee which was appointed last year, upon their recommendation and with the sanction of the House, have made their Report, it will be the duty of the Government to consider the proposals they may make not only on this point of the Ballot, but on other points connected with the conduct of Elections; and it Mill then be for the Government to decide whether they will take up the whole or any portion of the subject dealt with by the Committee, or whether they will leave one portion of the subject to be dealt with as the hon. Member proposes. The hon. Member made frequent allusions to the Committee, and I am sure he did no more than justice to hon. Members opposite when he recognized the fair spirit in which they had conducted the inquiry; but I appeal to my hon. Friend, as he has been met in so fair a spirit on that Committee whether it is quite respectful or proper conduct utterly to ignore as he has done the approaching end of the deliberations of the Committee, and to propose his measure just as if that Committee had never been appointed. I am indeed perfectly aware that my hon. Friend had some hesitation last year in postponing the introduction of his Bill, and some reluctance in assenting to the appointment of the Committee; but he did assent, and he sat on the Committee, of which he was a very active Member. Let him, therefore, wait a short time longer, let him wait till that Committee has been re-appointed. As I stated the other day, the Committee agreed to a resolution last year that more evidence should not be taken. They will consequently meet merely to consider their Report, and, whatever may be the desire of any Member of the Committee, that is a process which cannot be indefinitely delayed. The time my hon. Friend would lose could not be very serious, and I think, therefore, I may not unreasonably appeal to him to fix the second reading of the Bill at such a time as will give the Committee an opportunity of previously agreeing on their Report.

said, he would take the opportunity of alluding to an inaccuracy in a Return which had been laid upon the table of the House. It had reference to Election Expenses, and I stated that the number of electors which sent him to that House was 4,772, whereas, in fact, the number was 9,512. He mentioned this in order to show the worthlessness of the Return, as some hon. Members opposite might refer to that Return in their arguments on the question of the Ballot.

said, he thought that the conclusions arrived at by the noble Marquess did not piece in with the premises from which he started. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had pointed out that the introduction of this Bill by the hon. Member was premature, and he stated that such a course was hardly respectful to the Committee, of which he (Mr. Leatham) was a distinguished Member, but that being the case the noble Marquess's conclusion was that the Government should not oppose the introduction of the Bill. It was not for the Opposition side of the House to intervene between the lovers' quarrels of the Government and its supporters, but he would suggest that the Government ought to have moved the adjournment of the debate. If the Government, on one side, wished to see the Bill introduced, if they had a tender feeling towards the Ballot—for which he did not blame them—and if they did not wish to oppose so staunch a supporter of theirs as the hon. Gentleman; yet if, on the other side, they felt that the introduction of the Bill would be disrespectful to the Committee, why did they not boldly ask the hon. Gentleman to adjourn the debate to some day after the Committee had reported? Supposing him to consent to such a request his Notice would still be on the Paper, and when the Committee had reported, he would be in no way damnified in the eyes of the House or of the country in trying to push on his measure to further stages.

said, he could well understand that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) felt some delicacy in asking the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leatham) to allow his Motion to stand over, but he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought that would be the proper course for him to pursue. That would be the course most in accordance with the practice of the House and the deference which the House always paid to the decisions of a Committee, especially of a Committee constituted like that appointed to consider this subject. He spoke with- out much prejudice in this matter, for though he had always, like his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) voted against the Ballot, he did not mean to say that he should always continue to do so. But he agreed with his hon. Friend in feeling the greatest possible objection to secresy of voting. He deemed it un-English, and thought the noble Viscount, who so long presided over the counsels of the other side of the House, was never more right than when Session after Session he laid down that doctrine. The Committee which was about to reassemble would do so exclusively for the purpose of considering its Report, as the noble Marquess had stated the other day that no additional evidence would be taken. The hon. Gentleman would not lose much by the trifling delay which might take place, and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) concurred in the suggestion of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Beresford Hope) that the debate should be allowed to stand over for a few weeks. He was sure that both with regard to the Government and the Committee that would be the more respectful course.

said, he hoped there would be no adjournment. The debate had now been adjourned for about forty years, as it was originally intended that the question of the Ballot should be introduced into the Reform Bill of 1832, and it was only by a sort of sidewind that it was eventually withdrawn. For his own part, he much regretted that the Committee had been appointed last year. He thought the subject was ripe for the consideration and decision of the House, and he consequently felt renewed regret when the noble Marquess, a few evenings ago, moved its reappointment. The principal members of that Committee had already given their opinions on the evidence, and those opinions were incorporated into the draft Report printed with the Evidence. He would point out, too, that the House was not about to nominate the same Committee that sat last year. The President of the Board of Trade, for instance, would be unable to attend its meetings, and another Member had, he believed, been unfortunately removed by death. All the evidence had been before the country for two or three months, and anyone who chose to read it might make himself master of the whole facts of the case. He might remark that he was expressing not only his own opinion but the opinion of other hon. Members who represented other largo constituencies, when he stated that there was a feeling of uneasiness—he would not say of distrust—at the unnecessary delays which the Government had introduced into this matter. One word about the Bill itself. It happened that in the county he came from, in several local governments in the small towns the Ballot was already in operation in substantially the same manner as was proposed by his hon. Friend's (Mr. Leatham's) Bill. He might mention in particular Maryport, where it had worked so well that, although there had sometimes been excitement at the municipal elections, the common remark of all the gentlemen he knew in the town, many of them staunch Tories, "innate and invincible" like his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Liddell) was that they could not do in Maryport without the Ballot. The same system was also in operation at Workington and Whitehaven. He thought, therefore, he was entitled to express his opinion that his hon. Friend proposed to introduce good machinery for effecting the object he had in view. He hoped the Government would no longer hesitate and dally with this question, in which more interest was felt than in any of the measures mentioned in the Government programme for the Session. He asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, who had been generously trusted by the people, to trust them in return, and to give them that protection in voting which he believed had been granted to every other civilized nation in the world.

said, he thought that something might be urged in justification of the hon. Member's (Mr. Leatham's) introducing his Bill at the present time. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that the hon. Gentleman thereby showed disrespect to the Committee, but let them reflect on the position he would have been placed in if he had waited for the Report. If the Report were in favour of the Ballot, the hon. Gentleman would have been unable to bring in his Bill at all, because, had he done so, he would then perhaps be said to show disrespect to the Government. If, however, this Bill were now read a first time, the Government would, in the event of the Committee reporting in favour of the Ballot, have the advantage of the well-considered clauses contained in this measure, and would be able to decide whether they would adopt the proposed machinery, or whether they could frame a better Bill of their own. On these grounds he hoped the Bill would be allowed to be read a first time to-night, though he trusted his hon. Friend would agree to postpone the second reading until the Report of the Committee had been laid on the Table.

said, the Committee last Session held 27 sittings, examined 80 witnesses, and asked upwards of 13,000 questions, and he thought it would be paying that Committee a very bad compliment, after their very laborious work, not to await their Report. He should, however, be glad to hear the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), who presided over the deliberations of that Committee, state when he would be in a position to place that Report before the House. He believed that if the Ballot were not adopted before the next election, those who occupied the Liberal Benches would find that they had lost many supporters, and he should, therefore, do all in his power to aid in its speedy adoption. He regretted very much that the Ballot was not mentioned, in the Speech from the Throne. Recently in his own county an election, though only of a coroner, had miscarried, and much bribery and corruption had been exercised, in consequence of the absence of some such provision as that proposed.

said, that as there were no doubt considerable mechanical difficulties in the way of working the Ballot, its speedy adoption would be a great advantage, because they would be enabled to judge before the next General Election, by the elections which might be held during the nest two or three years, of the efficiency of the system they might think it right to adopt.

