asked the honourable Member for Glamorganshire, What is the reason of the delay of the Royal Commission on Coal Supply, appointed nearly five years ago, in reporting on the subjects referred to it?

said, in reply, that the delay had arisen from the great magnitude of the subject, for an investigation into the quantity of coal contained in the available coal fields of England, Scotland, and Ireland, was no slight task. Some delay occurred at the commencement of the labours of the Commission, and other causes of delay had subsequently intervened. One important Member of the Commission had died; three other important Members, to whom laborious duties were entrusted, had been seriously ill, and the noble Chairman had been elevated to a high office, which considerably interfered with his labours as a Commissioner. The subject with which the Commission had to deal had been divided into various heads, and so parcelled out among the different Commissioners. On the first head, which dealt with the probable depth at which coal could be worked, the inquiry had been exhausted, and the Report prepared; and the same result had attended the inquiry into the second head, which related to combustion. Another head, which dealt with the probability of coal being found under more recent strata, had been referred to Sir Roderick Murchison and Professor Ramsay, who thought they would be able to report in about six weeks. Another portion of the inquiry related to the statistics of the consumption of coal, which was rendered necessary by the theories started as to the progressive rate of the consumption of coal. On that subject 120 pages of printed matter had been prepared, about the same quantity was in the printer's hands, and enough work still remained to occupy Mr. Hunt for about a month. The task of computing the quantity of coal contained in the various coal fields had been completed except in two cases; and on those two, the complete Report would be in the hands of the Commission in a week or ten days. Practically speaking the bulk of the labours of the Commission were at an end, and their Report might be expected in about three months from the present time, as it, in fact, only awaited the completion of Reports of the geological and statistical sections.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any objection to allow the Volunteers to drill in the northern division of Hyde Park when the same is not required for official parades or inspections?

, in reply, said, there was every desire on the part of the authorities to afford facilities to the Volunteers to drill themselves in Hyde Park; but that it had been considered quite inconsistent with the enjoyment of the Park by the public that in the afternoon, when they chiefly resorted to it, it should be given up for the purposes of drill. To meet the convenience of the Volunteers, the space railed in in front of Knightsbridge Barracks had been permitted to be used to a very considerable extent, and it was found quite sufficient for the purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the committal to prison for three months by the magistrates of South Shields, on Wednesday last, of ten seamen for refusing to proceed to Genoa in the "Epaminondas," alleged by them to be unseaworthy, and admitted by the second mate to be making two and a-half inches of water per hour; whether it is true, as alleged, that the "Epaminondas" had grounded twice before sailing, after being loaded, requiring on the first occasion the assistance of three steam tugs to get her off; whether it is true, as alleged, that the magistrates refused the application made on behalf of the men that the hearing should be postponed a day to enable them to obtain legal assistance; and, whether, if the facts are as stated in the Shields Paper, it is his intention to direct a re-hearing of the case?

said, in reply, that the ship, which was one of 1,072 tons, and carried 22 hands, left South Shields on the 28th February. She encountered rough winds and heavy seas and reached Yarmouth Roads on the 6th March, when nine of the men told the master they would not go on any further unless he landed at the nearest port, and had the ship overhauled. The master refused to do that, as the pumping had been light, and the ship perfectly seaworthy; but, eventually, he had to return to South Shields, where the ship was examined by a master surveyor and another person, who reported it seaworthy. The men were summoned, and applied for a postponement of the case for two days, in order to secure the services of an attorney named Monckton for their defence; but as the master was anxious to go to sea by the next tide, the magistrates would only consent to postpone the case for three or four hours, as there was an attorney in Court who would undertake the defence of the men. Mr. Monckton's clerk, however, declined to accept the arrangement, and the case went on. The evidence of the master and mate showed that the ship was seaworthy, and that she had not made an undue amount of water, and the pilot gave similar testimony. The surveyor, who had examined the vessel after her return to South Shields, also stated that she was seaworthy, and that a nicer, more wholesome, and more seaworthy vessel he had never seen anywhere. It was also shown that the ship had just been repaired at an expense of £500, and one of the witnesses called for the defence—the ship's carpenter—swore that the vessel was quite seaworthy, and that the defendants had no reasonable excuse for their conduct in refusing to proceed in her. As to the ship striking the bar on her way out, the circumstance was not called to the attention of the magistrates, and the men had not insisted on it as having any important bearing on the case. He (Mr. Bruce) had no power to direct the re-hearing of a case which had been decided; all he could do was, where the facts did not warrant the punishment inflicted, to reduce the amount of the punishment; but that was very rarely done, and only then in the clearest cases, and usually with the consent of the magistrates who adjudicated. In this case, the magistrates considered the punishment was required by the frequency of the offence, and, under the circumstances, he did not feel justified in overruling their decision.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether General Claremont has within the last few days resigned his appointment as Military Attaché to the British Embassy in Paris; and under what circumstances at such a time his resignation has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government?

A despatch under date the 16th instant was received at the Foreign Office from Lord Lyons, in which General Claremont tendered the resignation of his appointment as military attaché at Paris. That resignation has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and Lord Lyons has been instructed to inform that officer that his services during the many years he has held his appointment have been, fully recognized and appreciated by successive Secretaries of State. General Claremont was at the same time informed that he will be free to leave Paris as soon as his successor shall have arrived to relieve him from his duties.

asked under what circumstances the resignation was made?

