said, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, Whether any arrangement has been come to by the Post Office Department for the carriage of English Mails to India, viâ Brindisi, and with what Company, if any, such arrangement has been made?

replied, that since October last mails had been despatched weekly to India, China, and other countries viâ Brindisi, and that mails had been also received weekly by that route. The mails were sent through France and delivered to the Italian Post Office, which provided for their conveyance through Italy and from Brindisi to Alexandria.

said, he would Deg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact, as stated in the "Somerset County Herald," that he has received a Memorial from the Magistrates of Trowbridge, stating that a man named Brittan is at this time in prison for stealing two ducks, the offence having since his conviction been proved to have been committed by two other men, and for which they have been tried and convicted; and, whether it is true that he has declined to sanction Brittan's release?

Yes, Sir, it is quite true. After full consideration of the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that all three had been engaged in the business. I suppose my hon. Friend will not dispute the possibility of three men having been engaged in stealing two ducks.

Mr. Speaker—Sir, permit me to give an explanation in reference to my conduct yesterday as a Member of this House, since my attention has been directed to observations of a personal character, which have appeared in one of the morning journals in consequence of my having abruptly left my place yesterday. Freedom of debate upon all questions relating to the liberty of the subject and rights of the Sovereignty, with access to the person of the Sovereign, including, I believe, Her Majesty's responsible Ministers, is what you, Mr. Speaker, claimed on behalf of each Member of the House of Commons at the assembling of this present Parliament, in "another place." With respect to my public conduct in having left this House, simply because a responsible Member of Her Majesty's Government virtually declined, by not rising in his place, although present in this House, to answer questions deeply affecting Sovereign territorial rights which, on Her Majesty's accession—if not before—were duly vested in this and the other House of Parliament, I, therefore, now claim to offer the following explanation:—Having learnt, from what I believe to be undoubted authority, that the Canadian Parliament were, or are, proceeding to legislate upon a portion of British territory over which neither the Canadian Government or the Hudson's Bay Company, either in right of their expired charter, or yet of any licence from the Crown granted under and pursuant to any Act of Parliament, had the slightest legislative authority in reference to Sovereign rights of territory so vested in this and the other House—I therefore felt it incumbent upon me to address the inquiries which I yesterday made to a responsible Minister of Her Majesty's Government; and as he declined to give any answer to these Questions, I deemed it to be a duty which I owed to this House to leave my place as I did; and, in so doing, I was afterwards informed by one of the oldest of our Members, as also of Her Majesty's Privy Council, that I was perfectly justified in the course which I then adopted. I shall, therefore, now proceed to renew the Questions addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I have placed upon the Notice Paper. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Statement disclosing the amount paid to the Crown by the Hudson's Bay Company under the statute of 4th William and Mary, chapter 15, in respect of Rupert's Land, and when such payments ceased to be made; and also the amount of rent received under Licences granted in and pursuant to the Act 1 and 2 George IV., chapter 66, for the purpose of enabling such Company to trade in the Saskatchwan and Red River Territories; and, whether he has instructed the Solicitor of the Treasury on behalf of the Crown to inquire into and collect all arrears of rents and fines that may be due; and, if not, why not?

said: For the sake of regularity I must take notice of the fact that this Question, which, the noble Lord calls a renewal, varies in some of its expressions from the Questions he put yesterday. Had it not been so, I apprehend—

Mr. Speaker said he would not have taken it if it had not been varied.

I apprehend there would have been some technical difficulty in the way of its being put; but, at all events, the question is varied. However, I am quite ready to give the noble Lord what satisfaction I possibly can. I can assure the noble Lord that there was no discourtesy whatever meant towards him by my not answering his Question yesterday. The truth is, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stansfeld) was so kind as to look up this rather abstruse point for me, and I thought it would be more satisfactory to the House, as well as to the noble Lord, that he should have the information at first hand from my right hon. Friend, rather than second hand from me. I can assure him that nothing was further from my intention than to treat him with any kind of disrespect. Perhaps I might make some objection to answering the Question now; but I am anxious to set the noble Lord a good example, which I hope he will profit by in future; and I will give him the best explanation in my power. As to the first Question, the fact is that under the Act of William and Mary a tax of £5 per share was imposed on the Hudson's Bay Company for the prosecution of the wars between King William III. and the King of France; and in the case of non-payment it was declared that the charter would be forfeited. We cannot find any trace of any such payments; but the Treasury accounts of that period, as I have ascertained, were so made up that, even if they now existed, these items would have been so mixed up with other matters that it would have been impossible to disentangle them at this distance of time. There is, however, a strong presumption that the money was paid, because the forfeiture never has been taken advantage of. That is all the information I can give upon that subject, and therefore there is no necessity for laying any Papers upon the Table. As an answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, I have to state that, under the statute of George IV., licences were granted to the company in 1821, and renewed, I believe, in 1838, giving an exclusive right to trade with the Indians. For the first four years of the latter licence no rent was payable, and for the remainder of the time 5s. was allowed as rent, and that 5s. was due and payable for 17 years, from 1842 to 1859, making altogether a sum of £4 5s. for the 17 years. I have no evidence that that money has ever been paid. I believe its non-payment might entail the forfeiture of the licence; but, as the licence has not been renewed since 1859, I apprehend the latter consideration is not very important. Then the noble Lord asks me whether I have given any instructions to the Solicitor to the Treasury to proceed for any of those sums, and if not, why not? I have given no such instructions, for the reason that I believe it is very probable that the sums due in the reign of his late Majesty King William III. were duly paid, and collected by the Government, as it was very much in want of money, and not likely to leave anything due long un-collected. But, at all events, to attempt to enforce the rights of the Sovereign after a period of 180 years would be rather straining the matter. Then, as to the licences, it would, I fear, be hardly worth the expense of suing for them; and there is another reason why I should not like to enter into the matter, and that is that by the consent of Parliament the Hudson's Bay Territory is about to be transferred from the Company to the Government of Canada, and I think we could not employ ourselves worse than in embarrassing a great political transaction with obsolete and trivial matters.

asked the Secretary to the, Board of Trade, Whether the Adventurers trading to Hudson's Bay had ever been registered as a limited liability Company at the office of this Board, in Serjeants' Inn, Fleet Street, or had over made use of the International Financial Society (Limited), who were prepared to receive subscriptions for the issue at par of capital stock in the so-called Hudson's Bay Company, incorporated by Royal Charter, 1670; and, whether the International Financial Society (Limited) had filed their accounts at Serjeants' Inn or elsewhere from the date mentioned in the said Society's Prospectus in 1863 up to the present time or not?

said, he had ascertained from the noble Lord himself, and he believed his information was correct, that the Hudson's Bay Company had not been registered under the Limited Liability Companies' Act. Of what its relations were to the International Financial Society (Limited) he had no information and no means of ascertaining. He believed the annual accounts of the International Financial Society (Limited) had been issued every year, according to legal requirement.

