asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he is aware that an extensive Factory system is growing up in India, without any Government supervision for the protection and health of the women and children employed; whether his attention has boon drawn to statements that these women and children are systematically worked for sixteen hours a-day, and in many cases even including Sundays; and, whether the Indian Government will adopt some such Factory legislation as we have in this Country for the prevention of such evils, before they attain greater proportions?

The Secretary of State for India is fully aware of the increase of the factory system, mainly confined to the Presidency of Bombay, and in a recent speech at Manchester he alluded at some length to this increase. Major Moore, the Inspector-in-Chief of the cotton department in Bombay, stated in his last Report that a large number of women and children were employed in the mills near Bombay, and that the hours of labour were long, not being at present limited by Government. He suggested that legislation would speedily be required. The Secretary of State, in a despatch dated the 30th of April, 1874, commended the subject to the best attention of the Government of Bombay. Recently the Secretary of State has received from an unofficial source strong representations of the evil result of the system alleged to be in force in Bombay, and the subject is now engaging his careful attention.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Irish fishermen can obtain loans under "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act" of last Session, pending the publication of bye-laws by the Commissioners of the Board of Public Works; and, when will such bye-laws be published, and for how long have such bye-laws been before the Irish Privy Council waiting their sanction?

It is not the duty of the Board of Works to publish the bye-laws under the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act. It rests with the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries to issue notices on the subject, with forms of application for loans. It is expected that those will be issued early next week. The bye-laws in question were approved by the Irish Privy Council on the 13th of January. The delay was due to a bye-law having been proposed which the Law Officers did not think was authorized by the terms of the Act.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to prevent the introduction of the Colorado beetle into Ireland by the importation of American seed potatoes, or otherwise; and, should no precautions have already boon instituted, what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government on this subject?

The subject of the hon. Member's Question was brought under my notice some time back, and I thought it right first to ascertain what steps had been taken by Foreign Governments in the matter. I find that the only Governments which have taken any real action are those of Austria and Belgium. The former has assured the Government of Switzerland, which had warned the European maritime countries of the possible danger, that the importation of American potatoes would be prohibited; and the Belgian Government has introduced a Bill for a similar purpose, which has been agreed to by a Special Committee. I have also made inquiries as to the nature and extent of the evil to be apprehended. I think there is reason to suppose that the harm recently done to the American potato crop has been much exaggerated, and I am informed that the insect in question has been known in America for more than a century. It attacks the stalks and leaves of the potato plant, not the root, though that naturally becomes diseased in consequence. No potato stalks or leaves are imported from America, and as only healthy roots would be imported, it would seem hardly possible that the insect could be thus conveyed into this country. I am now in communication with the English Privy Council on the subject, because it is obvious that if any preventive measures are adopted, they ought to apply to the whole of Great Britain as well as to Ireland. But I must add that the importation of potatoes into the United Kingdom, especially in the event of a failure of the home crop, is very largo, and therefore any interference with this trade would require the most careful consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for facilitating the improvement of the Dwellings of the Working Classes in large towns, said: In the course of the last Session of Parliament I think the Government, at all events, gave an earnest of their interest in the question relating to the dwellings of the working classes in this country—first of all by interfering with the action of one of the great railway companies in the metropolis; and, secondly, by presenting to this House a Standing Order, which was afterwards adopted, for the purpose of taking pre-cautions in the case of other Bills of a similar kind from time to time brought before us. This is a matter which, as far as I am individually concerned, has engaged much of my attention. But the attention of the Government was formally called to it early in the Spring of last year by two memorials presented to the Prime Minister as well as to myself by two classes of persons, both deserving great attention. One of those memorials was from the Council of the Charity Organization Society, who have given a great deal of attention to the state of the dwellings of the poor. They issued a very able Report, which has been presented to the Government, and which certainly deserves their attention. They state—

"That the dwellings of the poorer classes in various parts of the metropolis are in such a condition, from age, defects of construction, and misuse, as to he deeply injurious to the physical and moral welfare of the inhabitants, and to the well-being of the community at large."