I am afraid that I am unable to communicate the circumstances. The resignation was communicated through the official channel—Lord Lyons—and the Government accepted it.

said, it was quite impossible for him to give the hon. Gentleman the Returns for which he asked, because it was obvious that he could not say what it might be the wish of the Crown to ask, or the pleasure of Parliament to vote in the way of a military establishment 12 years hence. He should, however, be willing to give the hon. Member all the information he possessed with regard to the creation of Reserves.

rose to draw the attention of the House to matters connected with the armament of Gibraltar; and to move an Address for a Return. He did not mean to enter upon the question how Gibraltar should be armed, or the nature of the batteries to be employed. His object was to draw attention to the wasteful manner in which the public money had been expended in constructing the batteries and the delay in the works, and to show that a bad policy had been pursued in mounting the heavy guns, of which there were but few at present in position in a temporary instead of a permanent method. He believed the matters of which he complained resulted from the system of centralization adopted at the War Office. Whilst on this subject, he would ask why all matters in connection with the works at Gibraltar were conducted by the Defence Committee, who could not be acquainted with the local requirements, and not by the Governor and the Officers Commanding Royal Artillery and Engineers who would, of course, be responsible to the War Office for their operations? It was generally admitted that Gibraltar was in a thorough state of defence so far as a land attack was concerned. There were about 600 of the old smoothbore guns, and 50 of the 7-inch breech-loading Armstrongs in position, and these would be sufficient in the event of an attack by land. But it was impossible to argue that Gibraltar could repel an attack from the sea. The rapid improvement of artillery rendered it necessary that they should consider the subject of re-arming that fortress. We might congratulate ourselves in possessing in the 12-ton Woolwich gun an arm second to none, if not superior to any; and it was evident from the Estimates of 1868–9, that the Secretary of State for War intended at the time to use guns of that class in fortifying Gibraltar. About £15,000 was voted that year for the purpose of making the necessary alterations in the works to provide for them; and it was also decided that 16 of those guns should be sent to Gibraltar, and they were sent out that year. In the Estimates for 1869–70 a sum of £15,000 was included as the probable cost of revising our magazines at Gibraltar. Nearly £30,000 had been spent upon the works, and £3,000 upon the magazines; and he believed an additional Vote of £15,000 for the purpose would shortly be asked for by the Secretary of State. He would explain to the House the results of this large expenditure. Of the 16 12-ton Woolwich guns he had mentioned, only three had been put in position, and of that number two had, in November last, been placed behind shields which the Committee of 1868 had condemned as utterly incapable of withstanding the continuous fire of heavy modern guns—a fact which was well known when the shields were erected. But, although these two guns were in position, the magazines for them were not completed; and he trusted the Secretary of State would be able to explain why the course he had described had been pursued. The third gun, instead of being mounted on permanent works, had from some inexplicable reason, been placed upon a temporary platform, composed of wooden balks to carry the racers, the whole set in a bed of ordinary concrete. This had not been done as an experiment, for he was informed that eight other guns were to be mounted in the same way. It was evident that the guns could not remain long in that condition, and therefore the money expended on the process had been entirely thrown away. One of these guns had been tried, and after firing 10 rounds it was found impossible to traverse it, as the truck was broken and one of the racers had been forced out of its position. This might be all very well in the time of peace, but if such an accident occurred during an engagement with iron-clads, every habitation in the place might be destroyed, even if the fortress remained untaken. In turning to the subject of the works, he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that he brought this matter forward in no hostile spirit towards the Government. The new Mole batteries were allowed to be of the first importance and of the best construction. It was true that the battery, originally constructed for these guns, had not yet received its armament, and while the question of iron shields was still unsettled, it was undesirable that the Government should come to any hasty decision; but he should be glad to hear from the Secretary of State what kind of shield would probably be adopted, and when they would be sent out to Gibraltar. His complaint with regard to the manner in which the public money had been wasted in the construction of the works arose from the fact that the majority of the new batteries at Gibraltar had been suddenly abandoned, either because of the unsuitability of the positions selected for them, or because of the unsuitability of the carriages sent out. The works had been constructed for one class of carriage, and another of quite a different description had arrived with the guns. He thought this was evidence of gross negligence. And it must be remembered that when works were abandoned in an incomplete state, they were much damaged by the weather. He had himself seen several batteries in the condition he had described. He had reason to believe that the magazine accommodation at Gibraltar was not only the laughing-stock of military men, but also of civilians. There was hardly a single magazine which could not be knocked to pieces during the first hours of a bombardment, and, to make the matter worse, in some instances batteries had been built so close to magazines that the fire of an enemy must fall upon them. He knew that many officers thought that it would be advisable to have 35-ton guns in revolving towers, and also that there should be rams kept there; but these were matters into which he would not enter. It might be said that Gibraltar was not now so important a place as it formerly was; but at all events it could very easily be made most important; and he might mention that no less a sum than £10,000 was annually received from ships entering the harbour. He hoped that the Secretary for War would assure them that the question should have his serious attention. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of Guns mounted on the Fortress of Gibraltar."

seconded the Motion.

said: Before I propose the Question, I wish to notice a practice which has lately prevailed of merely putting on the Paper a Notice to the effect that an hon. Member will draw the attention of the House to a certain subject and move a Resolution. On today's Paper, for example, there are two Notices in this form. Now, this is not enough to fulfil the obligations of Notice. The object of Notice is that Members should know beforehand what is to be the subject of consideration on a particular day, and, in order to fulfil the Rules of the House, it is necessary that the terms of a Resolution should be placed on the Paper at least a day before it is intended to be submitted to the House.