Sir, I rise, according to Notice, to call attention to the delay which has occurred in proceeding with the building of the new National Gallery. I do not desire to raise a party fight on the question, nor to make a personal attack on any Member of the Government, whether or not his conduct may have been such as to deserve approval or otherwise. My object simply is to obtain, if I can, from those in whose hands the matter lies, some valuable assurance that the important subject which has been before Parliament and the public for not less than 30 years—namely, the erection of a National Gallery such as shall be worthy of this great country, shall be executed within as short a period as may be reasonably possible. About a fortnight ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out a very bright hope to us on that subject, and informed us that a considerable portion of land had been purchased behind the present National Gallery, on which he said that sooner or later—and the right hon. Gentleman trusted it would be sooner rather than later—a new National Gallery shall be erected. Latetanguis in herbâ. I do not like the word "later" even in this conjunction. Now, I will not go back to the wearisome history of previous discussions in this House upon the site for the new National Gallery—sometimes at Kensington Gore, and sometimes at Kensington Palace. At last the House, sick of the delays that had been interposed in the matter, determined at any price that it would have a new National Gallery, and fixed on the large garden behind Burlington House, where now the Royal Academy and the London University are placed. The choice was excellent, and the Royal Academy would then have naturally inherited the whole building in Trafalgar Square. Unhappily, however, the House thought fit to reverse the scheme on the Motion of my noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) in 1864. I was not in that Parliament, but I tried to induce the next one in the following Session to reverse the decision. The House was, however, wearied out, and though I was supported by all who had the fullest knowledge of the subject, it stuck to the decision that the Gallery should be situated in Trafalgar Square. A limited competition had been held of eminent architects, and eight or nine gentlemen were named as judges of the designs that might be sent in. Among those judges were the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), the hon. Member for Bath (Sir William Tite), Mr. Boxall, Lord Hardinge, myself, and others. We reported, in effect, that none of the designs submitted to us exactly met the object in view, and that we could not recommend any of them for adoption. However, in our opinion, Mr. Edward Barry's design was the best, and we hinted that the Government would do well to appoint that eminent architect. In the following year, 1868, Mr. Barry was appointed by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) then First Commissioner of Works. Though the Government have not yet actual and material possession of the ground required for the enlargement of the National Gallery, they have moral possession of it. It is absurd to put off submitting the plan to the House on the ground that the site is not yet obtained. The money is as good as granted, and the site is as good as got. Besides, although the correspondence which was granted to me more than a year since leaves off some months previously, it is currently believed that the architect has prepared, a plan and sections, and drawn up a careful Report. The Government ought, therefore, to take immediate steps to rid us of the disgrace of having a National Gallery not suited to the pictures we possess, quite inadequate to our future wants, and unworthy of the character of a civilized, enlightened, and artistic nation. So cramped is the National Gallery, that I believe there is not room in it for a single additional picture that may be given or bequeathed to us. Some little time since I saw in the Director's apartment a very curious and interesting Venetian picture, for which I believe there is no space in the Gallery itself. The papers of the last week inform us that a lady alike to be honoured for her own proficiency in art, and the genius of her husband—Lady Eastlake—has given the Gallery a very valuable painting by Bellini in memory of the late Director, while the large "Raising of Lazarus," by Haydon, a painter who, with all which may be said against him, marks a period in the history of British art, hangs hopelessly in a basement room. The public has also been informed that a large bequest of pictures has turned up in the will of a gentleman lately deceased. There are some things which may be tinkered; but you cannot tinker a National Gallery. The present Government has been criticized for their general economical behaviour. They will give the best possible; proof of judicious economy if they show a large balance in hand for great works which the dignity of the country requires to be carried out. The existing Gallery is so full that if additional pictures are to be hung in it, they must be "skied," as the artists term it, in which case the visitor must mount on a ladder to see them, or they must be hung so close to the floor that the student must break his neck in stooping to look at them. Some one has been wild enough to report that official brains have conceived the idea of hanging pictures in the entrance hall of the National Gallery, where they will be exposed to great detriment from soot and other dirt swept in by southerly winds. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will express the indignation which he must feel at such a slanderous rumour. Another story, quite as absurd, attributes to some unknown person the notion of building a huge glass house, like an exaggerated photographer's studio, upon the roof of the Gallery. No man but he who would have thought of using the Hall for pictures, can, I venture to say, have dreamed of such a second absurdity. But I now come to what is perhaps the most serious reason for urging the construction of, at all events, a section of the new building. The public generally suppose that the National Gallery is fire-proof. This is an absolute mistake. The floors of the half of the existing building originally allotted to the National Gallery are what is called—though that is more than doubtful—fire-proof, but those of the portion that has until recently been occupied by the Royal Academy have not even this recommendation; while the wooden roof which ranges over the whole building is impartially dangerous and combustible in its first construction, and from having been baked in the sun for 40 years it is now mere touchwood. The consequence of this state of things is that the pictorial treasures of the nation may be entirely destroyed in a few minutes. The danger is enormously increased by the immediate proximity of the barracks, and of a number of mean houses contiguous to the building, while the baths and washhouses uplift their tall and ugly chimney—one drift of burning soot might do the work. The barracks ought at once to be removed to the river side or anywhere, and the new building commenced. The Treasury has plenty of money in hand to enable them to adopt such a course. The advantage of the plan proposed is that the work can be done in sections. Those to the north not being in view will be quite plain and unornamented and therefore cheap, while their construction and use would not involve the demolition of the actual structure until the season has arrived for the final completion of the whole permanent edifice. The time has come when the House of Commons is entitled to know what progress has been made in the negotiations for the erection of the new building, and how soon it is actually to be taken in hand, and I therefore beg to move for the production of Papers relating to the subject.

said, they were much indebted to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope) for his Motion. For years past there had been a general admission that justice had not been, and could not be done to the national pictures which had been acquired at so large an outlay of public money and had been added to by so many noble gifts and bequests. So far back as 1847 the Committee then sitting recommended the employment of the ground at the back of the Gallery. Fourteen years ago his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) complained of the condition of the National Gallery. He said it had boon a ricketty child from its birth; and no sooner had it been erected than a great portion had been handed over to the Royal Academy. In the same debate the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) made the following statement:—

"I am not indulging in anything like exaggeration when I say that the prevalent feeling of the House and of the country is that a new National Gallery which shall afford adequate accommodation to those treasures of art we possess, and which, I trust, we shall greatly increase, is necessary."—[3 Hansard, cxlii. 2136.]

"All the space required for the national collection of the Old Masters would not be wanted at once, part of it might be temporarily employed for other purposes."

said, there could be no objection whatever to the Motion with which the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope) concluded his remarks. There was every disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to afford to the hon. Member and the House every information respecting the proceedings that had taken place since the last Papers were laid upon the Table. But the hon. Member had read them a very long lecture upon the supposed duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of whose balances he seemed anxious to dispose at the earliest possible period in the construction of a National Gallery; the hon. Gentleman suggested that some one interposed to stay the bountiful hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this direction; he did not know to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—certainly it could not be to him, as First Commissioner of Works, because the hon. Member would be aware that the First Commissioner had no authority to embark in any great undertaking of this kind, and that his duty was confined to carrying out the instructions he might receive from the chief officers of Her Majesty's Government, especially from those representing the Treasury, who determined the expenditure on public buildings. The Government could not disregard all considerations of economy, and in this matter it would be well to be instructed by what had been done in the past, for the hon. Member was not the first who had appeared in that House to enlighten them upon questions of Art, and reminding the Government of their duty to embark in great public buildings, assure them that the occasion was suitable and beautiful. That was the language held some years ago when it was proposed to build a National Gallery; but the Government then in Office, being economically disposed, suggested that a large building in Whitehall, designed for a banqueting hall, in which no dinners had been given, and once employed as a chapel for soldiers, but then altogether unused, would do very well for the purpose. But the Art patrons and the artists of the day complained of the side light and said it was a pity to spoil the beautiful roof, and that it would be very much better to build a Gallery large enough both for the national collection and the annual exhibition of the Royal Academy, because it would leave room for the growth of the national collection; and it was provided that the Royal Academy should remove elsewhere if the national collection increased beyond the accommodation. And what was the result? A considerable sum was proposed for the building; then a farther grant was made; the building cost a great deal of money, and it was thought to be admirably suited for the site on which it was built. Those who had advocated a handsome building 20 years ago said it would attract a handsome donation of valuable pictures, just as was said now. [Mr. W. H. GREGORY: And we have got them.] No doubt a great many pictures had been given to the national collection; experience, however, had shown that people had a great fancy for giving pictures to commemorate themselves, but did not offer to contribute pictures which would pro- mote the Art of the country. [Cries of "No!"] He had authority for that statement, and he believed no one would deny that a great many pictures had been offered and declined, because they were unfit for exhibition in a National Gallery. He merely mentioned this to show that hon. Members must not attach too much weight to the presumption that donations of valuable works would follow the creation of a handsome Gallery. When the collection, however, had in time extended beyond the limits of the building reserved for it, the Government considered the matter and came to Parliament with a scheme for meeting the difficulty. It was then stated that, with the assistance and advice of the Trustees of the National Gallery, an excellent adaptation of the building could be made, which would suffice for the exhibition of the national pictures for many years to come. Confiding in that assurance, the House of Commons voted a sum of £17,000, and, in furtherance of the same object, a donation was made to the Royal Academy; the very valuable ground on which the building was erected being worth, perhaps, from £40,000 to £50,000. No sooner was this done, no sooner had the Royal Academy vacated the rooms, than a cry arose that the National Gallery was in every respect unsuited to the exhibition of the national pictures, and that justice to Art required that it should be immediately pulled down. Upon that occasion he ventured to urge, on grounds of economy, that before they pulled down the National Gallery they ought at least to have the design of a better building to erect in its stead, otherwise it would be an idle waste of money to pull down that which already existed. Designs were accordingly invited, with an alterative aspect, one to build behind the National Gallery, leaving the building as it stood at present, and the other to pull down the building and erect an entirely new structure on its site. The result of the competition was that no design was fit to be executed—a result certainly not very flattering to the state of structural art in this country. Two designs were mentioned as having conspicuous merit, and they were bracketed together; but, in the end, upon considerations entirely independent of this particular question, in June, 1868, Mr. Barry was appointed by the late Government to be the architect for the construction of the new National Gallery. When Her Majesty's Government were now asked, without a moment's delay, to proceed with such a building, as rational men of business they were bound to ask themselves what other works were demanded at their hands, in order that they might make a choice, and postponing those which would contribute merely to the delight of the country and of the friends of Art, they might be free to deal with other designs which were of paramount importance in the administration of public affairs. At no period had Her Majesty's Government been called upon to undertake such a number of important public works, involving such vast employment of labour and expenditure, as were called for at the present moment. And let him remind the House that these were not works on which Her Majesty's Government embarked with the notion that they were going to do something-magnificent—something which would attract the attention and strike the mind of passers-by, if, indeed, there were persons capable of being influenced in this manner. The history of the world taught us that it was a bad thing for a Government to embark in great building operations, with the notion that it was thereby rendering itself popular in the eyes of the community. There had been conspicuous examples of those who were led away by such reasoning, and found themselves exposed to the most calamitous results. And Her Majesty's Government were too sagacious to follow in the footsteps of dynasties which had been almost destroyed by squandering public money upon magnificent public buildings. At no great distance from London they had recently seen the effects of a large expenditure upon the adornment and improvement of a great city. What Her Majesty's Government were called upon to consider was the bearing of this question upon the administration of public affairs. Look at the various projects which were forced upon their attention. There was first the construction of a new Palace of Justice; next, a building for the accommodation of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the subordinate departments subject to their supervision. Recently, the conclusion had been arrived at that it was necessary for the proper administration of the War Department that it should be carried on under one roof, and that, of course, would require a building of enormous magnitude. Attention had had likewise been directed, very forcibly, to the deplorable condition into which the Admiralty Department had fallen, from being scattered over different buildings; the remedy proposed, of course, was to have a building not less in extent than that which would be required for the War Department. Here were various immense structures pressed upon; the Government as requiring to be executed at the earliest moment with a view to promote the effective administration of public affairs. Then, again, the development of the postal system rendered it necessary that we should erect a new Post Office, almost as large and, as far as internal accommodation went, of not loss capacity than the existing Post Office; this, indeed, was a work imperatively required, for if not carried out at once it would be almost impossible for the Department to discharge the new duties it had undertaken. There were various minor works involving considerable expenditure, but with the details of these it was not necessary that he should trouble the House. He must point out at the same time, that as regarded the interest of Science and Art Her Majesty's Government were by no means indifferent. At Kensington a building of enormous proportions were being erected, which must be carried on to a stage that would render it fit for use; although a very large expenditure of public money would be required for that purpose, it was impossible to stop in that great undertaking till it had reached such a position that the appearance of the building could be described as comparatively decent. Once more, there was constantly pressed upon the Government the condition of the British Museum, to which the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been intended to apply. His right hon. Friend might possibly have been infelicitous in the mode of expression which he adopted, but his remarks, undoubtedly, were intended to apply to that Department. Her Majesty's Government and successive Governments for several years past, had felt the absolute necessity of affording some measure of relief to the British. Museum in its present overcrowded condition. After the enormous expenditure made upon the maintenance and improvement of the beautiful collections which it contained, it was deplorable that there should not be sufficient means of exhibiting them, and that their vast and interesting stores should lie in drawers and presses, only to be resorted to by the few who came under very special conditions. When specimens in the Natural History Collection, for instance, were crowded into a case three or four deep it was impossible for the public to look at them with a sense of intelligent enjoyment. But to provide adequate space for the proper display of the collections in this building would require, within the strictest economy, over £100,000 or £200,000; and the last time that the project was under discussion the sum mentioned was much nearer to £500,000. Her Majesty's Government, of course, would not proceed hastily with the work until they had satisfied themselves that the arrangements which they had made would not be hereafter condemned as unnecessary, inconvevenient, or extravagant; but as soon as all the questions, necessarily very difficult and complex, connected with this building had been solved, he believed he might say that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit the question to the consideration of the House. It was not, however, an easy one to deal with, and the Committee which sat last Session made certain recommendations, to which it was of course the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give the most careful, minute, and searching examination. This was certainly a more urgent affair than the work upon which the hon. Gentleman wished the Government at once to enter. Proceeding on ordinary principles of business to deal with the demands made upon them, the Government must have regard to whether the National Gallery was so overcrowded with pictures as to prevent the visitors from deriving adequate enjoyment. If it was said that the National Gallery was overcrowded, he must point out that it contained a very large number of the works of one artist, and it might become the duty of the Government to consider whether a national collection ought not to consist of the most perfect works of every school, and whether it would not be better for the enlightenment of the students of Art to have a more general collection, instead of having one of the finest rooms occupied by the works of a single artist. [An hon. MEMBER: You are obliged.] He denied that there was any obligation to occupy one Gallery to such an extent as was the case at present, while the removal of some of those pictures would give a great amount of space, and would prevent the necessity of hanging pictures, as had been proposed, in a hall where they would be destroyed with dust. The National Gallery was a building of two stories, only one of which was now used for the exhibition of works of Art, and he thought it ought to be known why the other could not be turned to account. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), who was so solicitous to preserve the National Gallery from fire, did not tell the House that a portion of that building was used as a private residence, in addition to which the Trustees wanted a library fitted up on the ground floor, because the Council of the Royal Academy, after having had ground given to them for a new building, chose to keep their books in the old one. The first thing which he thought ought to be done in reference to that building was to clear the basement or ground story of its present occupants, and then great facilities would be given to the public for enjoying the national collection, which would also be made more available than at present for those students who desired to take advantage of what the country possessed. That was what he proposed, but the Trustees, instead of thanking him for his efforts, came down to the House for the purpose of throwing discredit upon them, and taunted him with being a very economical person. He accepted the imputation, his view being that the public should have their own property and make the best use of it, and that he ought not to be driven to provide new buildings for persons who did not assist him to turn the existing ones to the best account. The Government ought not to be hurried to proceed with the construction of a new building, but, looking to the demands that were made upon the national Exchequer, they ought to have some regard to the necessities of each case, and give to one a preference. The Government would give the subject their best consideration, and when they felt that they could embark in the proposed undertaking they would be prepared to submit a proposal to the House.