, in reply, said, hon. Gentlemen opposite must forgive him if he declined to take advice as to the conduct of this measure from those who prefaced their observations by the declaration that they never had voted and never would vote for the Ballot. Nothing could be further from his intention than to act disrespectfully to a Com- mittee of which he was a Member. On the contrary, he believed the labours of the Committee which had been engaged upon this question to be exceedingly valuable, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that for all practical purposes that Committee had already reported. They had the Report of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) and the Report of the President of the Board of Trade, as well as four strings of Resolutions to be moved by Members of the Committee. In fact, the Committee had reported everything which anybody was anxious should be reported. The only reason why they had not hitherto presented a formal Report was because of the other matters which were referred to them for consideration. At the same time he thought that under the circumstances he should best meet the wishes of the House by acquiescing in the proposal of his noble Friend, and at once assenting, if the House would allow his Bill to be read a first time, to the postponement of the second reading until the Report of the Committee had been presented. He did not propose to take the second reading for at least a month from the present time.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to protect the property of Married Women, said, that while few were probably prepared to deny that the property of married women was not sufficiently protected by the present law, those who had endeavoured to correct the evil had proposed to do so by measures somewhat revolutionary and sweeping, but which, nevertheless, were calculated only to lessen and not totally to cure the evil. In the Bill of last Session, for instance, no precaution was taken to protect the interests of the children in case the wife felt disposed to yield to the encroachments of the husband, nor did it protect the interests of the children against the extravagance of both, the husband and the wife. In the Bill which he now asked the leave of the House to introduce it was proposed that the property belonging to the wife at the time of the marriage, or subsequently acquired by her by deed of gift or by bequest, should be in the first instance vested in the husband as her trustee, but that the wife should, when she felt herself aggrieved, have the power of applying to a County Court judge for the purpose of having the property vested in a fresh trustee. It was proposed, too, that when the wife could show that during the previous six months she had earned the greater portion of what was contributed to the support of the. family her earnings should be entitled to protection, and in regard to property of this description, she should, if she obtained such protection, be treated as a feme sole. The difference between this and previous measures would be understood from the statement that it was here proposed to interfere between husband and wife only when there was a presumptive necessity for such a proceeding. He would only call attention to one other provision, and that was one which enacted that all postnuptial settlements made by the husband, being a trader, upon his wife or children, should be registered in the Court of Chancery as a protection to creditors. Some such provision it was suggested last Session by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) to insert in the Bankruptcy Bill, but in that measure it was felt to be out of place.

said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of the measure proposed by his hon. Friend, for he thought that it would be better that both Bills should be discussed at the same time. He was aware that the Bill which he introduced last Session had been described as revolutionary; but it was quite new to have to hear that it did not go far enough. He could not help thinking that if that was the objection to his Bill, his hon. Friend would have done better to have proposed some Amendments in Committee, instead of endeavouring to throw it out on the third reading.

said, that he did not rise to oppose the reappointment of the Committee, but to express a hope that its attention would this Session be more directed to the operation of the Poor Law in the agricultural districts of Scotland, for he found that out of twenty-three witnesses examined last Session, there was only one inspector of a purely rural parish. In the voluminous evidence laid on the table of the House, it appeared that several philanthropic gentlemen had given their theories on the principle of the present Poor Law, from which he humbly thought there could be no practical result, but he was glad to find that the evidence generally was calculated completely to refute the exaggerated statements which had been made as to the operation of the Act of 1845, and the House would look forward with interest to the Report of the Committee, founded on the evidence laid before it.

explained that it was only want of time that prevented the examination of more witnesses of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.