said, that he should be happy to give the Return moved for; and he quite agreed that the works that the hon. Member had visited during the Recess—and he hoped he had spent an agreeable holiday—deserved the fullest attention on the part of the Government. He was glad to find that the land defences were all that the hon. Member could desire; and that all the fault which he had to find was as to putting the heavy guns in the sea defences. He inferred from his remarks that he had been shown over the works by some gentlemen who thought they could have done the work better than it had been done; but he must dissent from him as to the way in which the public money should have been spent. He contended that when public money had to be spent they should put the matter into the hands of responsible persons at home rather than trust it to officers abroad, over whom they could not have such an immediate control. What had happened was this. In 1866, when the German War attracted attention to these works, the Secretary of the Defence Committee, Colonel Jervois, whose great ability in connection with works of defence had been recognized by some of the very first authorities in Europe, was sent to Gibraltar. He spent some days there in December, 1866. On his return his Report was considered by the Defence Committee; and they held a special meeting at Woolwich, where there was one of the most perfect models of Gibraltar that existed of any fort in the world. That meeting was attended by General Lefroy, who had professionally visited Gibraltar a short time before, and General Frome, who had commanded the Royal Engineers there. The works were devised by the Defence Committee upon the Report which had been so made to them, assisted by the counsel of those two very distinguished officers, with a most excellent model of Gibraltar before them. Now it appeared to him, with great deference to the hon. Gentleman, that that was a far wiser mode of proceeding than to trust entirely to the Reports even of the most competent commanding officers on the spot. It was determined, on the recommendation of the Defence Committee, that 12-ton 9-inch guns should be used in certain positions at Gibraltar. Shortly after that time, however, thicker plating was used for ships, and it became important to have still stronger guns. Consequently, 10-inch guns were substituted by the Government for the 9-inch or 12-ton guns. About the same time, also, it happened that the interesting discovery of the Moncrieff gun-carriage was made, and it was not certain how far that system could be applied to Gibraltar, nor how far the system of shields could be applied. Now, it would have been most unreasonable, in their opinion, to hurry on without availing themselves of such inventions as these; and the consequence was, that when these 12-ton guns came to be utilized it was determined to place them in a different position from that for which they had been originally intended. He would not attempt to enter scientifically into the matter; but he understood that in the former position they would have been used upon an "A" platform, but on being put in the new position they had a "C" platform. These platforms were about to be sent out, and the only reason why they had not gone before was that the traversing gear was not yet ready. The hon. Gentleman had been informed by somebody that the Government had finished the works to the extent of two-thirds of the whole work, and had then abandoned them; but he (Mr. Cardwell) had very different information. The hon. Gentleman also said that the casemates had been cut out of the rock where it had not originally been intended to have casemates.

What I said was, that in certain places batteries had been abandoned, because it was intended by the Government to place the guns in rock casemates.

An experiment having been tried by firing from a Queen's ship on to the rock, it was found that the splintering from the rock just above the guns would be dangerous to the gunners, and therefore it was determined to make casemates. With regard to the shields, they were about being put up. Means had been taken to strengthen them, and this accounted for the delay. As to the magazines, it was quite true that it came to his knowledge in preparing the Estimates last year what the state of the case was. Provision was made in those Estimates to remedy the mischief, and still further provision, with the same object, was made in the Estimates of the present year.

said, he was sorry that he could not regard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as quite satisfactory. If he understood the hon. Member correctly, he complained that the Government during the time that it had been in office had done nothing; and it seemed to him that the answer amounted to a plea of guilty. They were much indebted to the hon. Member for Poole for having devoted his attention during his accidental residence at Gibraltar to investigating the state of our defences in that most important fortress. No one could deny that it would be the duty of any Government to take care that all the modern appliances of war and of science should be applied to the proper defence of so important a fortress. The first complaint made was that the guns had been sent out, but had not been mounted. The late Government, if he remembered right, sent out 16 heavy guns to Gibraltar, and it remained for the present Government to send out the proper carriages, but, as he understood, they had done no such thing, and they were as much without carriages as when the late Government left office. Out of the 16 guns he understood that they had mounted three only, and one of these was so mounted that if anybody ventured to fire it it would tumble over upon the rash man who made the experiment.

said, he was informed that the late Government sent out the guns and the carriages both; and they would not send the guns without carriages.

said, he was informed that it was not so; and, besides, he could not reconcile what was now said with what had been said as to the Moncrieff gun-carriages.

said, what he had said was this: that having gun carriages suitable for the position where it had been intended to place the guns, it had been determined to place in that position larger guns, and the old guns had to be mounted in a different position upon a different kind of carriage; that this carriage was nearly ready, but the traversing gear not having been finally decided on they had not yet been sent.

That amounted very nearly to what he had said. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was hesitating between the ordinary carriage and the Moncrieff carriage, and that that was the cause of the delay. He understood that the shields remained very much what they were. The shields that were sent out were condemned, and the decision arrived at was that they should send out sounder and better shields. But that decision was departed from, and the condemned shields had, by some contrivance, been fitted up so that, though considered too weak, they might be made to answer the purpose. It was much to be regretted that the place of those shields was not supplied by stronger and better ones. The real question was whether it was the duty of the Government to look to the fortifications of Gibraltar without loss of time, and he should have been glad of a distinct assurance that the fortifications of so important a fortress would not be neglected, and that every possible means would be taken to send the best guns there.