said, he did not intend to make any imputation of economy against the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat clown; on the contrary, he should charge extravagance against the proposals the right hon. Gentleman had shadowed forth, and he should oppose every grant which was asked for with the intention of tinkering the existing National Gallery, because the money would be thrown away in so doing. One would imagine from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman that all these schemes with regard to the National Gallery were merely whims of a few connoisseurs or Trustees of the National Gallery. The right hon. Gentleman had made one singular omission in his historical retrospect of those transactions—there was not one word said of the different Bills which, from time to time, had been brought in by a Liberal Government for the express purpose of purchasing land upon which to erect a new National Gallery. Year after year Parliament had readily and cheerfully voted the money which was asked for by the Executive of the day, for the purpose of enabling them to become possessors of land for the erection of a new Gallery; and a Liberal Government, of which the present Premier was Chancellor of the Exchequer, issued instructions for a limited competition in reference to designs. The right hon. Gentleman stated that two architects had been bracketed together. The facts were these—if the judges were to select the best design for a new building altogether, they would have selected that of Mr. Edward Barry; but if they were to select the best design for the adaptation of the present building to its purposes, they were prepared to select that of Mr. Murray. During the last few years Parliament had really been the dupes of the Government, if, after the passing of those Bills for the expenditure of large sums of money for the purchase of land on which to erect new buildings, it was found that there existed no serious intention, on the part of the Government, to erect a new National Gallery. The right hon. Gentleman's speech amounted to a confession that the Government had not made up their minds about the National Gallery, while he did not think much of the uses to which it was turned; for, he said, after all, it was only an exhibition of pictures, about which only a few people cared, the majority being far more concerned about rigid economy.

said, the noble Lord could not have attended to his remarks, or he would not have put such an interpretation upon them.

said, he was glad to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a disclaimer of such sentiments. The right hon. Gentleman had made an unfounded charge against the Royal Academy. He told them that the Academy maintained a library in the lower story of the National Gallery, although Parliament had voted them a sum of money for the erection of a new building on the Burlington House site. [Mr. AYRTON: Had granted land.] Yes; for the purpose of erecting a now building on it. But not only did Parliament grant the Royal Academy a piece of land, but they also granted them Burlington House, where, as soon as the building was handed over to them, they would place their library, and throw it open to the public. The delay was not occasioned by the Royal Academy, but arose from the non-completion of those buildings, between Burlington House and Piccadilly, that were to accommodate the Royal Society and other learned institutions. A portion of Burlington House was now occupied by the Royal Society, the Royal Academy could not take complete possession until the building was free. So far from their being open to the charge that had been brought against them for continuing to occupy the National Gallery, the fault, if any, rested with the First Commissioner of Works, from his not being in a position to give up Burlington House to the Royal Academy. The right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks were, he thought, intended to divert the House from the real point at issue, which was simply whether, after long inquiries by Committees and Royal Commissions, after plans had been adopted by the Government of the day, after Acts had been passed to carry them into effect, after large sums had been annually voted by Parliament for the purpose of these buildings, and even the ground required had been purchased, they were now to be told that everything was at sea again, and that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had not only in his head a scheme for the structural alterations of the National Gallery, but a scheme for the exhibition of pictures in that building which the Trustees, and the Director were not likely to accept on his ipse dixit. Fortunately, the schemes proposed by the right hon. Gentleman could not be carried out without money, and, before that could be voted, the matter would have to be decided by that House. The right hon. Gentleman intended to disregard all that had been done by the Government of Earl Russell and other Governments, and to have the pictures exhibited in what he could not help terming a more hugger-mugger manner than at present. It was a scheme that, no doubt, would cost money, but then it would be spent, they were told, by a really economical Minister. He could only regard the policy sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman as an attempt to escape the responsibility which had been thrown upon him by Parliament, and as evincing a determination to deal with these exhibitions in a manner which would be characterized by every man of taste and love for Art in this or any other country as a disgrace alike to the nation and the Government.

said, the First Commissioner of Works had not appreciated the recommendation of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). The hon. Gentleman did not ask the House to embark in an expensive scheme; but to adopt the plan of leaving the present building for future consideration, and at at once commencing Galleries that might be perfect internally, and economical in external decoration, as these Galleries would have little frontage to the street, they need not be more costly than the Royal Academy Galleries. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) had not believed till that evening that any reasonable man doubted the necessity of enlarging the exhibiting powers of the National Gallery, and the present First Commissioner of Works was the only man in that House who thought the present building was adequate for its purpose. Its defects were warnings to avoid the parsimony which spoilt the design of Mr. Wilkins. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Turner Collection surprised him; the pictures were bequeathed to the nation on the condition that they should be kept in a separate room; and, even if this condition could be overridden by a quibble, it would be discreditable to the Government and the nation to do so. Then it was proposed that the basement should be used for the exhibition of pictures. But it was not the intention of Mr. Wilkins that the basement should be used for that purpose, and consequently it was not fitted for it, and it would not be treating the pictures fairly to exhibit them in such a place. But the strongest reason why there should be some immediate dealing with the subject had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge. That hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the pictures were not so safe as they ought to be, as the building had a wooden roof, and if unfortunately, a fire were to break out, we might lose some of the great masterpieces which were the pride of the country and so useful for the cultivation of Art. Then, bequests would not be so frequent for the future if we were to act in the way now proposed by the First Commissioner. There were still many persons, actuated by a generous and patriotic feeling, who would be glad that the pictures which they had collected with care and skill, and the expenditure of much money, should be of use to the nation and be exhibited to the whole world in a proper building. Would it not be the best plan, therefore, to build a really useful Gallery to receive such pictures as any public-spirited person might give to the nation? If therefore, the Government were prevented from dealing with the question immediately, it would be a great national misfortune, and, besides, it was not an economical proceeding to allow valuable land in the centre of the metropolis to remain without producing any return.