said, he rose 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 Laws relating to Merchant Shipping. It had been the intention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to introduce the two Bills of which he had given notice; but, unfortunately for their interest and for other considerations, indisposition had made it necessary for him to abstain from work for a short time; and as in the press of other work it was undesirable there should be delay he must ask the House to accept him as a substitute. The Bill which he should introduce would be substantially the same as that which he had introduced at the close of last Session. The interval, however, had not been wasted; much labour had been bestowed upon its clauses; they had had the advantage of numerous suggestions, some of which had been adopted, and he had himself made personal inquiries upon the subject at many of the most important seaports. No effort had been spared to make the measure as complete and satisfactory as possible; and when he added that Mr. Thring and Mr. Farrer, who had had the preparation of the Bill, were also concerned in the great measure of 1854, and that they had brought to bear upon it all their subsequent experience, the House would understand that they had the best advisers. The Bill itself would be somewhat altered in form; instead of being one continuous measure, it would be divided into fourteen separate parts, each of which would be a complete Act in itself, but they would all form portions of one statute, and would be bound together; but it would be possible to obtain each separately for purpose of use and reference. These fourteen chapters would deal with all the questions affecting shipping from their first registration, the provisions as to masters, seamen, pilotage, lights, buoys, and the provisions as to wrecks. For these matters it would be a complete code of all the existing statute law affecting ships, with one exception,—namely, the regulations affecting passenger vessels. There were now pending negotiations with the United States for a common system of rules for emigrants, and in the meantime the Emigration Commissioners were unwilling to include their provisions in this measure. On introducing the Bill last Session, he made some statements to the House, and pro- mised additional statistics, showing the progress of our shipping. These had been prepared, and would shortly be in the hands of Members. They were, for the most part, continuations of Returns which were prepared for Mr. Lindsay's Committee of 1860, at a time when it was thought that our shipping was in a very depressed and unhealthy condition. These figures would show that he was justified in saying that at no time in the history of this country had our Merchant Marine been so pre-eminent. Not only had the increase since 1861 been actually very great, but relatively to other countries it had been still greater. In America a Committee of Congress had recently been inquiring into the decline of their commerce. The evidence taken before it showed that this decline had been rapid and progressive, even more so since the war than during its continuance, and what remained to them of ships were in a poor condition and unequal to competition. It would be easy to find an explanation for this in their tariff. In France, again, there had recently been a debate on the state of their merchant service, and a great complaint had been made of the effect of the recent law which opened the indirect trade to foreign ships. It was shown, however, that the stationary state of their commerce was due to other causes—the high duties still levied, and especially to the endless restrictions imposed by administrative regulations, which had impeded individual enterprise and compelled their adherence to obsolete systems. On our part, our shipping had increased during the last few years more than at any other period; the increase had been 50 per cent. in the last fourteen years; but as this increase had been far greater for steamers, the proportion of work obtained had been even greater. The entrances and clearances of British tonnage in foreign trade had increased over 120 per cent., while that of foreign ships had increased 30 per cent. Our seamen in the same time had increased 27 per cent only, and the proportion of the seamen to tonnage had decreased, for steamers 2½ and for sailing vessels 1 man per 100 tons, showing a progressive economy of great importance. He might also say that the types of ships and steamers were vastly improved in size and quality. In view of these facts, and comparing our system of law and administration with that of the French, it was wiser not to interfere too minutely with the building of ships, or with the methods by which they were to be loaded, manned, or sailed; the better course seemed to be to leave shipowners to build and sail their vessels as they pleased, but subject to this—that if in so doing they caused injury or wrong to others they should be held responsible for it. It was on this principle that in the amendments of this Bill, so far as concerned ships, they had not multiplied regulations; they had simplified and made more general some of the existing regulations, and had in some cases made more clear the liability of shipowners. They had, for instance, defined it as a misdemeanour to send a vessel to sea in an unseaworthy state, so as to endanger life. Again, in the not unfrequent cases where seamen refused to proceed, alleging that the vessel was unseaworthy, or, where having put to sea, vessels put back, or where seamen were summoned as offenders, it was provided that they should have the right to call in a Board of Trade surveyor to report upon the condition of the vessel; and as the issue was, in fact, one arising out of breach of civil contract, they thought the evidence of the men themselves should be taken. They also proposed to improve the courts of inquiry into losses of vessels, so as better to elicit the cause of loss. They took power to note the draught of water of vessels leaving our ports, an this would be attempted at the instance of the underwriters. With respect to master and seamen, the case was somewhat different; they had already a most minute and lengthy code of regulations, affecting almost every possible point connected with them—their relations to their shipowners, their contracts, engagements, and discharge, their discipline and status abroad. As a whole, these regulations had done good, though it was a question whether they were not too minute. They proposed in many respects to improve and amend them. He would not, however, on the present occasion, describe the changes effected in this and other parts of the Bill. He did so at some length last Session, and the amendments then described for the most part remained unchanged. There were, however, a few points on which changes had been made in the proposal of last year, on which it might be desirable to make a few explanations. First, then, as to inquiries into losses of vessels and misconduct of officers. At present, those inquiries were generally held at the same time. If a vessel was lost under circumstances which justified inquiry, the conduct of the officer was at once called in question. The result was that the inquiry took the form of a criminal proceeding, and was subject to all the technical rules incident to such a case; the mouth of the officer was shut, and in many ways the inquiry was limited. Complaint was also made by officers of vessels that they were treated in a manner in which no other professional class was treated—that they were called upon to prove their innocence, and that they were liable to have their certificates suspended and their means of living taken from them for mere errors of judgment. When he was at Liverpool in the winter the case of the master mariners was very earnestly brought before him, and supported, he thought, by two hon. Members for that city. He was free to admit after the experience of the last few months at the Board of Trade that there was some ground for this complaint. He would, illustrate it by two cases which had recently occurred, and which came before him on the same day. In the one case a vessel from Liverpool went out overladen, and as soon as she got out of dock she began to leak. She encountered a heavy sea, and in the neighbourhood of Holyhead the captain tried to gain the port, but did not succeed. The men wished to abandon the vessel; the captain endoavoured to dissuade them, but they persisted, and the captain and mate had to leave with them. Afterwards the vessel was picked up and saved. There was no reason to doubt that the captain had done his best, but a court of inquiry suspended his certificate, because he had not shown sufficient firmness and moral courage with his men. In another case a vessel was proceeding from Rangoon to London, and a few days after leaving port she leaked very much. The crew went to the captain and begged that he would put back into some other port, but the captain said that he thought he could get the vessel as far as the Mauritius. In a few days, however, she leaked so badly that they were obliged to abandon her. The court of inquiry found that the captain had acted in perfect good faith, and had done his utmost to save his vessel, but that he was not justified in risking the lives of himself and his crew, and they suspended his certificate for six months, which was a very heavy slur upon a captain. In one case, therefore, the certificate was suspended because the officer had not shown sufficient moral courage, and in the other because he had shown too much; so that captains were placed in an exceedingly disagreeable dilemma. He (Mr. Lefevre) was not of opinion, looking to the statute, that in either case the decision was wrong in point of law. The Board of Trade, however had thought proper in both cases to return these officers their certificates, on the ground that they ought not to have been suspended for errors of judgment; but he had felt that such cases ought not to have occurred, and would not occur if the law was more explicit on the subject. What they proposed, then, was this—that the inquiry into the loss of the vessel should be kept quite separate from that into the conduct of the officers. The inquiry into the loss of the vessel would be in the nature of an inquest, and although the Court would have no power to suspend the master's certificate, it would have power to express an opinion as to the cause of loss. Subsequently, or, indeed, at any time, proceedings might be taken against the master or other certificated officers for the suspension of their certificates, if it appeared to the Board of Trade that the officers had been guilty of misconduct; but it would be proposed that there should be a strict definition of the powers of such court, and that suspension should be limited to those cases where incompetency, gross negligence, tyranny, or drunkenness were proved against the officer. He believed this proposal would give sufficient security for the public interest, and remove a cause of complaint on the part of a most meritorious class of persons. With respect to seamen there were various changes made in addition to those pointed out last year. The evil effects of advance notes, particularly abroad, where they were often offered as inducements to desertion had often been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. An advance note was not a legal note; it was not a bill of exchange; but if the holder proved that the seaman had consideration for it he could claim upon the shipowner. The Bill did not propose to legalize advance notes, but rather to limit their operation. It proposed to enact that in the settlement of wages no advance for more than a month should be set off. In the interest of seamen it was impossible to do away with advances altogether, but this limitation might, he thought, be desirable. Great complaints had been made that seamen's wages were not paid on the arrival of the vessel. The law was that the owner was bound to pay one-fourth of the wages on the discharge of the men from the vessel, and the remainder in five days, after which double wages were to run. It was proposed that in future wages should run till paid, or rather till discharge at the shipping office; but every facility would be given for a settlement of the amount at the shipping offices, and the subsequent remittance to the seamen through the office, so as to meet cases where the master was not in funds. He attached the very greatest importance to the early payment of wages. The mischief done by retaining men in the large seaports, and particularly London, four or five days after the arrival of their vessel was incalculable. He reckoned that 20,000 or 30,000 seamen were paid off in London every year who belonged to the northern ports, and who were detained in this way, to the advantage only of crimps and low places of all kinds. It was of the greatest importance these men should be able to return to their families as soon as possible, but now they often pledged their wages and more besides and never got home at all. Some alteration would be made in the provisions as to leaving seamen abroad. He did not propose to insist on the master in all cases leaving money in the hands of the consul to pay expenses of men discharged in foreign ports, because the numbers were so large; they amounted to 6,000 in New York, and it would be impossible to call upon the shipowners or masters to deposit money for them all. The liability of the shipowner, however, would be retained, and where it was expedient he would be called upon to pay. There were, further, more stringent provisions against crimping and wrecking, and the discipline clauses of the Bill had been carefully revised. Another subject was the great demoralization to which seamen were exposed in foreign ports. It was no use making provisions on this subject while the seamen were exposed to these demoralizing influences. This being so, they were negotiating with the American and other Governments upon the subject, and hoped that the representations made would have effect. He need not advert to the concessions made by his right hon. Friend at the Admiralty as to volunteering into the Navy and naval salvage. He hoped they would remove the long-standing complaint of shipowners. He now came to a very important question, which, he feared, would detain him at some length—namely, pilotage. The House would perhaps recollect that last year, after describing the effect of the present law of compulsory pilotage and the injustice arising from it, he proposed a remedy—that the payment of pilotage rates should be compulsory, but the employment of pilots voluntary. This system would be very similar to that in force in New York, and in some Continental countries. Like other half measures, however, it neither pleased one party nor the other. The pilots were alarmed by it; the north-eastern shipowners were not appeased by it. In the vacation further inquiries were made into the subject, and particularly at those places where pilotage was now voluntary. The result was that the Government were now in a position to say that in their opinion the time was come when compulsion to employ pilots might be dispensed with. Inasmuch, however, as the question was of great importance, and affected a large number of deserving persons, it had been thought scarcely right or fair to those persons that discussion upon it should be confined to one clause out of nearly 800; it was proposed, therefore, to make it the subject of a separate Bill, which would include clauses of a temporary character in favour of existing pilots, so that the House would have every opportunity afforded by its rules of discussing this matter apart from the larger Bill. In the meantime the larger Bill would remain in the state it was drawn last year, and at a future stage might be brought into harmony with the decision of the House on the other. Compulsory pilotage was by no means universal round our coasts; on the contrary, there were many ports in which it had never been established. In our most important ports or estuaries, however, such as the Thames, the Mersey, and the Humber, it had been in existence from an early time, got up probably in the interest of guilds of pilots established in those districts. For some years past the tendency of legislation had been to limit it where-ever possible; exceptions had been made in favour of the coasting trade, and, since 1854, of vessels carrying masters with certificates of competency in the pilotage of the district; and in the case of the Thames a complex system of exemptions had grown up, so that probably not more than half the vessels entering the port were compelled to carry pilots. The most important legal consequence of compulsory pilotage was this—By the 388th clause of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1869 shipowners were relieved from any liability for any loss or damage caused by the fault or incapacity of a pilot when their vessels were within any district where the employment of such, pilot is compulsory. This principle was matter of general law; the liability of a shipowner for the default or negligence of his captain, crew, and pilot, when the pilot is of his own option, depends on the general law of principal and agent; but if the law steps in and compels a person to employ another for a particular purpose there is no longer such relation, and the one is not responsible for the acts of the other. The result of this principle when applied to the system of compulsory pilotage, coupled as it was with very numerous exemptions, led to endless complications, and was fraught with great injustice. It was not too much to say that whole classes of shipowners were deprived of a remedy for losses occasioned by the fault of others when they came into collision with vessels under compulsory charge of pilots. If two vessels came into collision at the mouth of the Thames, both under charge of pilots, the one, however, coining from the west under compulsory charge of a pilot, the other coming from the North of Europe under voluntary charge of a pilot, if the first were in fault, the other had no remedy; but if the latter were in fault the owner must pay the damage. He would take the British Channel as a further illustration. At Bristol pilotage was compulsory, but it was voluntary at Gloucester. If two vessels came into collision the one going to Gloucester and the other to Bristol, and the Gloucester vessel was in fault, the owner would be bound to pay compensation, but if the Bristol vessel was in fault the Gloucester owner had no remedy. If two vessels in the coasting trade came into collision—the one carrying passengers and the other not—the one with passengers was bound to carry a pilot, the other not; there was a remedy against the one but not against the other. To the one bound to carry a pilot, to use a vulgar phrase, it was "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." It would be possible to give many cases of injustice arising from this rule. The courts of law had frequently pointed it out. In a recent case the Judge of the Admiralty Court, Sir Robert Phillimore, said—

"I will frankly say that it appears to me difficult to reconcile the claims of natural justice to the law which exempts the owner who has a licensed pilot on board from all liabilities for the injuries done by the bad navigation of the ship to the property of an innocent owner. No one acquainted with the working of this law, which exempts the wrong-doing vessels from liability in this court, can be ignorant that it is fruitful of injustice."