The other body which addressed the Government was one of great eminence, which seldom interferes with public business or presents Petitions of this kind—I mean the Royal College of Physicians. So deeply did this eminent body feel that the condition of the dwellings of the poor in the metropolis deserved the special attention and interference of the Government, that they stepped out of their way last year to present this memorial to the Prime Minister, which I hold in my hand. They said—

"That it is well known to your memorialists that over-crowding, especially in unwholesome and ill-constructed habitations, originates disease, leads to drunkenness and immorality, and is likely to produce discontent among the poorer portion of the population."

So that when the subject was brought before the notice of the House of Commons last year by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth), in a very elaborate and, he will allow me to add, a very able speech, and when he was well seconded by the hon. Baronet near him (Sir Sydney Waterlow), I was able, on the part of the Government, to give an assurance that this matter had received their attention, and should continue to do so; and the pledge I then gave I shall now endeavour to redeem by asking leave to introduce a Bill on the subject. We may take it as an axiom that what the homes of the people are the people themselves will be found to be. That is a maxim upon which the House in a great deal of its legislation has acted. Much has been done on this subject, not simply by legislation, but by individual effort. In legislation we have endeavoured to pass Acts preventing overcrowding in dwelling-houses—Acts which we have not been able to carry out for reasons to which I will hereafter advert. "We have passed Acts enabling Corporations to give up their land and borrow money in order to erect dwelling-houses for the working classes. We have also passed an Act, introduced by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), although, I am afraid, somewhat shorn of its proportions, enabling the local authorities to pull down such houses as are absolutely unfit for human habitation. Much has also been done by the action of individuals, by trustees, and by public bodies. I need hardly mention the capital of £600,000 belonging to the Peabody Trustees, or the two societies—one presided over by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Sydney Waterlow) and the other by Lord Claud Hamilton, who is no longer a Member of this House. Each of these associations has, I believe, expended a capital of £300,000 for these objects. Other bodies of a similar kind have dene much for improving the dwellings of the labouring classes of this metropolis, but much still remains to be dene. All the houses that have been constructed by these individuals and associations only provide accommodation for about 30,000 of the population; and when we remember that the growth of London has advanced during the last 10 years at the rate of 40,000 each year, it is clear that much more must be done if we wish to reach the root of the evil to be remedied. So far as legislation goes, the evil is pointed out by one of the memorials before me—that of the Charity Organization Society—

"In the opinion of your memorialists, the evil can only be adequately dealt with by making it the duty of some public body, possessing a wider sphere of action and in a more independent position than the local Boards and Vestries, and invested when necessary with powers of compulsory purchase, to initiate comprehensive improvements in the interest of the poorer classes, as has been done with good effect in Glasgow and Edinburgh and other cities, and, in a somewhat different form, in Liverpool."