said, he must express his astonishment at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chief Commissioner of Works). The right hon. Gentleman had asked, why should we do anything in a hurry? Now, what was the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a hurry? Had not this subject been agitated for 20 years, vote after vote been taken upon it, money after money granted, and a site purchased? The right hon. Gentleman had said that we could not do it now because there were other matters pressing; but all that ought to have been considered before we paid for the land. This was not the measure of one Government, but of many Governments; for it was considered a great matter to encourage Art, which would have re-acted for the benefit of the taxpayer, because the ability to manufacture and the power of production would have been increased. The right hon. Gentleman said he would give the Papers, but not a National Gallery. But the right hon. Gentleman further took care to say that he was not the person who had rejected the proposal; but that it was the deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Government that there should be no National Gallery. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman had come into Office with fresh ideas; but they were ideas of parsimony. He said that it was the opinion of the Government that there should be no National Gallery. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Nothing of the land.] Were the Government to build a National Gallery after everything else was done? There was no intention, on the part of the Director or Trustees, to put the National Gallery in opposition to Kensington Museum. There was no such idea on the part of anyone who really regarded the advancement of art. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he spoke on excellent authority; but the right hon. Gentleman, differing from his predecessors, had not put himself In communication with the Director, and Trustees. Wherever his authority came from it did not come from those authorities. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that the Trustees and the Director only existed under a Treasury Minute, and had no power—not even the power of appointing a housemaid without reference to the Treasury, and, consequently, they could not turn any of the rooms to other purposes without the authority of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to know on what basis the institution stood. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the communications of the Trustees with the First Commissioners of Work had hitherto been satisfactory, because they had been with Ministers who felt with them that the object in view was a national one, and they had been always treated with courtesy. They had always received from every Minister the most courteous and kindly consideration. All he could say was this—that unless the Trustees were to continue upon that footing of free communication, frank consideration, and courteous reception, the office of Trustee would be untenable. If information with regard to changes were obtained, and the changes carried into effect without any communication with them, it would be totally impossible that they should hold their office with satisfaction to themselves or benefit to the country. Everything should be done as if the Government and the Trustees had but one purpose, one object, and one desire. When the right hon. Gentleman talked of the Trustees as wishing to force a thing upon him—wishing to make war upon him—he could tell him the Trustees had no feeling of the kind. All who visited the Gallery—foreigners as well as English, and who were judges of pictures—admitted that the collection, though not large, was very choice; but there was no one who did not say that there was no room to hang the pictures as they ought to be hung. One might hang a picture with its back to you, or in any other way, but to hang it well required room, space, and light. With regard to the library, the Trustees were authorized to purchase the library of Sir Charles Eastlake, which was a most valuable one for study and for reference, and no answer could be got from the right hon. Gentleman as to a room to put it in. If, as he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman, it was not the intention of the Government to have a new National Gallery until everything else was finished, then there might be reasons for making the changes which the right hon. Gentleman proposed; but if it was intended, within a reasonable time, to proceed with the construction of a National Gallery fit for national purposes, then, so far from there being economy, there was extravagance in the plan of spending money to-day on a building which must be pulled down tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman had made observations on the conduct of the Trustees with regard to the room which contained the Turner pictures. But there was this to be considered, that the Turner Collection had been bequeathed to the National Gallery upon conditions which, according to high legal authority, if not complied with, the collection would revert to the heir-at-law. But, said the right hon. Gentleman—"The nation could do what it liked with its own." The right hon. Gentleman probably intended to introduce an Act of Parliament on the subject. But where would he get bequests for the future if the conditions upon which those that were already given were not complied with? With regard to the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the House, it was only right that it should be understood that he had kept himself aloof from the Director and Trustees, and there had been no communication whatever between them.

said, that if indignation would remove the difficulty of dealing with public questions, and especially with those which unfortunately seemed most puzzling—namely, those connected with Art—he knew from experience that the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) was the man to do it. That was not the first occasion on which he had seen the noble Lord transported almost beyond himself by an irrepressible excitement on subjects belonging to the Department with which he had so often been connected. But he confessed he had not expected that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would have exercised his imagination to the extent that he had done. He did not refer to the parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech which referred to the relations of the First Commissioner of Works with the Trustees, because upon those he was uninformed; but when the hon. Gentleman, under the influence of his excited imagination—because no man was less capable of wilful inaccuracy—ascribed to his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works the statement of a deliberate intention on the part of the Government that they should not have a new National Gallery, he must say his right hon. Friend had used no words which, in the slightest degree, bore that signification. He entirely repudiated any such intention on the part of the Government. [Mr. BAKING said he was very glad to hear that.] Such hasty imputations might, perhaps, animate a debate; but they certainly tended to retard, perplex, and confuse a public question; and he knew of no justification which, the hon. Gentleman could have for imputing such an utterance to his right hon. Friend.

said, he was surprised that a charge of that description should be made against him by the First Minister of the Crown. He conceived the First Commissioner of Works to have said that nothing was to be done in regard to the National Gallery till many other works were finished, and that then that question would be taken into consideration.

said, the hon. Gentleman now substituted a totally different charge from the one he had first made; but that charge he (Mr. Gladstone) would meet also. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works did not state that all those other questions were to be disposed of before the National Gallery was erected. The speech of his right hon. Friend set out the works of that description which were now in the hands of and before the Government. It might be fair to describe that as a dilatory plea. It was perfectly competent for anyone to argue that the whole of that work ought to be done at once, or that any particular portion ought to be preferred to the rest; but it was only right that those connected with the Government should point out to the House what was the amount of work of that kind they had in hand, that the House might be aware of the existence of competing claims. Although he did not find fault with those who said that all ought to be done at once, he could not share their sanguine anticipations. In the history of the Department of Public Works for the last 30 years he had seen little except a succession of procrastinations, reproaches, complaints, and partial failures. There was, however, in London one notable erection of the present generation which was a remarkable success—a success in utility, in happy and original conception, and in moderate cost. It was the reading-room of the British Museum; and it happened to be the one work with which the Government and Parliament had nothing, or next to nothing, to do. When they got into a discussion of this kind there seemed to be nothing but hard words; and he was sure he was very sorry if he had said anything which partook of rudeness to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring); but, after all, the present discussion was only similar to those which they had witnessed before on similar subjects. Indeed, he recol- lected scenes, if he might say so, of much fiercer excitement than had prevailed that evening; because, although the area of the South Kensington Estate never had been actually stained by the gore of the contending hosts, yet the battles fought over the disposal of that ground in that House had been such that, if words could have drawn forth blood from the veins and arteries of men, unquestionably the whole floor would blush with it. But, in this case, it was right to bear in mind the mass of work that pressed on them. They had just disposed of the London University. A great work at the Post Office was rapidly proceeding. A great work at the Kensington Museum was in rapid progress. The erection of the Public Offices, including the Colonial and Home Departments, was also fast advancing. Structures of immense extent and importance must be undertaken for the War and other Departments, which were of great urgency in reference to the efficiency of those Departments. He need not refer to the case of the Law Courts, because all who heard him knew of the difficulties in which the Government had been involved on that subject. All those buildings, with the exception of those of the University of London and the Kensington Museum, were so connected with administrative necessities as to be entitled, he thought, to precedence in general terms, though he would not say to precedence in so absolute a sense as that they should necessarily be all completed before anything else was begun. He had not a word to say against the mode in which this Motion had been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), and he would state frankly that he did not think the question of the National Gallery should be indefinitely postponed. But surely the buildings to which he had referred were of greater urgency. He did not understand his right hon. Friend in the same sense as he was understood by his hon. Friend behind him, that they should be working in the dark behind the present Gallery, and allowing the façade to stand over till some indefinite period.

What I suggested was that the work might be done in sections, and that the portion in front might be left till the last.

said, he certainly did understand his hon. Friend to say that, to a certain extent, the plan of proceeding piecemeal behind the present Gallery would be obnoxious, his wishes going to the extent of complete reconstruction.