The courts of law had done their best to cut down the limits of this injustice. If it could be shown that the master or any of his crew in any way contributed to the accident, as, for example, when there was a bad look-out kept, they held the shipowner liable. The shipowner was not exempted from liability unless he could show that the casualty resulted from the act of the pilot alone, or that, no act, default, or negligence of the master or crew contributed to the casualty. Notwithstanding these laudable efforts cases of hardship were constantly occurring. Another consequence of compulsory pilotage was this—responsibility was shifted from the shipowner and thrown upon the pilot, who had no interest in the ship, and who had no means of bearing the loss caused by his default; again, as the courts had been very strict in holding that any interference of the captain would involve the shipowner in responsibility for accidents, it was positively the interest of the owner that the captain and officers should abandon all control over the vessel, and give up command absolutely to the pilot, and thus the relations of captain and pilot were completely altered; the practice had grown up in many places that as the pilot came on board the captain went below, and ceased to take any interest in the navigation of the vessel. It was the opinion of most nautical men that great evil resulted from this. In most vessels, and particularly in the modern class of steamers, the captain was the person who best knew the quality of Iris vessel, who knew when and how to stop her, and what amount of way she would carry, which were all important in cases of collision. By leaving everything to the pilot one of the securities against accident was removed. This practice, no doubt, was one of the causes which led to the loss of the Spindrift, for the captain appeared to have considered that he was justified in leaving everything to the pilot. The only argument in favour of compulsory pilotage of any weight was this—that it provided a staff of competent pilots, and that without it these would be wanting. If experience or facts were in favour of such an argument, it would be a very cogent one, but fortunately they were not; experience was in the opposite direction; there was abundant evidence to show that, where pilotage was voluntary, pilots were as numerous and efficient in proportion to the requirements of trade as where it was compulsory. In the year 1860, Mr. Lindsay's Committee went carefully into this point, and the Committee—on which were the Members for Liverpool, London, and Bristol, reported unanimously in favour of adopting a voluntary system of pilotage, adding, on this point—

"Your Committee have had the most convincing evidence that where the system of voluntary pilotage prevails the supply of pilots is more abundant, their efficiency is no way inferior, and the rates generally are lower than at any ports where compulsory pilotage is still in force. The arguments, therefore, which have been used in favour of the existing system, and the fears which have been expressed in regard to obtaining at all times or under all circumstances a sufficient supply of pilots, must give way to facts which have been adduced in evidence."

They further said that—

"All experience proves that masters will avail themselves of the services of pilots in any navigation which is in the slightest degree dangerous."

Like many other valuable Reports, this had slumbered till now, when he much wished we could have had the help and experience of Mr. Lindsay. The case of the Bristol Channel was, however, a conclusive answer to the argument. Up to 1861 pilotage was compulsory on all ships proceeding up the Channel to Bristol, Gloucester, Cardiff, and Newport, and ships were all compelled to employ Bristol pilots. In 1861, however, the other towns revolted, and, by Act of Parliament, pilotage to all these ports, except Bristol, was made voluntary. The result had been that Cardiff, Gloucester, and Newport were now supplied with a competent staff of pilots, who were better paid than those of Bristol, and the total amount paid for pilotage in the Channel was larger than it was before 1860. The fact was, a voluntary system was even more likely to produce an efficient corps of pilots than a compulsory system, because, to obtain employment the former must prove their efficiency and be reasonable in their charges; while, under compulsion, this stimulus to exertion was wanting. For these reasons the Government were of opinion that compulsion to employ pilots might be removed, and that shipowners might be left to employ pilots or not, as they thought fit. It was not, however, proposed to sweep away all existing regulations of pilotage authorities in order to permit any and every one to pilot any vessel for any charge; great confusion and evil might result from this. It was proposed to leave a licensed corps of pilots, with regulated charges; to leave the right of licensed pilots to supersede unlicensed pilots; and to leave to pilotage authorities whatever power they now have to limit or increase the number of pilots. The question therefore remained—What will be the position of the existing pilots under this new system? How far will they be affected pecuniarily by the absence of compulsion? He had already shown that, in the case of the Bristol Channel, pilots were well employed at remunerative prices where pilotage was voluntary. The same would be the case in places where it was in future established, provided only the number of pilots was not too large. This opinion was entertained by Sir Frederick Arrow—an experienced master. What now kept up the income of pilots was the practical limitation of their number by pilotage authorities, who were in the habit of licensing only so many pilots as appeared to be necessary for the trade. If they were to license all comers, their incomes would not be maintained. It was not proposed to interfere with this practice; it would be open, therefore to pilotage authorities to proportion the number of pilots to the requirements of trade, or to reduce their numbers. It was strongly believed that the demand for pilots under a voluntary system would be maintained, and that we might safely leave the matter to the ordinary law of supply and demand. If, after one year from the time when the change was made, it should appear that the number of pilots was too large for the new requirements, and that they were not making their former incomes, although they used due diligence, the Board of Trade would, upon this being proved to them, retire from any pilotage district a sufficient number of pilots, by superanuating them out of the public funds, as would bring up the income of those who remained to their former level, the pension to be not more than two-thirds of their incomes, calculated at five years' average previous to the change. In the Humber there were about 100 pilots, whose earnings went into a common fund, which was divided among them at the end of the year. If, after one year from the change, it should appear that the pilots had made only two-thirds of their previous year's income the Board of Trade would retire one-third of them. The effect of this would be to restore the relation between the number of pilots and the amount of work and money earned. Looking to the general state of the pilotage superannuation fund, it would be considered that this proposition was a fair and generous one, and that it would relieve the pilots from fears for their future. For his part, however, he did not believe there would be much call upon the State for such pensions; the employment of pilots would continue, and we should have at work a motive power for exertion on their part far more efficient than any force which pilotage authorities could bring to bear—namely, the self-interest of pilots, who, to obtain employment, must prove their efficiency and honesty. He admitted that the effect of the measure upon the interests of the existing pilots was, to some extent, matter of opinion. There were persons who thought that the employment of pilots would be seriously interfered with, and it was certain that the change would be received with considerable alarm by the existing pilots— a class of persons who were entitled to every consideration. The number of pilots in districts where their employment was compulsory was 1,828, and their average net incomes about £100 per annum, the incomes of the London pilots being considerably higher. The number of licensed pilots in districts where their employment was voluntary was 1,060. It was proposed, therefore, to accompany the change with clauses calculated to assist the pilotage authorities in reducing the number of pilots, should it turn out that their employment would be seriously interfered with. These clauses would not recognize any vested interests, or compensate pilots on such a principle, but would be calculated to alleviate their fears for the future. What was proposed was, that if after a certain time after the change—two years—it was proved to the satisfaction of the Treasury that the employment of pilots in a particular district had been seriously diminished, they should have power, out of funds to be voted for that purpose, to assist the pilotage authorities in superannuating a certain number of pilots, so as to reduce the number of those remaining, and to restore the balance between their avocation and the employment which was offered. In the meantime the vacancies among the pilots would not be filled up, and of course, as time passed, the number would be reduced by natural causes. Most, if not all, of the pilotage authorities had superannuation funds; and it would be by assisting these funds, either by a small grant or by annual payments, should there be necessity, that the clauses would operate. He himself believed that there would be little or no call upon the public for any such purpose; but, it seemed reasonable that when they were proposing a change which was for the public benefit, we should show consideration for the interests of those concerned, and especially for those who, like the pilots, had done their duty honourably and well. He trusted the House would excuse him for the length at which he had spoken on this point. Looking around, and seeing so many Members representing important shipowning communities, he felt that he should have to claim their indulgence and their aid on many occasions. If, however, the time of the House were to be occupied by discussion on all the points which could be raised on this many-claused Bill, neither this nor any other measure could pass in the present Session. When the Bill of 1854 was before the House, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell), with rare tact and ability, settled all its clauses with the various interests out of the House, and passed its 500 clauses through Committee in one night. He could hardly hope to do that with the present Bill, but he would venture to suggest to hon. Members that, to some extent, the same course should be tried on this occasion. He had no wish to check discussion, here or elsewhere; but he could assure them that they would find at the Board of Trade every disposition to discuss with them any part of this Bill, and a most earnest desire to co-operate with all, irrespective of party, in making it a satisfactory measure—one which would be of advantage to our seamen, and would strengthen and maintain our shipping in its present proud position. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