could assure the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich that the Government were duly impressed with the importance of immediately completing the works and fortifications at Gibraltar. The delay that had taken place had arisen from the fact that iron-plated ships and artillery in their mode of construction did not stand still, and in this way it became a question whether they should not have heavier guns in the fortifications than those which had been originally intended. He would state the case as to the guns that were sent by the late Government. There were 16 9-inch muzzle-loading rifled guns, 13 of which had platforms of the Elswick pattern, and 3 of the service pattern, and these were sent out in 1867–8. None of these guns were mounted for some time after their arrival, because their positions could not be prepared until it had been decided whether the Moncrieff system could not be advantageously used. The second reason was that when the Defence Committee re-considered the defence of Gibraltar they placed 10-inch 18-ton guns where the 9-inch guns where to have been; and the third reason was that different platforms from those originally intended were determined on. The ar- rangements now made were that the 12 9-inch guns upon Elswick platforms should be mounted at once, some temporarily and some permanently, and three of these were actually in position by the 1st of March, 1871; 13 other guns would be permanently mounted during 1871–2. There were four more guns and seven carriages under orders for Gibraltar, which would be sent as soon as the traversing-gear was decided on. Eleven 10-inch 18-ton guns were also under orders, and would be sent when the traversing arrangements were settled. By the end of March, 1872, 11 10-inch 18-ton guns, and 20 9-inch guns, would probably be in position. As regarded the shields, they would be strengthened so as to be capable of resisting the heaviest artillery, and other shields were intended to be ordered. There would also be mantlets for the defence of the men from splinters. With reference to what had been said about the plans and designs, he had to state that they were prepared on the spot by an officer of the Royal Engineers, in consultation with the officers of the Artillery; and when they came home they were sent to the Defence Committee for consideration and report, and finally submitted to the Secretary of State. The Director of Works was most anxious to have the co-operation of officers on the spot where works were to be carried out, and he believed they had been consulted whenever it was necessary to seek their assistance. With regard to the general question, he could only repeat that the Department over which he presided was most anxious about the arming of Gibraltar; and he therefore trusted that the House would rest satisfied that everything would be done to supply the means of defence to so important a place.

wished to say a few words on the Gibraltar and Malta shields. Unless Gibraltar was kept for experimental purposes, he did not see that the purpose for which it had been kept for the last few years could be very satisfactory. It was known that rifled artillery was necessary, and rifled guns were accordingly sent out, for which carriages were adapted. The intention then was that the carriages which were to be sent out were to be adapted for these batteries, and the guns were to be mounted forthwith, and the fortifications were to be put in a satisfactory state. Now, he had the satisfaction of hearing that heavier guns were to be mounted, but he did not understand from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman whether they were made or not. [Sir HENRY STORKS said they were all made, and would be sent out in the course of this year.] He was very glad to hear they were made; but it would take till this time next year before they could be mounted, and till that time Gibraltar would be in an unfortified condition. Gibraltar, Malta, and Bermuda were great fortified stations, on which the supplies of our fleet and the honour of the country depended. It would be remembered that Gibraltar was taken by surprise once before, and it was necessary to take care that it should not be taken by surprise again. At the present moment Gibraltar was not in a defensible condition. With regard to the shields themselves, the question had been asked if the test to which the shields had been put was not too severe? He had been Chairman of the Gibraltar Shield Committee, and the experiments had been decided upon in union with the other gentlemen on the Committee, and it was considered that they were a fair and proper test to which the shields should be put. At this interval of time he could not speak with precision, but if he remembered aright the 9-inch gun shield was entirely penetrated. Therefore he thought the Committee was right in reporting that the shields were not so strong as they should be. He did not think the Report was an unfair one, or that it was drawn with any prejudice to the character of the shields which were submitted to the Committee's notice. He could not think it was a wise arrangement that the guns, even for this year, should be left lying unmounted; and he urged that they should be placed in some position where they could be used for the defence of the fortress. He remembered having had, in former days, some service with a nation which made all its promotions by selection and by competitive examination—he meant the Chinese. He there found that they had platforms which would not carry the proper guns, and he trusted the Government of this country would not follow the same example, otherwise our warlike operations would terminate like that operation of the Chinese.