To proceed gradually.

said, according to the opinion of the Government, however, another question was more urgent than that of the National Gallery—namely, that of the Natural History Collection of the British Museum. The case of the British Museum had reached a point far beyond being curable by indignation; it was so extreme that nobody now endeavoured even to apply indignation as a remedy or palliative for it. It had attained the point of absolute absurdity; because, besides the hideous deformity which it had been necessary for many years to give externally to a building which, after all, had a noble façade, in its interior things were packed and stowed away in the dark which were absolutely valueless except when displayed in the light. Therefore, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully intended and desired during this Session to propose a plan to the House respecting the British Museum. If the House should be of opinion the Government were wrong in doing that, and that they ought to make the completion of the National Gallery the first object of their efforts, they had no foregone conclusions and no fastidious pride on the subject that would prevent them from bowing to what might be deemed to be the general wish. He was surprised to hear from the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last that the pictures were so crowded together in the National Gallery. For himself, he had not visited it lately; but when he was last there he thought they were, on the whole, exceedingly well hung and very well seen, and that there was no such extreme urgency in regard to the pictures, although, undoubtedly, space for expansion was to be desired. He had said thus much to remove obvious misapprehension as to the declarations made by his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works; and, while he was not himself very sanguine as to their being more successful than other Governments had been in the prompt, rapid, and effective disposal of all those difficult subjects, at least they ought not to be precluded from approaching them dispassionately, through erroneous interpretations being hastily put upon the statement of their intentions.

said, he wished to say that the Instructions to the Commission, of which he was a Member, were that they were to go into questions of alterations of the present building as well as the design for a new Gallery; and the conclusion they came to was that the design of Mr. Murray was the most suitable for the alteration of the present building, but that of Mr. E. Barry was the best if a new one were to be constructed. He was delighted to hear from the Prime Minister that this matter was not to be forgotten, though he was sorry to hear it was to be postponed. What he desired to warn the Chief Commissioner against was any attempt to tinker with the basement of the present building. He believed a fire-proof Gallery might be contructed at a very moderate cost on the site of the workhouse at the back of the present building, after the design of Mr. Barry. The Government ought not, he thought, to grudge the expenditure for the purpose, particularly as the new Law Courts were not to be paid for by the nation, but were to be constructed by means of the Suitors' Fee Fund. He trusted the Government would take the subject up in a large and generous spirit.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir William Tite) was quite right as to the source from which the money for the new Law Courts was to be derived, and he (Mr. Bentinck) contended that they ought not to be placed in the same category with other public buildings. As to the buildings in connection with the British Museum, they had been long promised, and it would be something like a breach of contract, he maintained, to delay proceeding with them. He hoped the Government would yet rescind their decision as to the National Gallery, and begin at once. He would remind the House that the Turner pictures were a bequest to the nation; and, with respect to one of them especially, Mr. Turner had requested that it should be placed next one of the celebrated paintings of Claude. That was a stipulation by which the Government were, he thought, bound in honour and good faith to abide.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that there were large numbers of drawings of the Old Masters lying at present in rooms at the British Museum, which were perfectly useless, so far as the Art education of the country was concerned, as they were now stowed away. He would suggest the erection of some plain brick and mortar building, which might be even left to the First Commissioner of Works, in which they could be displayed. Such a building could be constructed at a comparatively small cost; and it would even be advisable to spend £50,000 rather than allow the drawings to be hidden away as they were; or an arrangement might be made to exhibit them in order at the National Gallery.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

, in rising to move—

"An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the causes of the great loss of life and property at sea during the last few years, and to consider whether any and what changes can be made in existing Laws and Regulations with respect to collisions, over-lading, stowage of cargo, and other matters, with the view of giving increased safety to Passengers and Merchant Ships,"

The accident to the Carnatic on the Red Sea.

Their loss has been very slight—about 2 per cent on insurance.

said, he would ask the House, in reference to this matter, to consider not his statements merely, but the real state of public opinion on the subject. He did not know that he could have a better test of the public feeling on the point than the expression of the opinion of the Chambers of Commerce in this country. In February last a meeting was held at the Westminster Palace Hotel of representatives of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. They took into consideration the state of the mercantile marine, and they adopted a Resolution stating, that in consequence of the frequent losses of sailing and steam ships from the practice of overloading, the Associated Chambers were of opinion that the attention of the Government should be drawn to the subject, and that they should be invited to take into consideration whether their Mercantile Marine Bill should, not contain provisions for determining the maximum load line for sailing and steam ships. Mr. Hall, of Newcastle, who introduced the Resolution, adverted to the great evil of sending large and valuable steam-ships overladen to sea, by which practice life and property to a large amount were sacrificed annually. He would now venture to bring before the House the memorial to the Board of Trade adopted at this same meeting, which represented 39 Chambers of Commerce, including those of Bristol, Cardiff, Dundee, Exeter, Falmouth, Gloucester, Poole, Hull, Middles-borough, Newcastle, Plymouth, Southampton, Stockton, and West Hartlepool. The memorial said that the periodical inspection of all sailing and steam ships not carrying passengers should be compulsory; and, secondly, that the memorialists respectfully invited the Government to take into consideration whether the Merchant Shipping Bill should not contain provisions for the prevention of overloading by having a fixed load line or otherwise. He hoped that the Government would not disregard these representations. In a letter he had received yesterday, the Committee of the Salvage Association of London said it was notorious that many vessels left the ports of this country dangerously over-laden, and that it appeared to them that only a Royal Commission would have the power requisite for such an investigation as was necessary. In a Petition to this House the Chamber of Commerce of Newcastle-upon-Tyne—abody perhaps more entitled to attention than any other, considering the circumstances attending the loss of the Sea Queen—regretted the omission from the Government Merchant Shipping Bill of any provision for determining the maximum load line, as recent experience had shown how many lives and how much property were sacrificed by overloading; and, without distinct provisions to meet this evil, they said the Bill would fail to deal with one of the most distinct and recognized deficiencies of the merchant shipping service. The Chamber added that the increasing number of losses from preventible causes led to an advance in the rates of premium for insurance, and thus inflicted upon the mercantile and manufacturing community a tax which, with care and supervision, might to a certain extent be removed. This was a statement which appealed to the interests as well as to the good feelings of shipowners He was convinced that no honest shipowner and no Minister of the Crown would contend that such a state of things did not require serious consideration. He was far from denying that it was an easy matter to prevent the overloading of ships, and that was a strong argument in favour of his proposal. But no one could deny that our law was deficient, when the Sea Queen could leave port while men were confident she was unseaworthy, and there was no power to stop her. In France there was no load line, and shipowners and merchants might combine to overload as they pleased, but there was in every port a Commission without whose certificate no ship could leave port. That system had worked very well, but he did not know whether the shipowners of England would be willing that such a system should be adopted. On our part nothing could be more fallacious than to trust to the insurance offices to stop these things, for there was too much competition to admit of prudent combination among the underwriters; and if A would not insure a bad vessel B would, so that the public could obtain no protection from insurers. As to Board of Trade inquiries under any Government, they did not command confidence or give satisfaction, and local influence prejudiced the decisions arrived at, while there was no regularity or system in deciding when an inquiry was to be held. After the loss of the Sea Queen two months elapsed before an inquiry was determined upon; and he believed it would not have been instituted, but for a Question put in that House by the worthy Alderman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence). Again, why had there been no inquiry into the loss of the City of Boston, with 200 precious lives? He had reason to believe that communications had been made to the Board of Trade to the effect that there were respectable persons in Halifax prepared to make serious statements in regard to the state in which the steamer left Halifax. He knew nothing but what he was told, and he should be sorry to say a word that was unfair towards the owners of the ship; but if a railway accident in this country had involved the sacrifice of one-fourth the number of lives that were lost in the City of Boston, would the company have been permitted to go into Court to prosecute for libel anyone who had dared to question the causes of the accident? He knew it would not have been permitted to do so, and public indignation would have insisted upon an inquiry. It seemed to him that the proprietors ought to have courted inquiry rather than to threaten with actions for damages anyone who spoke freely on the subject. Every case in which human life was sacrificed to a great extent ought to be made the subject of inquiry; and those who went to sea should have the satisfaction of knowing that, if life was lost, there would be inquiry on the part of the Government. If a captain refused to go to sea because a ship was overladen or not seaworthy, another would be found who would go; if a sailor refused, he would be charged with desertion and sent to prison, or called a coward. Our law used to require that no ship should go to sea without water-tight bulkheads, but the regulation was abrogated in 1862. [Mr. SHAWLEFEVRE: It was repealed by Act.] That was a melancholy fact. He could not imagine under what infatuation the provision was repealed; and to show how useful the provision was he referred to the case of the Damascus, one of the Canadian mail steamers, which came into Liverpool with one of her compartments full of water. Her bulkheads were watertight, or she would have sunk. Another case was that of the North American, another ship of the same line. She fell in with ice off the coast of Newfoundland. She stove in her bows, her fore parts were entirely filled with water, and if it had not been for her bulkheads that ship would have foundered at sea. Was not this, then, another question for the most grave and searching inquiry? Another point of importance was the stowage of the cargo. One of several causes which led to the melancholy loss of the London was the fact not only that the vessel was overloaded, but that the cargo was injudiciously stowed; and it deserved consideration whether there should not be some regulation respecting the mode of stowage in merchant vessels. He need not dwell upon the necessity of a change which should tend to diminish the danger and the frightful loss of life which arose from collisions at sea. Some most painful cases of this kind had occurred lately—such as those of the Oneida and Bombay, of which everyone knew the history, in the Eastern Seas. Then there were the melancholy cases off the Isle of Wight the Normandy and the Mary. There was another case a few days ago, off the Coast of Essex—he forgot the name of the vessels. In crowded waters, like those which surrounded these islands, there must be constant danger, and everthing which human skill and prudence could do should be done to diminish the inevitable and increasing dangers arising from this source. Perhaps no one understood this subject better than his hon. and gallant Friend near him (Sir John Hay), who, much to his honour, had often stated the views he entertained respecting it, and who concurred with him now in thinking that further inquiry was necessary. From various quarters he had been informed that persons of experience were prepared with suggestions. What was wanted was some competent authority to consider the subject, and if the Government assented to the appointment of a Royal Commission there was no subject into which they might more usefully inquire than, the possibility of framing some rule which would have the effect of diminishing the great danger and frequency of these collisions. These were the four subjects which he desired to refer to a Royal Commission. He feared he should be met with two answers—the first being the great difficulty of the subject; but he could not accept that as an argument. He had shown a great existing evil, which had excited the attention of the public from one end of the country to the other; and he appealed to the House whether the difficulty of the subject was not one reason the more for a careful and a searching inquiry. Then he might be told that he might have a Committee. To that he said—No; for he would be limited to the materials which he found within the walls of that House. It was now the latter end of May, and the inquiries of a Committee would terminate with the Session. A long interval would then elapse, and either the inquiry would abandoned, or the whole ground must be be gone over again next year. Now, the end of the Session did not stop inquiry by a Royal Commission; and, above all, the Government would appoint that Commission on their own responsibility, and would be able to choose the fittest men in the whole kingdom to serve upon it. Another answer—and he could guess the author of it—would probably be—"You have got a Bill on the Table." But that was one of the main reasons why there should be dispassionate consideration of this subject. Inquiry first and legislation afterwards. Surely that was the commonsense view of the matter. Parliament was in no condition to legislate, until after a careful inquiry by competent men whether there were not practical and legitimate means by which these dangers might be greatly diminished. In conclusion, he thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him. He entreated the shipowners not to be led away by any esprit de corps, but to act on this question in a manner worthy of the high character borne by the mercantile classes of the country. He hoped also that the Government would meet the Motion in the spirit in which it had been made, not listening to interested parties, or those who represented such parties, nor attempting to contradict the magnitude of the evil, as to which he challenged contradiction, but determining to institute a fair and impartial inquiry with a view to rectify the evil.