There are few questions of greater importance that can be brought before this House, although, certainly, when I look round upon the Benches I should say that, from their appearance at the present moment, this is not the general feeling amongst hon. Members. However, although we have not on the present occasion quantity in attendance, yet I feel sure, when I remember the importance of the constituencies, which most of the hon. Members now within the House represent, I may state that we have both quality, and, I should add, knowledge, brought to bear upon the subject. Now, Sir, there is certainly very considerable inconvenience in discussing a question of this kind without having the Bill before us, and I should have been better pleased if my hon. Friend had delayed the explanation of his Bill until the second reading, when we might have had some opportunity of seeing the various clauses it will contain. At the same time, I must say that none of us can regret having heard the extremely interesting and clear explanation which my hon. Friend has given us. I was very glad to hear the account he gave us of the Mercantile Marine. He alluded to the debate that was going on in the French Corps Legislatif the other day—one which I read with considerable care, and one which recalled to my mind those days when I first had the honour of a seat in this House, and when a similar debate took place in this House, on the Motion of the then Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). At that time we heard almost the same expression of opinion as to the future of the Mercantile Marine of this country, and the same prognostications as we heard the other day in the French Assembly. I fully believe that what my hon. Friend has stated is perfectly true, that the evils which threaten the French Mercantile Marine arise not from freedom of trade, but simply from the onerous regulations of the French Government, and this seems to be the opinion of the great part of the French speakers themselves. Now, although my hon. Friend has said something about the evils to which the seamen are exposed in foreign countries, and to restrain which I am glad to find he is making every exertion in his power, yet I am inclined to hope that what we hear about the deterioration of the Mercantile Marine exists more in fancy than in fact. However this may be, I feel certain that the efforts now being made in this country to give both officers and men of the Mercantile Marine a good technical training before they go to sea cannot fail to have the best possible effect. We have to-night, two or three times, heard measures described as not being party measures. Well, I may say that, if there ever was a measure brought forward in this House which could not by any means be a party measure, it is one such as my hon. Friend has now introduced, because the foundation of this measure was laid by the Government which preceded the one of which I was a Member. For two or three years we occupied ourselves in building a certain superstructure, and it has now fallen to the lot of my hon. Friend to crown the edifice. The late Government, although not able to bring in the very comprehensive measure which we shall soon have before us, yet did occupy themselves with what were considered the most pressing points laid before them by various deputations which I had the honour to receive on the subject. The House will recollect that we brought forward a measure for the purpose of checking scurvy, which was said to be increasing to so great an extent that it seemed almost threatening the existence of our sailors. We also introduced measures which enforced the carrying of limejuice, which hardly existed in a genuine unadulterated state in the country, the provision of medical stores, and of proper food and water, and the enforcement of better accommodation and medical inspection of seamen; and there were certain other provisions which we made for the hearing of offences committed by seamen on board British and Foreign ships, so as to enable the offenders to be brought quickly to trial. These were some of the measures we passed, and several points my hon. Friend has raised to-night seemed to me rather like old friends. I remember perfectly well the trouble we took to prevent ships being sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition, and to obtain a regulation by which Custom House officers might know the draught of water when a vessel was going out of port, which we thought would be a very valuable regulation, and I am glad that this is to be introduced into the Bill of my hon. Friend. I am not sure that I did not bring into one of the Bills we introduced the power of seamen to give evidence in cases where ships were unseaworthy—a point which is also being introduced by my hon. Friend. This provision is exceedingly necessary, because, although it is quite true that in many instances seamen refuse to go to sea on the most frivolous and vexatious pleas, yet in other instances, where refusal is really based on justifiable grounds, it is impossible for the men to give evidence, and in fact no man has a right to go on board and receive the evidence however unseaworthy the ship may be. With regard to the courts of inquiry, I think that the separation of the inquiry into the cause of the loss of a ship from the inquiry into the conduct of the captain will also prove a very useful regulation. Whether it is proper to go as far as my hon. Friend appears inclined to go, and not to take away or suspend the license of the master of a ship in any case except that of misconduct, I have some slight doubts, because I think that for a gross error of judgment, which, in many cases, is the source of more danger than misconduct, the suspension of the certificate might well follow. I did not quite catch my hon. Friend's intention with reference to advance notes. There is no doubt there are few greater abuses in the whole Mercantile Marine than that of advance notes; but, at the same time. I do not think it possible to do away with them altogether. In many cases a seaman goes on board a ship with hardly any clothes to his back, and it is quite clear that it is absolutely necessary for him to get an advance to enable him to procure clothing. I think that no interference ought to take place with regard to the system for providing for the family, under which half his wages may be paid to his family during the time in which the sailor is away upon a voyage. With regard to the arrangements enabling a man to make payments in foreign ports, and to send over his wages from the different principal ports of Europe, and other parts of the world, I think that that is a most desirable and excellent arrangement. I shall, therefore, be glad to hear that my hon. Friend has been able to extend that practice. I am glad the original intention is not going to be carried out as to the discharge of seamen, as the case is now very different to what it was some time ago. Formerly it was only reasonable the vessels should bring back their crews, but now it is very common that a vessel should go on a sort of seeking voyage all round the world, from one port to another, calling, perhaps, at four or five different ports, and should in the end return with hardly a man of her original crew on board. That is a practice which is very common and ordinary, and I think it should not be interfered with. I think the principle which my hon. Friend has gone upon, of throwing the responsibility upon the owners and masters of ships, and, as it were, judging by results, is the true principle to go upon, and will tend to get rid as much as possible of all minute regulations and interference with details. One would hardly imagine that that would be the effect of a Bill containing 800 clauses, but I have no doubt that it is so. Then there is the question of pilotage, which is a question of much greater difficulty. In the last year in which I was in Office a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) on this question, and the observations which I made then showed the extreme doubt and difficulty that I felt on the subject. There is no doubt that a considerable alteration might be wisely made in the present law, especially in the port of London, where regulations exist which have been already referred to, and where a vessel coming from one part of the world is compelled to take a pilot, while a vessel from another port, but traversing the same water, is to be allowed not to take a pilot. Sometimes there is a question raised as to what is the cargo of the vessel, and whether she takes passengers or not. These regulations certainly ought to be swept away, and, no doubt, in the port of London especially, in many instances pilots are simply taken as a sort of buffer or guarantee against having to pay the expenses of any damage that may be done by the passage of the vessel up or down the river. The questions which arose as to whether the pilot or the captain was in fault led to very conflicting decisions as to what was the law upon the subject, and altogether that law at present is most unsatisfactory. At the same time I think that in the case of the port of London there ought to be some regulations or some powers given to the Conservancy to deal with these matters in certain cases. The owners of barges complain to me frequently that they have been run down by a large steamer, running at great speed up or down the river, and the pilot has no means of paying. On the other hand, anyone who sees the long string of barges, which frequently lie half across the stream, must know how extremely difficult it is to navigate the Thames, and if the barges had the power of coming upon the owner of the vessel instead of upon the pilot, the men in them would, in all probability, be still more careless than they are now. I, therefore, think that there ought to be some measure of power given to the Thames Conservancy to deal with these vessels. It has struck me that the case of the pilotage laws varies very much in different ports, and it is very difficult to judge of the case of one port from the case of another. Indeed, a doubt seemed to exist even in the mind of my hon. Friend when he talked at one moment of the profits of the pilots being greater than they used to be, and at another of the power which the pilotage authorities possessed to limit the number of the pilots if they found that the profits fell off. The doubt which occurs to most people when they examine the subject closely seems to exist even in his own mind. Take the case of the Bristol Channel. Though what my hon. Friend has told us is true in fact, still I doubt the inference which he has drawn from it. I think this a case of post hoc ergo propter. In regard to the Bristol Channel, my hon. Friend says that since the pilotage has been free the pilots have done better than they did under the old compulsory system. I have no doubt I that that is true, but it should be remembered that within the last few years there has been an enormous increase in the ports of the Bristol Channel. Cardiff has quadrupled, or even quintupled, as a port; and Newport and Swansea hare largely increased, although Bristol itself is almost stationary. The pilots, therefore, have necessarily had their business immensely increased, and yet that increase may not have been owing to the compulsory system having been done away with. Then let us turn to Liverpool. We are told that the question there is very different from what it is in other places—that the navigation is so dangerous that there must be pilots always ready at certain places, and that it would be impossible to keep them there if it were optional with the masters of vessels to take pilots or not. I do not know whether it would not have been better to have abolished it altogether in a place like the port of London, and have left it only in those places where these anomalies are not complained of, and where the authorities seem to think that pilots are still necessary, and compulsory pilotage. Then there are other questions which will have to be dealt with when the Bill is in Committee; as to pilotage funds, which are difficult and delicate questions when you throw over the present system altogether, I am glad to find that, at any rate, the masters of ships are not to have to bargain with the pilots we are not to have the master of a ship, in a gale of wind, and on a coast which he hardly knows, bargaining with a pilot, with whom he would have about as much chance as an old woman bargaining with a cabman under the new regulations of which we have heard so much. Of course, the underwriters would protect themselves in most cases, and insist upon pilots being employed; but still we know that there is much competition among the underwriters, while the rashness of the masters of small craft is proverbial. I mention these points just as they occur to me, for, of course, I have not yet seen the Bill, and I can only say that I shall approach all these questions with the greatest desire to ren- der what assistance I can to the Government in carrying them. At the same time, I must necessarily reserve my opinion upon the details until I see the measure. I quite agree with my hon. Friend, in the opinion that it would be impossible to discuss a Bill of this magnitude in the House itself, and that it would be necessary to come to an agreement on the greater part of it out of the House; and, of course, it would be necessary to give some time in order to enable the different parties who are interested in the matter to express their opinion upon a measure which involves such large interests. I pity my hon. Friend for having had to go through these 800 clauses, but I pity still more the unfortunate shipowners and masters who will have to master them; and I hope that, if this Bill does pass, it will render all further legislation on these points unnecessary for a great many years to come.