said, with regard to the battery which had been abandoned, they had been informed that it was abandoned because splinters of the rock would render the position dangerous. But he could only say that that very battery had been commenced in July of last year, and was abandoned in December. It had been begun in a great hurry. Certainly, if the Government had decided to place guns in rock casemates they might have waited a short time before they commenced these works, and thereby have avoided the throwing away of public money. He hoped the House would permit him to withdraw his Motion. He was perfectly satisfied with the short discussion which had taken place on the subject, and he hoped that the effect of it would be to get Gibraltar put in a proper state of defence.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the subject of the salmon fisheries had been a subject of legislation from Magna Charta downwards, and in late years numerous Commissions had been appointed, and many Acts passed, yet the results were still unsatisfactory. In 1860 a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the whole subject of our salmon fisheries, and the recommendations of that Commission formed the subject of legislation in 1861. The Act of that year, while repealing the old laws on the subject, nevertheless did not embody all the recommendations of the Commissioners, and although attended with a success that could hardly have been anticipated, it became speedily apparent that some further legislation was necessary. Accordingly, in 1865, another Salmon Fisheries Bill was introduced. It provided for the appointment of Boards of Conservancy of an improved constitution; for license duties on engines for the capture of salmon; and for the appointment of special Commissioners for English fisheries, with powers to inquire into, and adjudicate upon, fixed engines and other rights connected with the salmon fisheries. Neither did that measure, though it made a considerable step in the right direction, prove fully satisfactory; and in 1869 two new Bills were introduced: one by the Tyne Fishery Board at their own expense, and the other by the Government. The latter contained many useful provisions; but the Fishery Commissioners, having met to consider the subject, adopted a Resolution to the effect that a more comprehensive measure was required; and consequently the Bill was withdrawn, and a Select Committee, of which he (Mr. Dodds) had the honour to be chairman, was appointed to further investigate the subject. The Committee was re-appointed last year, and after collecting a mass of valuable evidence, presented a Report, the recommendations of which were embodied in the present Bill. In consequence of the pressure of other business, the Government had been unable to take up the question themselves; but, having promised their support to any private Member, he (Mr. Dodds) had undertaken to bring this Bill before the House. The provisions of the present Bill were substantially those which had been recommended by the Select Committee, and he should be able to explain any slight variations which had been made. The Bill was of a comprehensive character, and he would only allude to its main provisions. By the 5th clause, the Secretary of State was to nominate the first Board of Conservators for any new district; but by the 6th and following clauses the subsequent Boards were made elective, instead of being, as hitherto, nominated by the various Courts of Quarter Sessions of the counties abutting upon the rivers of the district, He had been reluctant to make this alteration; but the evidence given before the Committee had left him no alternative. The Boards of Conservators in future to be elected were—unless otherwise specially determined—to consist of 12 members. The qualification for a member of the Board was that he must either be the owner of a several fishery within the district, or have paid licence duty during the previous fishing season. The qualification of electors was to have paid licence duty and fishery improvement rate within the district for the previous fishing season; a voter might have a plurality of votes not exceeding four, according to the scale of his payments. In order to consult the interests of the upper proprietors, as distinguished from those of the tidal and estuary fisheries, the electors would be formed into two "wards"—the upper and lower. The voting would be by means of voting papers, to be forwarded to each elector by the Chairman of the Board of Conservators. The Bill provided an increased scale of licence duties; but the Board of Conservators were empowered, with the consent and approval of the Home Office, to vary the licence duties payable in their district. They were also empowered, in addition to the licence duties, to levy a fishery improvement rate not exceeding 25 per cent on the licence duties. They were also to make by - laws for the better protection, preservation, and improvement of the fishing within their district; to vary the annual and weekly close time; to regulate the size of nets, and other purposes. But these laws were not to come into operation until they had been confirmed by a Judge of the superior Courts. The Secretary of the Board was required to make an annual return to the Secretary of State of the amount of income and expenditure of the Board, and of the actual and estimated produce of the fishery of the district, and other valuable statistical information. The measure also contained provisions with reference to the removal of artificial obstructions to the passage of salmon from the spawning beds to the sea, and vice versâ—a matter which lay at the root of all improvement in their salmon fisheries, and the neglect of which caused the destruction of a vast amount of valuable food, and at one time threatened the utter extinction of that breed of fish in certain of our rivers at no distant date. The 31st clause was of great importance. It gave to the Boards of Conservators compulsory powers of acquiring any weir or obstruction for the purpose of removal only; they must present a petition to the Secretary of State, setting forth the various particulars, and the grounds of their opinion, and the Secretary might thereon make a provisional order, which again must be confirmed by Parliament. Since the voluntary removal from the Tyne by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Beaumont) of a dam which offered a formidable impediment to the passage of the fish, that river had literally swarmed with salmon. It was not till the Act of 1865 was passed that anything was done towards the removal of those pernicious barriers. Since that period the Special Commissioners had decided no fewer than 526 cases, in 40 only of which had their decisions been challenged and notices of appeal given. In 25 of these cases the notices had been withdrawn, in eight cases the judgment of the Commissioners had been affirmed, in two only had they been reversed, and the remaining five cases were still pending. In three-fourths of the whole 526 cases thus adjudicated upon, the claims of the parties were found to be illegal, and in the great majority of cases the cost had been very inconsiderable. Additional powers were conferred on the Boards of Conservators in respect of matters which had proved deficient in preceding Acts. They or their servants had power to enter on land, after seven days' notice, to repair all fishways, &c., paying of course compensation for any damage done; they might erect hecks and gratings to prevent salmon being led astray into mill-races or artificial channels; they and their bailiffs had power to traverse the banks of salmon rivers at all times; their bailiffs or any constable might secure persons found in the highway suspected of having salmon unlawfully obtained; and penalties were imposed upon persons obstructing them in the performance of their duties. The 32nd section was of some interest, for it gave to the Fishery Commissioners power to try the legality of engines, &c., belonging to the Crown. Some of the later clauses provided regulations in regard to fishing. There was to be no fishing within 50 yards above, or 100 yards below, a weir or mill-race, except with rod and line; all hecks, &c, were to be open during the weekly close time, and removed altogether during the annual close season; no eel baskets were to be fixed in weirs between the 1st January and the 1st July, nor during the day at anytime. No draft net was to be shot within 30 yards of another until the latter was landed. Except in lakes no netting was allowed in the night time in the upper parts of rivers; and the same protection was extended to trout and char as to salmon—they were not to be caught or sold during the close season of salmon for rod and line. In conclusion, he said that the importance of this subject was generally admitted, and there was a general opinion that there should be some amendment of the law in the direction pointed out by this Bill. He was far from thinking that it was at present in the most perfect shape possible, and he hoped that considerable improvement would be made in it in Committee, so that they might be able to meet the requirements of the country without doing injustice to any class or interest whatever.

complimented the hon. Member upon the great pains which he had taken with this measure. He could not agree with all the provisions of it; but it accorded with the recommendations of the Select Committee, and also to a considerable extent with the Bill prepared by the Government, and therefore he had no objection to the second reading.

said, he would not oppose the second reading, it being understood that important alterations would be made in Committee.

, anticipating an Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) had placed on the Paper to remove the disqualification of solicitors to act as county magistrates, expressed his opinion that it was in reason and principle a good thing that solicitors practising in counties should not, as a rule, be magistrates in those counties, not because it was to be feared they would abuse that position, but because it was deemed necessary that magistrates should be above suspicion. He therefore asked the Committee to depart from the strict principle only to the extent of allowing solicitors to become magistrates in counties where they did not practice. The clause was identical with one which had been framed by three noble and learned Lords in the Upper House, and he might add that the qualification contained in it was approved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) and the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), and by the Incorporated Law Society.

instanced, in support of the Bill, the case of barristers who, however eminent, were debarred in their selection as chairmen of Quarter Sessions from practising at any sessions in the county.

said, he saw no objection to solicitors sitting on the bench of magistrates; but he would not permit this in the counties or towns where they were practising. He thought it for the interest of the profession itself that its members should not be open to the suspicion of preparing a case upon which they were called upon to adjudicate.