said, he thought it was impossible that anyone could have listened otherwise than with the deepest sympathy to the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington). Our merchant marine was of such vast dimensions, it was so intimately connected with the national greatness, that its well-being must excite the deepest interest, and it was natural to ask whether by legislation some of the evils which all must deplore could not be prevented. At the same time, before adopting the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet, it would probably be necessary to take a somewhat wider view of the subject than he had taken, not limiting our view to these evils alone, deplorable as they might be, but regarding the interest of our merchant shipping as a whole, in all its varied relations. The right hon. Baronet had quoted statistics of 1858 and 1868 to show that there was a great and growing loss of life from shipwreck; but the Board of Trade had of late given great attention to this subject, and he differed from the conclusion of the right hon. Baronet. No doubt the last 12 months had been singularly prolific in great disasters. There was the Carnatic, which ran on a rock in the Bed Sea; the Spindrift, with a cargo worth £200,000, ran aground at Dungeness, within a few yards of the finest light on the South Coast of England; and the City of Boston, of which, he feared, nothing more would be heard, though the President of the Board of Trade had not the slightest reason to suppose that it was sent to sea from Halifax in otherwise than good condition. No less than six of the finest China clippers had been lost during the last year, and numerous steamers had been lost on the East Coast of England. At the same time, these losses formed only a small proportion of the aggregate losses every year at sea. At the beginning of the Session, when he introduced the Merchant Shipping Bill, he pointed out how great the increase of our shipping had been of late years, during the last 14 years. That increase was principally amongst our steamers. The increase in our sailing vessels amounted to about 40 per cent, and in our steamers to about 100 per cent, and the increase amongst our seamen was between 2,000 and 3,000. He had then pointed out that an economy had been effected in the number of seamen required to the extent of nearly 50,000 men. One great cause of the loss of vessels was the undermanning of them, and it became very important to enquire whether losses have increased or no. He had pursued several methods of inquiry as to the losses of vessels and of life. He had consulted the Wreck Register of the Board of Trade, which had been, until recent years, very imperfectly kept. In former years, too, the record did not include fishing or pleasure boats; whereas now it included vessels of all kinds. In 1861 the number of vessels lost on the coast of this country, and the seas around it, was 200, attended with the loss of 883 lives. In 1868 196 vessels were lost with 825 lives, and in 1869, 209 vessels with 876 lives. Those figures showed a decrease in the loss of life, whilst our shipping had been increasing considerably. Another Return was taken from the casualties posted at Lloyd's during the last 10 years, in all of which British underwriters were interested, and which embraced the seas of the whole world, comprising, to a great extent, British vessels. The average of those casualties was 3,420 per annum. During the last three years—namely, 1866, 1867, and 1868—the numbers were 3,370, 3,363, and 2,721. He had also inquired as to the premiums on insurance, and he was assured by the Secretary at Lloyd's that in those 10 years there had been in almost all cases a reduction in the premiums on British vessels. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He believed that only in one or two cases the premium had remained the same. He had also made inquiries of our Consuls at the different ports throughout the world, whether any preference had been given to British vessels;' and he was told generally that British vessels were preferred. From all the facts which had reached the Board of Trade he had reason to believe that the losses of vessels and of lives at sea had not increased. Of late years the Board had held inquiries into all the most important casualties. During the last year the inquiries had been 37 in number, and it would be seen from a resumé of those inquiries for the last four or five years, which he proposed to lay before the House, that the losses were not due so much to overloading as to the negligence of the officers in command. A great number of officers approached the land without due and sufficient care. During the last 12 months only two inquiries held by the Board of Trade had resulted in showing that the vessels had been overladen. At the same time there were losses which did not come before the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman had quoted the case of the Sea Queen. Now, the Board of Trade was perfectly ready to institute an inquiry in every case in which it received information to the effect that the loss of a vessel was due to the misconduct of her officers, to the fact that she was overladen, or to her unseaworthiness. In the case of the Sea Queen, however, no information reached the Board of Trade until his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had put a Question to him on the subject in that House. He wished that his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) had furnished to the Board of Trade the particulars as to the cases to which he had referred, for, as matters stood, he was unable to say whether inquiry had or had not been instituted into those cases. He did not even know the names of the cases; but if the facts were laid before the Board of Trade, and if they had occurred within a reasonable time, inquiry into them would be made. He should, in the next place, say a word or two in reference to the City of Boston. The right hon. Baronet asked why an inquiry was not held in that case. It was because no facts had as yet been laid before the Board of Trade to show that that vessel had left Halifax in an unseaworthy condition. The moment such facts were produced an inquiry would be held. A gentleman had written some time ago to the Board of Trade, and had enclosed an anonymous statement of some gentleman in Halifax, in which a great many facts were set forth. A letter was written in reply requesting that he would furnish the names of his anonymous correspondents; but that had not been done, and the Board of Trade at the present moment possessed no information which would justify them in holding an inquiry. He presumed the action for libel would go on, in which event evidence might be adduced. He had communicated with the Canadian Government on the subject, and if they were in possession of any information which would justify an inquiry, an inquiry would be held. In the meantime, he thought it was only just to the owners to say that all the information which had been received tended to show that the vessel left Halifax in her usual state. It appeared to him that the inquiries held by the Board of Trade had, in fact, already brought out all the facts which could be elicited by a Royal Commission. The only question, therefore, was as to the direction we ought to proceed in, assuming that legislation was necessary. The Merchant Shipping Bill, which he introduced this Session, was, in the main, a Consolidation Bill; but it would also contain many important amendments of the existing law. In bringing forward that measure he took occasion to state that the Government were not in favour of a system of minute regulation or inspection; but that, on the contrary, they deemed it advisable to increase, and not to diminish, the responsibility of the owners of vessels. The amendments in the Bill would, he believed, meet, to a very great extent, the circumstances of the case which had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet. In the first place, it was proposed to constitute the sending of a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state a misdemeanour. Secondly, greater securities would be given to prevent sailors being sent to sea against their will in unseaworthy vessels. At present, a seaman refusing to sail for I that reason was liable to be taken up as a deserter; and he was very frequently unable to adduce evidence respecting the state of the vessel; but under the proposed law any seaman would be entitled to leave a vessel if she were unseaworthy, and, moreover, he would be accepted as a witness, and might call in the assistance of the Board of Trade surveyor, in order to make out his case. He admitted that the working of the present Courts of Inquiry were not altogether satisfactory, chiefly because it had been the practice to mix up the inquiry into the loss of the ship with the inquiry into the conduct of the officer in command. The consequence was, that the investigation partook too much of the character of a criminal proceeding against the captain. The Government proposed, however, that in future these two inquiries should be made separately. It was likewise intended to take away from the Board of Trade the power of nominating the assessors of these Courts, and to vest the appointment in the Board of Admiralty. Another proposed change was, that the Customs should be authorized to note the draught of water of every vessel leaving our ports. If that had been done in the case of the Sea Queen it would have shown at once whether she was overladen or not, and as overlading would constitute unseaworthiness, the seamen would be entitled to leave the ship on that account without being amenable to the charge of desertion. It was true that the Merchant Shipping Bill was not referred to a Royal Commission; but in preparing it the Board of Trade took the advice of all those responsible persons whose opinions they valued, and he ventured to submit that it was a measure which deserved the careful attention of the House. When it was being discussed in Committee it would be open to further improvements, which he would gladly accept from any hon. Gentleman who felt competent to make suggestions. The recommendations of the right hon. Baronet all went in the direction of further inspection; but considering that there were no less than 28,000 vessels belonging to this country, and 58,000 clearances every year from the port of London, and probably 143,000 altogether, taking all the ports of the kingdom, the House would see that it would require an army of inspectors to inspect all those minute details which went to make up the seaworthiness of a ship. A calculation had been made as to the probable expense of such a system, and in the opinion of the officers of the Board of Trade it would require not less than £500,000 a year. Emigrant vessels, which did not make in all more than 450 voyages in the course of the year, cost £14,000 to inspect. This would show how expensive a general system applying to all vessels must be. An illustration of the difficulties likely to arise was afforded by what occurred last autumn in the North Sea. No less than seven trading smacks were overwhelmed in a storm, and the lives of 50 seamen were lost. Of course, this created a considerable sensation in the port to which the men belonged, and an appeal was made to the Board of Trade to interfere. It was stated that until a few years previously these very boats were the best found in the country, and that nobody had ever heard of a trawling smack being lost. But owing to increased competition, the necessity of going further out, and of coming back quickly to market with the fish, the sailing qualities of the boats had to be improved. The boats themselves were lengthened, they were more heavily ballasted, their sails were enlarged, and in every respect they were made better sailers; but, meanwhile, they became less secure sea boats; in a heavy sea they were overwhelmed; and a dreadful loss of life occurred. The Board of Trade were asked to regulate this class of vessels for the future; but how were they to do so unless they built the vessels themselves? Every portion of the boat had been altered and must be altered back again to restore them to their original condition. Again, he believed it was a fact that the Hull steamers—steamers plying between the East Coast of England and the North of Europe—had not much horse power, were not good sailing vessels, and when overtaken by severe storms were not equal to the trial. Inspection by itself, however, would never cure these evils; it must be left very much, to the experience of the shipowners and of the merchants who consigned the goods to determine the class of vessels best fitted for this traffic. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the rule of the road at sea as one of the subjects to be inquired into. After much careful inquiry that rule, as laid down, had been accepted by every nautical nation in the world; and, with the exception of the right hon. Baronet and of three or four other Gentlemen, everybody in this country believed it to be the proper rule. According to the experience of the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, there was not a single case in which collision could be proved to have occurred through the failure of this rule; and where collisions had occurred it was through the neglect of this rule. He (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) was strongly of opinion that a Royal Commission would not bring out any further facts than had already been elicited by the inquiries of the Board of Trade. The true course for the House was to read the Bill a second time, and then, if possible, to amend it in Committee, rather than to hang up the matter for a year or two, as would be done by the appointment of a Royal Commission. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would adopt that course. As far as in his power lay, it would give him the greatest possible pleasure to co-operate with the right hon. Baronet in striving to improve the details of the Bill; and, under these cirumstances, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not persist in his Motion.