said, he was glad to find that the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill had made such good use of the Recess in amending and improving it. He agreed with many of the principles laid down by his hon. Friend, and thought he was right in interfering as little as possible with the details of the business of the shipowner. He was of opinion that much might be left to the common law responsibility which attached itself to the owners of ships. With regard to courts of inquiry, their improvement was a matter of great importance, for as at present constituted they were very unsatisfactory, and that opinion was much strengthened by the incidents connected with the investigation into the loss of the Spindrift. He thought there ought to be as little interference as possible between the shipowner and seaman, and did not see why a shipowner should be prevented by law from making certain advances to the seaman, if both parties so agreed. As to the important question of pilotage, he considered the present measure a very great improvement on that of last Session, which he regarded as an unfortunate one. Compulsory pilotage had produced effects which were highly prejudicial in many respects. He was glad to find that his hon. Friend intended to give vested interests a fair consideration, but he would suggest that attention should be directed to the proposal for limiting the number of properly qua- lified pilots. He believed the true principle was to grant licenses to all who were able to prove their competency, and willing to accept the prescribed remuneration. He would wish to see the element of competition introduced into pilotage. He felt disappointed that an opportunity like the present had not been seized by his hon. Friend to effect some radical reform in the law of lights, the management of lights, and the collection of light dues, so as to meet the just demands of the mercantile community. He dare not presume to think that any advice of his at that late period would be adopted, but it would be more satisfactory if the chapter relating to lights were struck out of the Bill, and the whole subject were carefully reconsidered by the Government.

joined in the appeal made by the last speaker to his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) to consider whether it would not be better to pursue, on the subject of lights, the same course as had been adopted in regard to pilotage, and eliminate it from that Bill. He was lately at Bordeaux, when the question of the French Treaty with this country excited considerable interest among the commercial community of that port, and it was urged against the Treaty that England did not treat French vessels in respect to lights as France treated ours. He thought that objection so fair and reasonable that it made an impression on his mind, and therefore he hoped the question of lights would form a separate subject of discussion and receive the most serious consideration from Parliament and the Government. He would express his satisfaction at hearing for the first time that the Board of Trade intended to retrace its steps by giving up that system of over-legislation in respect to our Mercantile Marine which it had so long pursued, and by throwing the responsibility on the proper shoulders—he meant those of the shipowners themselves. If that principle had been followed, not only with the shipowners but with the seamen, he believed both would be better able to take care of themselves. With reference to courts of inquiry into casualties, he thought the suggestions thrown out by his hon. Friend were great improvements. It was important in the interest of the public that those inquiries should be as searching as it was possible to make them, that they should be conducted in accordance with constitutional law, and that the evidence taken at them should be of the character of that ordinarily taken in the constituted courts of this country. Again, it was felt in the interest of the officers of the Mercantile Marine that legislation on this point had been most exceptional. Those officers were singled out and their means of livelihood was taken from them upon errors of judgment—a penalty to which no other class of the community was subject. The result was that the greatest feeling of irritation existed among them against the Board of Trade particularly, and they had regarded those acts and laws as little short of oppression. He was sure that a change to the courts on which the jurisdiction of the Admiralty had been conferred would be received as a great boon by the officers of the Mercantile Marine. However, in framing the various heads of offences, care ought to be taken that incompetency was not treated as error of judgment under another form. Again, men ought not to be criminated by their own admissions to the Receivers of Wrecks. The Receivers of Wrecks all round the kingdom had the power of putting a series of questions to the officers of ships to which casualties occurred, and of using afterwards at courts of inquiry the evidence thus obtained to criminate the men who had given it. In the changes about to be made that should be carefully guarded against. Another point in connection with those courts was, that he hoped the Board of Trade would keep the appeal in its own hands. Let that Board initiate the proceedings, and be the prosecutor to put in force the machinery of the law, and there leave it. It was most important that a good feeling should exist on the part of the Mercantile Marine towards the Board of Trade, which watched over it, and that the feeling of antagonism so long entertained in regard to it should entirely cease. If, however, that Department still kept the appeal in its own hands, that feeling of animosity would not be allayed. If the High Court of Admiralty itself reviewed the proceedings of the courts below, it would be looked upon as a much more satisfactory court of appeal than the Board of Trade. His hon. Friend had referred to the views of the Committee of 1860 on com- pulsory pilotage. That Committee expressed a strong belief that the voluntary system might be applied to most parts of the kingdom; and when a Motion was afterwards brought forward—he thought, by the Chairman himself—for the abolition of compulsory pilotage in all ports, only one Member of the Committee was found supporting him, thus showing pretty clearly what the feeling of the Committee of 1860 was on the subject. He was not aware that any further evidence had been placed before the House on the question from that hour to this; and before they were called upon to make a great and serious change in regard to it he thought they ought to have some additional evidence. He most freely admitted the anomalies of the present system, which produced great injustice and inequalities; and he went entirely with his hon. Friend in desiring to place the liability on a clear and intelligible basis. It was not so now. His hon. Friend said he would put the responsibility on the shipowner by doing away with all compulsory pilotage. Now, he would say, let the responsibility rest on the shipowner, and leave the local authorities to act as they thought proper, and, in accordance with the specialities and requirements of their ports, to adopt the system that would secure the most efficient pilot service. Let the pilot be treated as he ought to be—as a mere local guide; let him be the adviser of the captain to point out where are the shoals and the channels, what are the sets of the tide and the currents, and the depth of the water. If the duty of the pilot were confined to these things, they would get rid of the idea that when the pilot stepped on board he was to have the entire control of the ship. The captain should never give up the control of his ship. He knew her specialities, and, under all circumstances, he should be made responsible for her navigation. He knew it would be said that there would be a great difficulty in making the captain so responsible, and at the same time preserving a compulsory system of pilotage; but, in his opinion, the two things were quite compatible with one another. He held that for the protection of life and property, and even in the interest of the shipowner himself the captain should be responsible. Shipowners knew that when they carried troops or emigrants conditions were placed on them in respect of extra boats and extra fittings of various kinds; but the compulsion to furnish all those articles was quite compatible with the liability falling on the shipowner under all circumstances. In the State of New York pilotage was compulsory. For the owner of a steam-tug to enter or leave the port of New York without a pilot was a misdemeanour, but only last year the Supreme Court decided that the owner was liable, even though there was a licensed pilot on board the ship. In our own Navy, when a pilot went on board a ship he never took the command. He stood by the side of the commander and assisted him as a speaking chart. In his Bill of last year his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Board of Trade admitted the difficulty of abandoning the system of compulsory pilotage. He then feared that if he interfered with the incomes of the pilots he might diminish their efficiency, and he required that payment should be made even in those cases in which there was no pilot on board. He (Mr. Graves) hoped hon. Members would not be led away with the idea that because free pilotage had been found to answer in some places it would answer everywhere. Allusion had been made to the east ports, but they were quite contiguous to the sea. There was nothing but a simple bar to be crossed, and the invariable practice in those ports was to use a steam-tug. So slight was the necessity for a pilot that the charge for pilotage was only from 1s. to 1s. 3d. a foot. He now came to the Bristol Channel, on which there was a larger number of pilots now than there was ten or twenty years ago; but it must be remembered that at Cardiff the shipping had tripled itself within the last twenty or thirty years, and that half of the whole of the pilotage was derived from piloting vessels in and out of dock through a straight passage a mile or two in length for that port. Queenstown had also been mentioned in illustration of the success of the free system of pilotage; but at Queenstown the pilot boats earned more money by carrying letters for houses of business than they did by pilotage. He did not think that the remuneration received by the Queenstown pilots would satisfy men in this country who had served their seven years to learn the business of a pilot; and, what was more, he did not think that they could live on such a scale of remuneration if they confined themselves to their business as pilots. He wished to say something as to the port of Liverpool, which had been generally regarded as one in respect of which there should be an exception. That port was a cul de sac, and vessels going in during bad weather were, for nine months out of the twelve, on a lee shore. Ships going into Liverpool met their pilots at one out of four stations, and the captains knew as well where to meet their pilots as he did where to get a cab when he was leaving that House. Even during the gale in which the Royal Charter went down, her pilot waited for her off Point Lynas throughout the night. The Liverpool pilots served eleven years before they got their license. During that time they passed five examinations, Their earnings when they became pilots averaged £195 a-year, and they had over £100,000 embarked in their business. They had an annuity fund of about £10,000 or £11,000, and they paid annuities amounting to about £2,000 a-year to some sixty annuitants. He held that these men had a vested interest which should not be overlooked by the House of Commons. The plan of his hon. Friend to increase the superannuation by reducing the number of pilots was not one, he thought, which would recommend itself to Parliament. In 1858 the Board of Trade approved the pilots of Liverpool being placed under the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. On that Board were some of the leading merchants of Liverpool, and it included four direct representatives of Her Majesty's Government. The Committee of 1860 reported that the witnesses from Liverpool were in favour of the present system of compulsory pilotage, and that the pilotage of that port was conducted in a satisfactory manner. It continued to be conducted in the same manner. There were no complaints against it. Liverpool paid half, or nearly half, of the whole pilotage of this country, excluding the pilotage of London. Last year no fewer than 11,000 ships passed in and out of Liverpool, and of these only two were lost. There were two sides to this pilotage question, and he hoped the House would come to no hasty decision in the matter. In order to enable them to come to a deliberate and well-matured judgment, ought they not to have further evidence, bringing down the experience of competent persons to the present day? He asked his hon. Friend to refer the whole question of pilotage to a Select Committee. He trusted that in any case due consideration would be given to vested interests. If the interests of the country required that the compulsory pilotage system should be abolished, of course it would have to be done away with; but if, on the other hand, it could be shown that there were certain ports in this country which preserved an efficient system of pilotage, which would be injured in the event of the compulsory system being abolished, then he trusted, in the interests of life and the security of property, that his hon. Friend would not ask the House to adopt a course that would lead to such a disastrous result.