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He would propose to substitute "and" for "or," and with that modification he would support the Bill.

said, that solicitors made excellent magistrates in Ireland; and he thought the measure would be most useful. He would, however, suggest that the restriction should extend not only to the counties in which they practised, but to adjoining counties also.

said, he hoped the Committee would pass the measure as it stood.

expressed his general approbation of the Bill as it now stood, and asked the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) not to press his Amendment. There was not a single Member who had supported the view he had taken.

earnestly hoped the Committee would pass this measure, as many members of the profession had long looked upon their exclusion from the Bench as a great grievance—not a sentimental grievance, but a practical one.

said, he was perfectly content with the discussion, and would withdraw his Amendment; he was satisfied that the proviso would be found utterly unworkable, and would have to be repealed.

rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to divide the said Bill into two Bills. With the exception of some legal objections that were taken to a portion of what he might call the civil part of the Bill, there had been, he thought, a very general assent to that part of the measure. But objections were taken both in the House and out of the House to include what was called the criminal part in the same Bill. The criminal part of the Bill embraced certain offences and punishments which were not applicable to trades unionists alone; indeed, these offences were not committed more frequently by members of trades unions than by those who were not. It therefore seemed injurious and unfair that that portion should form part of the Bill for regulating trades unions. He was perfectly willing to give effect to that objection. To the criminal portion of the Bill some objections were urged; but these were not of a very strong or general character. The members of trades unions themselves who waited upon him assured him that the particular mischiefs the Bill was intended to control were, in their opinion, deserving of punishment, and their only suggestion was that the provision should be made applicable to all classes of society. His answer was that the offences were committed generally only by workmen, and that to endeavour to apply the penalties to all classes would be an unnecessary piece of legislation very similar to the proposal to substitute for the stringent penalties of the game laws a general law against trespass, which would include within its operation any person who might wander where he had no right to go. There were well-known offences committed by workmen against each other, and those offences were not within the reach of the ordinary criminal law. The good sense of almost everyone admitted that they were offences which ought to be punished, and severely; and it was no stigma against the workmen, but for their protection, that a law of this kind should be passed. He was willing that it should be done in a way not to offend the feelings of a large class of persons, and therefore he moved the Instruction to the Committee. Should that Motion be assented to, it was his intention to proceed in the first instance with the civil portion of the Bill, and having passed that through Committee he should go on with the criminal portion; and if the House should pass both parts through Committee, he should print the Bills separately, and take the third reading on the same day.

called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the recommendations of the Commission which had reported in 1869, and suggested that he should make provision in his Bill for separating the funds of trades unions into two portions: in the first place, the funds to be used for trade purposes, and, in the second, those intended for benefit purposes. If this separation of the funds of unions had been made, great benefit would have been conferred on trades unionists in general, because the funds were applied to most antagonistic purposes, one of which, was the conduct of strikes, and the other the relief of the sick and of the sufferers by acci- dents. He had no desire to retard the passing of the measure by offering any opposition to it; indeed, he approved of the Bill generally, and had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting what was now an important institution upon a proper footing. It was very anomalous that we should hitherto have acknowledged the existence of trades unions, and yet not have given to their funds the protection of the law. He must, however, demur to the statements made by the hon. Members for Sheffield and Frome, who said that trades unions had been of much benefit to the working classes, that it was the only way they could deal with trades en masse, and that where they did not exist there injustice and oppression prevailed. Far from agreeing with the hon. Member, he regarded trades unions as a blot upon our industrial system, and that instead of being a benefit to the class for whose benefit they were originally intended, they had been a great injury. He denied the alleged necessity for dealing with workmen en masse—a course calculated to subvert proper relations between them and their employers; and as to unions preventing oppression and injustice, he pointed to what was disclosed at Sheffield and Manchester as proving that unprecedented oppression and injustice were promoted by the unions. Then the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) contended that in the absence of trades unions there were found low wages and misery, and the hon. and learned Member went on to illustrate his argument by reference to distress in the East End of London in the tailoring trade. It appeared to him that the hon. Member mistook cause for effect. It was not because there had been no trades union amongst tailors, but because of trades unions. Did the hon. Member forget the great tailor strike of 1867, which was conducted with so much violence that several of the men were punished for breach of the law, and the master tailors brought in men from the Continent and the provinces, and began to employ women and that useful machine—the sewing machine, which had so injured that business? Trades unions had, therefore, been the cause of the present distress among the tailors, and not the absence of them had produced that unfortunate state of matters.

rose to Order. The hon. and learned Member was not speaking to the Motion before the House, but to the general question.

said, the immediate Question before the House was simply that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have the power to divide the Bill in two parts. Next would come the Question that he now leave the Chair, when the hon. Member would be in Order.

said, he had considered the first Motion to be carried.

said, he was glad that it had been decided to divide the Bill; but he could hardly believe that it was the wish of the Government to proceed with the second part of the Bill to-night, before any expression of opinion upon it had been obtained from those affected. Up to the present time they had opposed the 3rd clause altogether, denying that it ought to have any place in a Trades Unions Bill; but now that the Bill was to be divided, and the second part was to be simply an amendment of the Criminal Consolidation Act, and was not to apply specially to trade pursuits and workmen, the whole complexion of the case was altered; it seemed to him that it would be possible to amend the 3rd clause instead of rejecting it altogether. The opposition to it as it stood originally was not based on any desire that the offences named should go unpunished, but simply on the feeling that the clause ought to have no place in a Bill which did the unions a long-deferred act of justice. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not ask them to take the second part of the Bill to-night; but would give them time to consider what Amendments they desired to propose upon it.

trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the reasonable request addressed to him, and would not ask them to go into Committee on the second part of the Bill.

joined in the appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to allow the trades unionists time to consider what amendments they would wish to make in the Bill, and said that they did not oppose it altogether.