I take it as a starting-point that it is not the duty of the Government to provide any class of citizens with any of the necessaries of life, and among the necessaries of life we must include that which is one of the chief necessaries—good and habitable dwellings. That is not the duty of the State, because if it did so, it would inevitably tend to make that class depend, not on themselves, but upon what was done for them elsewhere, and it would not be possible to teach a worse lesson than this—that "If you do not take care of yourselves, the State will take care of you." Nor is it wise to encourage large bodies to provide the working classes with habitations at greatly lower rents than the market value paid elsewhere. Admitting these two principles of action, there is another point of view from which we may look, and another ground upon which we may proceed. No one will doubt the propriety and right of the State to interfere in matters relating to sanitary laws. Looking at this question as a matter of sanitary reform, there is much to be done by the Legislature, not to enable the working classes to have houses provided for thorn, but to take them out of that miserable condition in which they now find themselves—namely, that, even if they want to have decent homos, they cannot get them. The evil we have to grapple with is not one of modern growth, but arises from the neglect of past and former years. I would ask the political economist who may be disposed to scan this kind of legislation too closely, to remember that there is a maxim which is as true of nations as of individuals—that health is actually wealth. He must take into account the great waste of life oven among those who roach manhood, the great waste of physical condition after infancy is passed, and the waste of stamina in the present generation and the future generation that will spring from it. He might also take into account the waste in lunatic asylums and gaols, and particularly the waste of sickness and death in all these wretched places. I am not going to enter upon any elaborate statement as to the question of death-rate, but will take it on an average of years. I know it makes a great difference whether you are speaking of a small area or a largo one, and whether, if you take a smaller area, there is a hospital or a workhouse in it. You have, therefore, to make a great many allowances and corrections before coming to the truth. I want, however, to put before the House a few plain, broad facts. If you consider that the death-rate is about 22½ per 1,000 throughout the whole country—that in London it is 24½ per 1,000, and that in Manchester it has been 30, in Liverpool during the last 10 years it has been 38, in Lancaster 30, and in Sunderland 37 per 1,000—there must be something wrong in those towns which makes the death-rate so different. Then, again, see the marked difference between one part of a town and another. In Liverpool, where the death-rate is 38 in 1,000, some parts of the town are just as healthy as some parts of London, and if you inquire into local areas, you will find that in certain courts the death-rate is very greatly in excess of other parts of the town, and swells the total average. For instance, in one district in London, having a population of from 2,000 to 2,100, there have been more people sick in five years than the whole population—not of ordinary diseases, but fevers, and that there is not one house in which there has not been a death annually. These are startling facts, and when you find that in Manchester, in some of the small enumerated districts, the death-rate was in one district 67 per 1,000, and that in another district—now happily swept away—the death-rate amounted to 70 per 1,000, it must be admitted that there is a great deal of preventable disease; and if by our legislation, and without any inroad upon the sound principles of political economy, we can prevent such a waste of life, power, energy, health, and everything that makes a nation healthy and wealthy, it is our duty to interfere and see whether we cannot do something to arrest this waste. If we inquire what is the death-rate among small and young children in particular parts of these towns, we shall arrive at the most terrible results. I have a Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Manchester, which shows that in one particular district, out of 100 deaths of persons of all ages, the deaths of children under five years reached the extraordinary rate of 49·7. In Liverpool, matters are still worse. The Friendly Societies Commission went very deeply into the question of the death-rate of children; and they found that, while the annual rate of mortality of children under one year on the average of all England amounts to 18 to 100 persons living, in Liverpool it amounted to 30; and between the age of one and two, while the average for England is 6·9, in Liverpool it is 18½. Similar results are arrived at if we compare the number of children of the working classes who grow up to be strong and healthy adults with the number of children of the higher classes who do so. The Medical Officer of Health for Paddington has prepared tables, in which a comparison is instituted between such districts as Gloucester Square, Hyde Park, and Westbourne Terrace, and equal areas occupied by the working classes; and the result is that the loss-crowded district, with one-sixth of the population of the other district, produces twice the number of children who grow up to be healthy adults. We have to consider what a waste of human life this is, and ask ourselves whether we can give the children of the working classes an equal chance of growing up to healthy manhood and womanhood. The causes of the present loss of life are not far to seek. Some of the Acts for the prevention of overcrowding are under my own superintendence, and when I came into office orders were given that they were to be carried out as far as possible; but medical officers, the police, and the sanitary authorities said that the difficulty in the way of enforcing the Acts was that to apply them would be to turn the people out of their houses into the streets, without there being any place to which they could go. Then it is not simply that houses are overcrowded, but districts are overcrowded, and the air is vitiated. I know of one place in St. Giles where there are 70 courts and alloys or small streets close together, without one single thoroughfare through which the residents can get a breath of pure air. The only way in which you can got into those districts is to cut a thoroughfare right through them. Some of the houses are actually in such a condition that the walls are engrained with disease, no expenditure of money upon them can make them healthy, and the only practical way of dealing with them is to pull them down. Family after family goes into a house, and it is certain to catch the fever which has killed off the previous occupants; and unless you step in and interfere this will go on for ages. In many cases you find that houses are built upon ground that is saturated with everything that is abominable, miasma rises from the ground through the houses, and nothing can be done to cure this unless you make a clean sweep of the houses. I have thought it right to go to Liverpool, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, to see what has been done in those places. The Liverpool Act was passed in 1864, the Glasgow Act in 1866, and the Edinburgh Act about the same time. From the experience of these towns we may learn some lessons as to what we ought to avoid. I have endeavoured to find out what has been the actual working of this Act in each of those places, and I have collected certain information which I have laid on the Table of the House. I went not only to those who had proposed the schemes, and who might take a favourable view of what had been done, but to those who had taken opposite views; I was met with kindness by all the authorities, by the Medical Officers of Health, and by the police; and they have furnished the statements which I have laid on the Table to guide us in the formation of our opinions. In Liverpool five presentments have been made by grand juries as to the bad condition of certain houses; and the Corporation, finding they had to deal with crowded courts, pulled down three or four rows of cottages, demolished 503 houses, and improved 392 courts, at a cost of £86,000 or £87,600. The main defects of the Liverpool Act are, that all the claims for compensation payable under one presentment cannot be settled by one tribunal, and that the working of the Land Clauses Acts involves delay and expense; and it is said that if the defects of the law were remedied the processes could be expedited with equal satisfaction to the owners without the Corporation paying twice the value of the property, once to the owners and again to the lawyers. Edinburgh has gone rather more vigorously to work, it has spent a large sum, and cleaned out some 1,400 houses; but it has acted upon a different principle, and in opening up thoroughfares, it has acquired some of the land improved in value by the operation, and has re-sold it, thereby reaping a considerable return, and considerably reducing the cost of the improvement to the ratepayers. But the Medical Officer of Health of Edinburgh says that it will require some years of experience to arrive at the practical results, and the lesson to be drawn from his warning is, that in anything we do we must not hope too hastily for the evidence of results. But from Edinburgh we learnt this—The Medical Officer, in one of his Reports, said—