said, the experience of the north-eastern districts was wholly in favour of the conclusion that an efficient, adequate, and economical system of pilotage might be maintained without the element of compulsion. He thought that in every case of wreck or disaster to ships, whether accompanied with loss of life or not, an inquiry should be instituted into the cause of the disaster, and, if necessary, subsequently as to the culpability of the officers on board, the two questions being kept separate. Such a course, would in his opinion, do much to prevent the loss of ships, by putting a check upon neglect by the owners or the officers in charge of them. It had been urged upon him as a means of preventing the disasters caused by overloading that no vessel should be allowed to sail loaded beyond the deepest safe load line marked round her hull; but there would be many difficulties in carrying such a proposal into effect, as the line of safety would vary with the season and with the nature of the cargo. Such a line, however, though not obligatory as the limit of immersion, would be a ready and always patent means of noting the depth to which a vessel was actually immersed, and more useful than the proposal that the Custom House officers should be directed to take a note of the draught of every vessel before she sailed. He must join in the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) that the Bill did not contemplate dealing with the lights round the coast, the control and cost of which should be undertaken by the Government of the country as an Imperial duty. In the event, however, of the Bill not going so far as that, it should endeavour to remedy many of the anomalies that at present existed in the lighting-house system now in force—for instance, vessels carrying small cargoes only should be placed on the same footing as those carrying ballast, and not be forced to pay the full lighthouse toll as at present, a system which strangled in their infancy openings of trade with other countries.

said, that as representative of a seaport (Falmouth) he concurred with the hon. Member for Liverpool on the question of compulsory pilotage. He spoke from his own experience in his own constituency, but he believed other hon. Members, who represented ports, could confirm what he said. The pilots were a respectable and intelligent body of men, who had spent their earlier years in educating themselves for the position they held, and had invested a large amount of capital in their business. Under these circumstances, it was most desirable that favourable consideration should be shown them. Looking at the fact that the question under discussion had not been considered by any Committee in the House since 1860, and looking to the fact that the House, as a body, was hardly a fitting tribunal to decide the matter without the assistance of a Committee, he hoped that the hon. Member Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) and the Government would accede to the request of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, and would refer the question of the abolition of compulsory pilotage to a Select Committee.

said, he hoped the Government would not agree to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He thought the House was quite competent to deal with the question. The large majority of shipowners were of opinion the time had arrived when compulsory pilotage ought to be abolished. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had made out as favourable a case as he could. But in reality the navigation of the Mersey was not more difficult than the navigation of the Thames. The thanks of the owners of vessels were due to the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) for having brought this Bill forward. He regretted, how- ever, that the measure did not propose to alter the existing lighthouse system, which pressed very hardly on shipowners. He knew a case where the lighthouse dues swallowed up 20 or 30 per cent of the not earnings of the ship. There were many points in the Bill which would require to be discussed, such as the liabilities to which shipowners were subjected where collisions had occurred, and where passengers and seamen were injured. But he could not avoid remarking that a Bill of 833 clauses included an enormous amount of legislation. He thought the great evil of the shipping trade of the country was that it was subject to so much legislation, and it ought to be the object of the hon. Gentleman to reduce it to a minimum.

said, he was glad to hear that it was proposed to abolish the compulsory employment of pilots and also the compulsory paypent of dues, but on the other hand he regretted to hear that it was proposed as well to supersede unlicensed pilots. Unlicensed pilots were just as good as licensed; and it appeared to him somewhat inconsistent to give discretion to owners whether they should have a pilot or not, and yet at the same time oblige them to take a licensed pilot if any. He thought it very unjust that an owner or captain should be held liable for damage for running down another vessel when he had on board a pilot, in whom perhaps the captain had no confidence, but whom he was compelled to take in preference to another in whom he had great confidence.

said, he desired to congratulate his hon. Friend upon the character of the Bills he proposed to introduce. To the larger Bill he had evidently devoted much attention, but the smaller Bill deserved to be considered by a Select Committee, as so much could be said upon the subject of compulsory pilotage on both sides. The subject was an important one, and even the Trinity House, the authority by which the diplomas were to be given to those persons who were entitled to act as pilots, were divided upon the subject. He thought that until it was decided that medical men might dispense with diplomas pilots should be obliged to carry certificates.

, in reply, said he had to thank hon. Members for the manner in which they had spoken of the measures he proposed to submit to them. To correct some misapprehension on the subject of advance notes, he wished to explain that he proposed, not that advance notes should be illegal, but that they should be legal only for one month's pay. Under the Shipping Act, as he proposed to carry it out, in some cases the one month's advance note would be legal, while in other cases it would be illegal. It was not a legal document in the sense of a bill of exchange. The question of light dues, which had been touched upon, was exceedingly wide, and as it involved a very large amount of revenue it came rather within the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than of the Board of Trade. At the same time he might mention that, in accordance with a promise held out by the President of the Board upon the discussion which arose on the light dues last Session, very careful inquiry had been made into the incidence of light dues, and it was hoped that anomalies would be got rid of, and considerable reduction made in respect of some of those dues. He could not at present state the nature of the reductions, but hoped to do so on the Motion for the second reading. With regard to the Compulsory Pilotage Bill, his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had stated that that port was exceptional as regarded this question of pilotage, and that the pilots there were distinguished by high ability. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend as to the conduct of the pilots at Liverpool; at the same time he could not agree with him that Liverpool was exceptional. Gloucester seemed to be of very much the same character, and yet there was an abundant supply there of pilots fully competent for their duties. On this point of fitness for the duties he might say that if any pilot, under the proposed new system, should be found to be inefficient at his post, it would be in the power of the pilotage authority to remove him. With respect to other observations of hon. Members, the number of pilots would be limited according as the pilotage authority might think fit; and there would be no lack of fully competent pilots, for the most careful investigation would be instituted into the nature of their duties and their fitness to perform them. The Bill would probably be in the hands of hon. Members in less than a week.

said, he was about to ask leave to introduce a Bill which would meet a casus omissus in our legislation in regard to local and personal matters. A Committee on Private Bills had the power of examining witnesses on oath and awarding costs, but Committees on Bills confirming Provisional Orders had not the power to do so. To remedy the inconveniences which sometimes arose from this state of things, he now moved for leave to bring in a "Bill to empower Committees on Bills confirming Provisional Orders to award Costs and examine witnesses on oath."

moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the Constitution of the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and their maintenance on the efficient footing required by the political and commercial interests of the Country.