said, that; although the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) had called the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) to Order because he had gone into the general question, while the Motion was merely for dividing the Bill, yet every subsequent speaker had continued discussing the general question. It had been suggested that the House should postpone the second part of the Bill; but they were entering into its merits before they had discussed the first. It would, in his opinion, be time to amend the postponed clauses after that portion of the Bill first under consideration had been discussed.

presumed that it was intended that the two parts of the measure should proceed pari passu, so that one part should not become law and the other be dropped.

said, the noble Lord need be under no apprehension on that point. There already existed sufficiently stringent laws against offenders, and he presumed that the penal provision of this Bill was to take the place of another Act of Parliament which was to be repealed. The noble Lord might be assured that the poor workmen would be held in sufficient bondage.

remarked that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had illustrated the benefits of trades unions by referring to the settlement by the hon. and learned Member for Frome of the differences between the ironmasters in England and the men in their employ. The hon. Member for Sheffield had asserted that this success was owing to the circumstance that in this country the men had a strong trades union; whereas in Scotland, where he said there were no trades unions, there had lately been a disastrous strike. He wished, however, to point out that the ironworkers in Scotland, had as strong an union as their English brethren. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was arbitrator in a dispute between the masters and men of this very trade, which was settled last summer, but subsequently another strike occurred; the men endeavoured to deal with the masters individually, and the latter were compelled in self-defence to combine among themselves:—the result being—as, indeed, it always must be whenever there was a conflict between capital and labour—that the working men were beaten by the united energy and determination of the masters. He himself had a large number of men in his employ; but there had been no strike among them for 33 years. It was impossible to regulate wages by artificial means, as supply and demand would always rectify each other. The most prosperous and the best paid of the working classes in this country were domestic servants, among whom unions were unknown. Now that education was about to be so largely extended in this country, he hoped the working classes would begin to think for themselves, and to find out the only sound principle on which wages could be regulated—Supply and demand.

said, his hon. Friend had forgotten that there were trade unions and trade unions. Knowing that they proved of great advantage in some cases, he wished to give his testimony in opposition to the opinion of his hon. Friend. For nearly 40 years he had been acquainted with a trades union formed in every town in the North of England carrying on the carpet manufacturing trade, and during the whole of that time not a single strike had occurred. Every negotiation for an advance or reduction of wages had been conducted at meetings of the masters and workmen; and the results, he believed, had invariably given satisfaction to both parties. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the two Bills would pass the third reading at the same time.

, replying to a remark which had fallen from the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), said, he cordially sympathised with those who were anxious to put this question on a right and equitable footing. He had sat on the Trades Unions Commission, and agreed to its recommendations in this respect. He had a few minutes previously expressed a hope that the question would be dealt with as a whole in the course of the present Session, whereupon the hon. Gentleman made a sneering and ungracious remark, saying that the noble Lord need not be afraid, as the law against the poor workman was already sufficiently severe. Some hon. Gentlemen in this House, and some out of the House, tried to make political capital out of the working men. When in his place in Parliament he had been able to do anything in the way of legislation which, in his conscience, he believed would be beneficial to the working classes, he had always done it. Thus he had moved for a Committee to consider a law relating to master and servant, which made the servant the slave of the master; and the result of the appointment of that Committee was that that law was repealed. In the same way no one was more ready than he was to relieve trades unionists from those restrictions which were injurious and unjust; but it should not be forgotten that they formed only a small portion of the working classes of the country. At a meeting over which he presided in favour of the technical education of workmen, Mr. Lucraft, who had succeeded in being, by the votes of his fellow-workmen, elected as a member of the London School Board, said he did not belong to a trades union, and told Mr. Applegarth that there were 17 non-unionists to every one who belonged to a society. That fact ought not to be forgotten; but he would also bring into court a witness with whom the House would not dispute. At a meeting held about two years ago in Exeter Hall, the Chairman said—

"If the Universities are prepared to receive the assistance of others to acquire their rights they must remember that there are others in their trades who hold views opposed to those of the unionists, and they have their rights also. If 500 men in a trade desire to carry out a certain course, and 50 differ, the majority have no right to break the heads of the minority."

appealed to the House to go into Committee without further discussion, and said that the noble Lord had been unnecessarily severe on the hon. Member for Bristol. ["No, no!"] He (Mr. Bruce) had understood those remarks in a different light. [Lord ELCHO: No; it was meant so.] In justice to the hon. Gentleman he thought it right to say how the matter had struck him. The Bill consisted of two parts, and many persons objected to the passing of one part without the other. He had stated that it was his intention to leave each part of the Bill to be considered in Committee, and then to take the third reading.

objected to the Amendment. So far as they had to deal with criminal matters, it was desirable they should be put into the other part of the Bill, and so far as ordinary trade combinations were concerned he hoped they had heard the last of "restraint of trade" and "conspiracy" in connection with them. The evidence taken before the Royal Commission should have satisfied anyone who had read it how capricious and bad the application of those old doctrines was. The best feature of the Bill was the getting rid of them.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had hardly estimated its force and effect. The fact of a man being a member of a trades union under such circumstances rendered him liable to an indictment for conspiracy, from which it was the object of the present Bill to relieve him. A man surely ought not to be subjected to such a disqualification. It was, in fact, a kind of judge-made law, and applied according to the necessities of the day. According to the ablest writers upon the subject, such a power ought to be regarded with the utmost jealousy, and for those reasons he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

said, he would not press his Amendment, but he thought no reason had been assigned against it.