said, that the figures produced by the Board of Trade with regard to the loss of life at sea comprised those which his right hon. Friend had laid before the House; it appeared, moreover, that loss of life had been gradually increasing. The hon. Gentleman opposite had argued that inquiry was unnecessary, conceiving that public opinion would be satisfied with the Bill on the Table of the House. The Associated Chambers of Commerce—Bristol, Cardiff, Dundee, Exeter, Falmouth, Gloucester, Poole, Hull, Middlesborough, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Plymouth, Stockton, Sunderland, and West Hartlepool—however, were not of that opinion, for they declared that the proposed inspection of steamers ought to be compulsory; and they went on to make various other suggestions which were not included in the Bill. The Chamber of Commerce of New- castle objected to Clause 644, which, made sending a ship to sea when unseaworthy a misdemeanour, on the ground that the clause would be practically inoperative. And although all agreed that some Bill was necessary, and likewise that there ought to be consolidation, they were plainly in favour of further inquiry before the Bill was passed into law. The Secretary to the Board of Trade, when making the statement which he had just done as to inquiries undertaken by that Board, into the circumstances connected with the loss of shipping, must have forgotten the answer which he gave on the 15th of June last, in relation to the loss of the Marquess of Abercorn, a steamer proceeding from the Clyde to a port in Ireland. In reply, the hon. Gentleman said that the Board of Trade had come to the conclusion that it was not necessary to institute inquiry in cases where no loss of life had occurred; but that it was usual in such cases to leave the matter to the ordinary investigation which was made in a Court of Law. That was what he regarded as faulty in the administration of justice. In the particular case to which he was alluding, as both ships belonged to the same owner, no investigation was made; and he believed that if this question were submitted to a Royal Commission, some more definite and satisfactory rule would be arrived at. Singularly enough, in Scotland, the power which was in this country not possessed by the Board of Trade was lodged in the Procurator Fiscal, who, as public prosecutor, could, where loss of life had happened, prosecute and bring the persons responsible to justice. In the case of the Orion, when 100 persons lost their lives, the matter was investigated at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal without any intervention on the part of the Board of Trade, and the captain and the mate were sentenced to imprisonment for 18 and 12 months respectively. In this case there was a sharp and sudden judgment; and if some measures were taken for bringing to justice those who were guilty of overloading or carelessly handling their ships, or over-insuring with a view to culpable loss, there would, he believed, be greater safety for the lives and property of those concerned. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Trade appeared to think that the opinion which he advocated with respect to the rule of the road at sea was a wrong one. All he could say was that that opinion was shared by Sir Alexander Milne, the commander of the Fleet in the Mediterranean, and many other good authorities; but, though he had devoted some time and trouble to the subject, he was willing to admit the possibility of his being wrong. He understood, however, that the French Government, as well as United States' officers of distinction, held that the rule to port helm was extremely dangerous, and the records of the Oneida proved that a persistence in this rule—the rule insisted upon by the Board of Trade—led to the collision in which so many lives were lost. Still, he had no desire to urge his opinion upon the House. All he desired was that this and other matters might be inquired into by a Royal Commission, so that greater security to life and property might be attained than that which now existed.

said, he thought that such an important subject ought to be dealt with thoroughly, either by a Committee or by a Royal Commission, though he should hesitate to support the Motion if he thought that by so doing he should in any way assist in diminishing the responsibility of the shipowners. From 1858 to 1868 the increase in the number of ships on the Register had been only 8 per cent; but the increase in the number of casualties had amounted to 50 per cent. Would the House, then, be content to hold its hand, and not try to arrest this growing evil? His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade had quoted from the Board of Trade Returns in order to prove that the figures of the right hon. Baronet were not correct. But the destruction of ships was, unfortunately, increasing from year to year. Taking the four years ending with 1853, the losses averaged 969. In the succeeding five years ending in 1858, they averaged 1,118. In the succeeding five years the average was 1,488; and in the five years ending 1868 it was 1,748. His hon. Friend was under some great mistake when he stated that the wrecks and casualties reported in Lloyd's list during 1868 were so low as 3,000, the real truth being that in 1868 they amounted to 9,500; and in the two preceding years they were 11,000 each year. Again, his hon. Friend had referred to the fact that no fewer than 21 steamers had been lost in the Baltic in the present year, and 18 of the number in the three months of September, October, and November. It appeared that the vessels so lost had performed 2,100 voyages, and as 21 vessels had been lost, the losses, as compared with the voyages, were 1 per cent. As those vessels made two voyages to the Baltic each month, a small calculation would show that the life of a vessel would be of only four years' duration, if they were or could be continuously employed; or if these vessels were employed only two-thirds of the year, the Baltic being closed the remaining third, the lifetime of these vessels showed still not more than six years. If, therefore, vessels were always lost at this destructive rate, we must be prepared to look for the entire renewal of our commercial fleet every six years. His hon. Friend had said that the tendency was to reduce the rate of insurance. To that he ventured to say—"No." As he was anxious that there should be the fullest investigation of this matter, and as he believed the greatest possible good would result from it not by inaugurating restrictive or penal legislation, but by collecting information that might be most profitably used by shipowners and the mercantile public, he gave his cordial support to the Motion.

said, the chart which was every year issued. must have shown to the country that so far from our yearly losses decreasing they were increasing heavily, and he would now state what, in his opinion, as a seaman, was the cause of this loss, and what means should be taken to lessen it. When he went to sea the normal proportions of a ship were as one in breadth to five in length; they were now as one to seven or eight. The conformation of our ships was totally altered. Whereas, in former times, we had handy ships, we had now ships with their ends like wedges, and wall-sided, and when they were loaded they went down straight into the water and lost that buoyancy which would enable them to contend with the sea. He had lately made a voyage to India, and returning in a ship of the modern build, as they had had bad weather and encountered four gales, he observed with some interest the behaviour of the vessel, and it was perfectly different from what he had ever before seen in the course of his professional experience. To their peculiar conformation he attributed the loss of so many of those long ships; and their un-safety was greatly aggravated when they reduced the freeboard of the ship to a degree disproportionate to her buoyancy. Another source of danger was that the crews were composed of the most heterogeneous materials, including every description of foreign rubbish. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, that was the result of his own experience. The question of the relation of freeboard to buoyancy in the construction of a ship ought to be particularly considered. Our ships did not rise to the sea, and in the case of Baltic ships there existed this condition, that a ship loaded in salt water went into a fresh-water sea, and encountered storms in that fresh-water sea. The effect of that was a very considerable decrease in the supporting power of the water, which made a material difference to the draught of the ship. A large proportion of our wrecks was due to the age of the ships. A ship ostensibly seaworthy when she left harbour would show her defects very soon after she got to sea, if she was of great age; but her weak points were not easily found out by the surveyor who went on board before she sailed. The loss of a ship might arise from the default of the ship herself or that of her officers; and every case of wreck, whether attended with loss of life or not, ought to be strictly inquired into. He had no wish to say a word against the owners of the City of Boston, or against the ship herself; but one of Her Majesty's ships—the Orontes—sailed from Halifax on the same day as the City of Boston did, and from the captain of that ship, he thought, if an inquiry were instituted, they might learn some circumstances that would help to account for the loss of the ill-fated vessel. It had been justly stated that captains could not object to go to sea in their ships; and he believed that frequently they would not satisfy their owners unless they made their passages under circumstances in which most men would formerly have deemed it imprudent to do so. With regard to the case of the Oneida and the Bombay, they had not yet before them the information necessary to enable them to judge of the nature and circumstances of that collision, and the House ought, therefore, to suspend their judgment upon it. In conclusion, he sincerely supported the Motion of his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington); and he hoped that a Commission, possessing the best nautical and constructive skill in the country, would be appointed to investigate that subject.

said, he understood that the House was anxious to pass to another subject, and he begged, therefore, to move that the debate be now adjourned.

said, that if the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gourley) were carried, the effect would be to defeat the object he had in view, inasmuch as the Motion before them was that the Speaker leave the Chair.