wished to express his gratification at the course taken by the Government in proposing a Select Committee in accordance with the recommendation he made last Session. He was not quite satisfied with the wording of the Resolution; but he presumed there was no intention of limiting the inquiries of the Committee, but that the Committee would inquire into the management of the Foreign Office as well as into the constitution of the Services, and that although no reference was made to the cost of the Diplomatic and Consular Services, the attention of the Committee would be directed to the means of securing a reduction of expenditure. When he ventured to address the House last year upon this question he referred to the recommendations of the Official Salaries Committee of 1850, and pointed out that those recommendations if carried out would have been the means of great economy, but that they had been entirely disregarded by the Foreign Office, and, in consequence, the expenditure of that Department had been continually increasing. [3 Hansard, cxcviii.] He moved for Returns showing the total increased charge for embassies abroad since 1851, which were laid on the table last week, and which entirely confirmed the statements he had made. The Foreign Office had drawn out the Returns in such a way as to give the impression that the increased expenditure was balanced by savings in other directions; but that was not a fair statement of the case. The increase acknowledged by the Foreign Office as having taken place since 1851, was as follows:—Upon embassies, £ 14,000; first-class missions; £3,550; and upon second-class missions, £3,575; making a total of £21,525. In each of these cases the increase had arisen in consequence of the disregard shown to the Resolutions of the Committee of 1850. That Committee wished to reduce the embassies to France and Turkey to the rank of missions; but instead of that, the Foreign Office had raised the missions to Russia, Austria, and Prussia to the rank of embassies, at an increased annual charge of £10,250. Another recommendation of the Committee was that no salary should exceed £5,000; but we were now paying our Ambassador to France £10,000, Turkey £8,000, Russia £7,800, Austria, £8,000, and Prussia £7,000. These items alone showed an excess beyond the amount recommended by the Committee of £15,800 per annum. The Foreign Office, in the Return now presented, justify this expenditure by referring to the recommendation of the Dipolmatic Service Committee of 1801, to the effect that the—

"Attention of the Secretary of State be directed to the salaries and allowances of the larger missions with a view of considering whether they are adequate to meet the greatly increased expenditure of living at the principal European capitals."

But he (M. Rylands) was not disposed to consider the recommendations of the Committee of 1861 as of much value. That Committee differed entirely in its constitution from the Committee of 1850, and was certainly not of a character likely to satisfy the public. It consisted of fifteen members, ten or eleven of of whom were either officials or ex-officials, and two or three others were officials expectant. They called before them a number of witnesses connected with the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and questions were put to them which, practically amounted to asking them if they would like an increase of salary. Of course it was not to be wondered at that a Committee so constituted, and dealing with such evidence, should report in favour of increased expenditure. But the Returns presented by the Foreign Office did not by any means include the whole of the increased expenditure since 1851. They acknowledged an increase of £21,525, but in addition to that there was the charge for Third Secretaries, amounting to £2,298, and for Clerks attached to South American missions, £1,056. Nor was that all. There was the traveling expenses of the Second and Third Secretaries who were moved from one post to another every two years in accordance with the regulations adopted since the Committee of 1861. These charges must be considerable, and it did appear to him a most unreasonable arrangement to require these secretaries to leave their posts just as soon as they were likely to become familiar with the business of the mission to which they were attached, and when they might possibly have become of some use. There was also an increased charge for outfits, which rose with every advance of salary, being calculated at one-third. Consequently in the case of the five great embassies alone, the additional charge for outfits amounted to £5,000. Diplomatic pensions had also been advanced. It would be seen from the Returns that several second-class missions had been raised to the first-class, apparently without increased charge to the public. But that change under the Pensions Act of last Session would have the of effect of increasing the pensions to the holders of those missions from £900 to £1,300 a-year. The calculation of these several items would undoubtedly bring up the actual increased charge for the Diplomatic Service to above £30,000 per annum in place of £21,525, as shown y the Return. But beyond all this, there were the extraordinary expenses of missions abroad, which amounted to £16,000 in 1850 and now stood at £40,000, showing an increase of £24,000 a-year. When in the course of his speech last Session, he said the accounts of these missions were so kept that they gave opportunities for fraudulent expenditure, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Otway) was very indignant, and asserted that

"Every shilling spent in the Diplomatic Service—whether extravagantly or economically—was most accurately accounted for, and audited with the greatest strictness by public officers."—[3 Hansard, cxcviii. 938.]

He (Mr. Rylands) did not, of course, I dispute the assertion of his hon. Friend that the accounts were strictly audited. But the question was, how far could they be checked, and how far was the audit an efficient one; and upon that point he would call the attention of his hon. Friend to the evidence of Mr. Conyngham, the late Chief Clerk of the Foreign Office, before the Committee of Public Accounts in 1865. That evidence which was given conjointly with Mr. Hammond, showed how little that check amounted to—for when asked, "In the end it comes to your passing the accounts?" Mr. Conyngham answered, "We get rid of the difficulty somehow." Let them now see what the reductions as shown in the Return consisted of. They were as follows:—Missions in Italy, £6,300; Germany, £10,600; Mexico, £4,800; Monte Video, £365; and Bolivia, £365, or a total of £22,430. It would be evident to the House that the great proportion of the reduced charges arose in no way from the economy of the Foreign Office, but were necessitated by the course of events over which the Foreign Office had no control. The Italian missions were suppressed owing to the political changes in that kingdom. The same was the case in Germany, and the interruption of diplomatic relationships with Mexico had been occasioned, as was well-known by the events which had occurred in that country. These missions account for nearly £22,000 out of the alleged savings; and, in fact, the only reduction which the Government could claim credit for was that of Monte Video, which had taken place since the Motion which he submitted to the House last Session. He was very glad to see the suppression of that mission as the first fruits of the economy of the Foreign Office, and he hoped it was only he prelude of a similar suppression of he smaller missions in South America, which were maintained at a cost of £11,400 a-year. He regretted to see hat notwithstanding the events in Germany the Foreign Office still maintained Secretaires of Legation at some of the smaller courts, which was a perfectly useless expense. In thus referring to be large increase in diplomatic expenditure since 1851, he did not wish to complain of the present Government. His complaint was against the management of the Foreign Office for the last twenty years. The present Government had been so much occupied since their accession to Office, that they could scarcely have been expected to deal with these questions sooner. He gave them credit for a strong desire to promote economy in the public services, and he trusted that in the appointment of this Committee, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would see that it was so constituted as to secure the public confidence, and he had a full expectation that the result of its labours would lead to a considerable reduction in the expenditure, and at the same time maintain the efficiency of the Services.

said, the excess of the expenditure in the Diplomatic and Consular Departments last year was £166,000, and it was the duty of a reformed Parliament to inquire into the subject. In both these branches there was great and gross extravagance. He would remind the House that he had asked for a Committee last year. He thought that there was no ground for suspicions which had been entertained that the proposed Committee would not prove to be perfectly fair and straightforward in its inquiries. In all the communications which he had held with the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he had found him to be a man of honour and candour. He accordingly regarded the promise of the Department in that light. He hoped that the Committee would be fairly selected, and that the investigation would be full, thorough, and most searching. Its result would then be to ensure economy and not only maintain, but increase the efficiency of an important public Department.

said, he must maintain that the increase which had arisen under the head of the Diplomatic Service had been absolutely forced on the Government. We were bound to look at our position compared with other Powers. Our Diplomatic Service was by no means better paid than that of the French. He felt confident, if the Committee went into the whole subject, it would be found that the Service was not overpaid. Having been for some years in the Service, he could declare that he had seen the greatest economy practised in it. In the junior branch there were sixty-one officers who received salaries averaging only £250 a-year each, and he would ask anyone whether, considering the qualifications required, less than that could be paid.

, in reply, said, he had intended to preface his Motion by a short statement, but, looking to the state of the House, he thought it would have been a mere waste of time. For the same reason he must decline to follow his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands). He begged, however, to assure them, as to the character and investigating power of the Committee, that while necessarily the Government must be represented on it, the Committee would be composed of Gentlemen who had taken an interest in the question, that the Members would be fairly selected as representing different opinions, and they would have power to investigate all the questions which had been referred to. He and the hon. Member (Mr. Rylands) would meet on the Committee, and would go into the allegations made, in the truth of which he by no means believed. The investigation would be full and complete, and it was his earnest hope and expectation that it might lead to results not only of an economical character, but also such, as should conduce to the efficiency of the Diplomatic Service.

(Lord OTHO FITZGERALD) reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:—

I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.

You may rely on My cordial co-operation in the measures best calculated to promote prosperity and concord among all classes of My People, and to uphold the authority of the Law.