said, though apparently fair, this clause was rather one-sided in its operation. Masters' and men's societies held their members only by means of fines. The men's directly, the masters' by means of bonds. Both were unenforceable by law. This clause left the law unaltered, and would be fair but for these circumstances. The masters paid a small subscription, the loss of which was trifling; the subscription of the men was one, the loss of which would be the loss of their whole savings. The 3rd section of this clause, by preventing any legal proceeding for the application of the funds of the unions to benefits to members, practically gave them power to inflict fines amounting to their whole subscriptions by merely withholding the money. It was surely impolitic to pass such a clause as this, giving direct sanction to the not very honest system of getting funds on benevolent pretexts and spending them for restrictive purposes. He thought that members of unions ought to have power to recover benefits, and that to do so effectually separate trade and benefit accounts ought to be kept. All power, direct and indirect, of enforcing fines should be taken from trades unions, or similar power of enforcing bonds should be given to masters' associations.

opposed the Amendment. He stated that, although the contracts mentioned in the clause were not unlawful in themselves, Government were not prepared to give Courts of Law or Equity the power to enforce them. He had, on a former occasion, shown that, though a contract to marry was perfectly lawful, it could not be enforced by action at law or suit in equity.

said, he did not think there ought to be an agreement recognizable by law which could not be enforceable. As regarded the illustration just given, if a man entered into an agreement to marry, and did not marry he would be liable to an action for breach of promise.

said, that though a voluntary agreement was lawful, it could not generally be enforced.

A voluntary agreement was not an agreement for a consideration.

said, it was ridiculous to suppose that any agreement could be valid, which could not be enforced at law.

remarked that it was necessary to enact that an agreement of the kind contemplated by the clause, though it could not be legally enforced, might yet be lawful for the purpose of being registered.

said, that the illustration of a voluntary agreement was not in point, because when there was no consideration the law would not interfere to enforce the agreement. Mere voluntary agreements were not agreements at all in the eye of the law.

suggested the case of a physician who, in selling his practice, entered into an agreement not to practice within 300 miles of his former residence. Such an agreement would not be enforceable at law; but neither would it be unlawful.

adverted to a very ancient precedent in favour of the words proposed to be omitted. In the Statute of Frauds it was enacted that no action should be brought upon any agreement not to be performed within a year which was not in writing. Such an agreement, while not actually unlawful, was not enforceable at law.

said, the question was not whether these agreements were penal, but whether they were enforceable in law. To say that they could not be enforced, and yet that they were not for that reason unlawful, might give these societies the false impression that by some means which were not legal means they might enforce them on their members.

held there was nothing delusive about the words, which were a necessary safeguard to show that the parties would not be subjected to any penal consequences.

said, the 2nd section already provided for that.

said, he was desirous the Committee should not lose sight of the fact that whenever the funds of trades unions fell below the point which entitled them to confer promised benefits, they were in the custom of raising large sums for the purpose by a severe levy upon their members.

said, he thought the words in the latter part of the section necessary, as the former part declared that none of the agreements should be enforceable in law or equity.

said, he thought it was only right, when members subscribed to a benefit society, that they should know to what purposes the funds were applied.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman must have misapprehended the object of the Bill, if he thought it was intended to secure the benefits of those societies to their members. The right way of treating the clause was to regard it as one of an exceptional character.

said, he feared that by separating accounts, money subscribed for trade purposes might be otherwise appropriated. At present, 5 per cent of the funds were spent in strikes.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as the unions had power to apply their funds to the assistance of each other.

said, the Board of Trade had declined to accept the office, and he therefore proposed, as an Amendment, that it should be imposed upon the registrars of friendly societies in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

said, that the office of Registrar of Friendly Societies was now vacant, and that the person who temporarily performed the duties of the office might be unable to undertake the additional labours now sought to be imposed upon him.

said, that under the Act which had been in force for two years, the trade societies had the power of registering, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies was bound to register all the trades unions that applied for registration.

moved, in line 8, after "as follows," leave out to "peace," in line 32, and insert—

"1. In Great Britain the court of summary jurisdiction shall be,—

(a.) In England, the lord mayor, and alderman of the city of London, a metropolitan police magistrate, or a stipendiary magistrate;

(b.) In Scotland, the sheriff of the county or his substitute, or provost or other magistrate of a royal burgh.

If the offence to be tried is alleged to have been committed within a distance of twenty miles by railway, or of six miles by road, from the nearest court-house of such lord mayor, alderman, metropolitan, stipendiary, sheriff, sheriff-substitute, provost, or other magistrate; but if the offence to be tried is not alleged to have been committed within the limits of any such distance as is above-mentioned, then the court of summary jurisdiction shall be—

(a.) In England, two or more justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions at a place appointed for holding petty sessions;

(b.) In Scotland, two or more judges or justices of the peace court;

(c.) In Ireland, two or more justices of the peace, or one metropolitan or stipendiary magistrate for the time being empowered by law to do alone or with others any act authorised to be done by more than one justice of the peace."

said, he desired as strongly as the hon. Member that cases of this kind should be adjudicated upon by stipendiary magistrates. There was often an objection to ordinary magistrates on the ground that they were connected by interest with the class of employers rather than with the employed, and he fully admitted the importance of such matters being decided by a tribunal above suspicion. But he thought the Amendment would not attain the end which the hon. Member had in view. It would probably have the effect of throwing upon a stipendiary magistrate the work of a district beyond his own, and altogether it would be of little practical use.

said, this objection did not apply to Scotland, where there were sheriffs in every county, and where a strong feeling existed in favour of removing such cases as would arise under the Act from the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. The proposal contained in the Amendment would be of far greater importance in relation to the penal clauses than in reference to the portion of the Bill now under consideration.

observed, that at present they were only dealing with cases of defrauding societies of their money, and of issuing false rules. It would be time enough to consider the penal clauses when they were reached.

approved of the proposal to refer cases under the Act to sheriffs in Scotland.

objected to this upon the ground that the effect would be that the penal Act of George IV. would not be repealed by this Bill.

said, that the statute referred to would be repealed by the second Bill, which was referred to the same Committee.