said, he regarded that discussion as rather premature, as the natural and legitimate occasion for it would be on the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Code brought in by the Government. He shared, to the fullest extent, his right hon. Friend's (Sir John Pakington's) desire to promote the greater security of life and property at sea, although he differed from him as to the mode of effecting that object. It was said that casualties at sea were increasing; but, in testing that assertion, they ought to be guided by their later, rather than by their earlier experience. Taking the Returns, not so far back as 1858, but for the last three years, he found that, in 1866, the number of casualties at sea was 1,438, attended with the loss of 896 lives; that in 1867 the casualties were 1,676, with the loss of 1,333 lives; in 1868 the casualties were 1,368, and lives lost, 834; and he was told that the Return for 1869 showed a loss of about 800 lives. He believed a large proportion of this loss of life took place in small vessels, chiefly coasters, and it was a remarkable fact that, in 1868, only 120 casualties of any kind occurred to vessels of over 600 tons. If anyone considered the vast number of vessels over 600 tons trading from this country, he must be struck with the small number of the casualties to vessels over that tonnage. He had endeavoured to see what the class of vessels was in which these casualties occurred, and he found that out of 49 vessels which had foun- dered in 1868 no fewer than 31 were under 100 tons. He had no hesitation in saying that, in respect of these casualties, there were causes at work over which neither that House nor a Royal Commission would have the slightest control. The winter gales of late years were becoming more cyclonic in their character, and the tendency to build ships of iron, instead of wood, made the risk to life greater, because while a slight sudden blow, such as is received from collision with other vessels, or contact with rocks, to an iron vessel was often attended with fatal results a wooden ship only splintered with the shock, and possessed greater safety under such circumstances, though iron offered much greater protection than wood when stranded on sandbanks. The increased length of vessels, the small auxiliary power in proportion to tonnage of many of the coasting colliers unfitted them for contending with heavy gales under steam, and they were equally powerless as sailing vessels. The deterioration of seamen also tended to increase the loss of life, and in certain trades he dare say overloading did its share of the mischief. He wished to know into what inquiries they were to be launched if the proposition now before the House was adopted. Was the length, or material, or construction of the vessels to be subjects of the inquiry? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) suggested that there should be a Commission to give a safety certificate to every vessel before she left a port; but that showed that the right hon. Baronet was not conversant with the way in which commercial affairs were carried on, for such a machinery and such an examination was simply impossible, looking at the magnitude of our commerce, the amounts conducted under foreign flags, and the expedition with which vessels were now received and despatched. Then look at the classification of vessels, and which was relied on as a security for safety. Eleven steamers had been lost this year, seven of which were classed at Lloyd's; it was, therefore, futile to say that classification was a protection and preservative against loss of life. The Board of Trade would do well not to wait so much for evidence, in order to take the initiative in ordering inquiries into accidents at sea; but wherever there was a casualty at sea whereby a single life was lost, it ought to be their duty to have an investigation, and to do that required no Royal Commission. He feared that these casualties were somewhat due to the action of the House, in taking upon itself such minute legislation which had only the effect of relieving the responsibility of owners. His idea was, that the House would be legislating in a safer direction if it placed greater responsibility on the shipowners and made them subject to fewer restrictions. The new Merchant Shipping Code proposed that it should be a misdemeanour if a ship went to sea in an unseaworthy condition, and that was the best of all restrictions. He was not opposed to inquiry; but he thought the inquiry ought to be one by that House, and not by a roving Commission, which, having heard a number of conflicting crotchets aired, would be sure to make a Report most puzzling to the House. If the Government, in dealing with the Merchant Shipping Bill, thought they had not sufficient material to legislate upon, he should then go heartily with them for a Committee of Inquiry. Some reference had been made to the City of Boston; but he thought it due to the owners of that vessel that he should state that there was no truth in the allegation that she was overladen. She was a vessel of 2,200 tons register, and had on board a weight of machinery, coals, water, stores, and cargo not equal to her registered tonnage. When she left New York she drew 21 feet 7½ inches. Her consumption of coals was 70 tons a day, and she had been lightened by two days' consumption of coal when she reached Halifax. Her displacement was 20 tons to the inch. She drew 21 feet 1½ inch when at Halifax. She then took in 57 tons of cargo, which would amount to 20 tons register, so that her draught was 21 feet 3½ inch when she left that place. Now, when she left Liverpool on the outward voyage, she was passed by the emigration surveyors with a draught of 21 feet 3½ inches; and as everyone who knew anything about shipping matters was aware of the strictness with which those surveyors discharged their duty, he thought he had satisfactorily proved that she was not overladen on the return voyage. She was built with seven bulkheads, and she had crossed the Atlantic 90 times, while her captain had crossed it 200 times, and her owners had carried 500,000 passengers during the last 15 years without the loss of a single life.

said, he thought the proposed inquiry was entirely unnecessary. A great deal had been said as to the number of ships lost in a particular year; but it should be remembered that the matter had always been treated on the theory of averages. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had pointed out that the ships had recently been lost at the rate of 1½ per week, or 72 a year; but, at the same time, he had spoken with great approbation of the system of the Peninsular and Oriental service, and yet only half the proportion of vessels were lost in 1868 that were lost by the Peninsular and Oriental Company. That showed that the rate of loss in that year—2½—per cent—was not excessive. They were told that a great saving of life would be effected if Government would interfere to prevent the overloading of ships. That, however, he held would be impossible. An army of inspectors would be required to carry out the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. The expense would be too great; and the only result would be to give a fallacious guarantee of safety to the public. The issue of a Royal Commission just now would stop all legislation until it had completed its labours. He held that if restrictions were put upon British ships foreign vessels would drive them out of the field. He trusted, under all the circumstances, that the Government would not accede to the Motion.

said, he hoped the House would permit him to make a few observations, as he differed reluctantly from the ground taken up by his right hon. Friend who had introduced the question (Sir John Pakington), and from others for whose opinion he had great respect, and with whom he generally had the pleasure to act, and in whose object he now entirely sympathized. He quite admitted that losses at sea had attained very formidable proportions, and that every possible means ought to be employed to diminish those losses; but he did not believe that the appointment of a Royal Commission would have that effect, and for that reason he should vote against the Motion. The causes of these disasters were well known, and the only question which had to be determined was what remedies should be applied, and that would be a matter for discussion when the Merchant Shipping Bill came to be considered. Unnecessary inquiry would only impede legislation. Many causes, including defective shipbuilding, the form of modern iron steamers, over-insurance, overloading, the employment of foreigners, the want of subordination, and the degeneracy of our seamen had been advanced to account for losses at sea, and attempts had been made to provide a remedy; but it had too often happened that the placing of restrictions upon shipowners had done more harm than good. Regulations for the building of ships, for instance, like the Building Acts in reference to houses, must have the effect of checking improvement. The lowest standard was, undoubtedly, raised by that means, but the standard of the whole was lowered. This had, he believed, been the case with the Anchors and Chain Cables Act, which he had himself assisted in passing, but which he now began to suspect was a mistake. Questions of this sort should be left to shipowners, shipbuilders, and underwriters. The present Merchant Shipping Bill contained one provision, which he had proposed himself when in Office—namely, greater facility to seamen to leave unseaworthy ships. It also made it a misdemeanour wilfully to send a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition. He was strongly in favour of owners being punished for sending vessels to sea that were unseaworthy; which, in too many cases, amounted practically to murder. Among the many remedies brought under his notice, while in Office, there were two, not contained in the present Bill, which seemed to him well worthy of consideration. The first was the application of Lord Campbell's Act, with reference to passengers, to common sailors. The second was the prohibition of shipowners from insuring for more than a certain proportion of the value of a ship and cargo. This was the law in some of the Northern countries, and, if it could be enforced, would prevent the sending ships to sea for the purpose of being lost. He would further suggest that, as the Merchant Shipping Bill related to many different subjects, it might be broken up into several Bills, and passed in detail. It was scarcely possible to pass so large a measure, of more than 800 clauses, this Session; but each portion contained a distinct subject of great importance. Might not that portion which dealt with casualties and loss of life at sea, be referred, as a separate Bill, to a Select Committee, just as the Pilotage Bill, which last year formed part of the general Bill, had been? He thought that, in this way, time would be saved and legislation advanced. He also thought a Committee of that House would command greater confidence than a Commission, which was often supposed to consist of people of preconceived opinions. It was a mistake to imagine, as had been insinuated, that shipowners were opposed to stringent legislation. A deputation of shipowners from his own constituency, whom he had the honour of introducing to the Board of Trade, had asked for stricter legislation in regard to collisions. With regard to the rule of the road at sea, he did not like to express an opinion after the statement made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), who was so high an authority in such matters. He was aware that there existed considerable difference of opinion on this point, and he thought that perhaps this was a subject which might reasonably be inquired into by a Royal Commission.

said, the Government rested their case upon the statement made by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and were entirely of opinion that this was a matter not for inquiry, but for legislation. As the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had said, it was notorious that scandalous cases of loss had occurred. As there was now on the Table of the House a Bill which had been carefully considered during the Recess, he hoped that another winter would not pass before some step was taken to prevent the recurrence of the evils which all must deplore.

said, lie was unable to support the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. He doubted whether the legislation, or, rather, tinkering which had taken place upon this subject, had not contributed to the loss of ships, rather than to their safety. By these proceedings they encouraged people to rush into the trade who knew nothing about it—they got an Act of Parliament, ship, captain, and crew, and the consequence was that they went to "Davy Jones."

said, after the opinions which had been expressed in the course of the debate, he thought the best course he could pursue would be to withdraw his Motion.