"I can confidently assert that the poor have been put to no inconvenience by the pulling down of the old houses, for before they were forced to remove, careful inquiry was made as to the house accommodation for the class in question, and the Sheriff was satisfied in every case that there were houses to which they could betake themselves."

This is a point that must be carefully guarded in future legislation. Many nests of crime have been broken down in Edinburgh, and the police report a falling off in the number of serious offences from 670 to 570 in the year. The brothels were reduced from 242 in 1859, to 125; and so with other matters dependent upon the character of the neighbourhood. The City of Glasgow has gone into the matter upon a much larger scale. They have incurred an expenditure which will ultimately amount to £1,750,000. While proceeding in much the same way as Edinburgh, the people of Glasgow have been wiser in their generation. They have not taken merely the bad houses. They found that their demolition greatly improved the property immediately adjoining, and thought they might just as well get the advantage as the owners of the property. In their scheme they bought, not only the bad houses, but the property in the neighbourhood. They will expend altogether about £2,000,000, and they hope to do it at a cost to the ratepayers of £300,000; and if you take into account the charges for hospitals, lunatic asylums, and gaols, I think you will find that this £300,000 is very much on the right side of the account. Of course, it would be necessary after houses have been built, that precautions should be taken that they do not soon fall into the same state as those which had been pulled down. In all cases of this kind you must take care to look after the property for the future; you must take sanitary precautions that the property shall not fall into a bad condition. In Glasgow I asked where the people expelled were driven to. Special inquiries were made whether they went to other over-crowded places to over-crowd them still more, what kind of houses they went to, and whether the houses were built at rates which enabled them to pay the rents. In one case 351 houses were demolished; but, although 351 families were compelled by these operations to remove, attention was confined to 263, the remaining 88 being accounted for in various ways. In regard to 20 of the 263 they were also otherwise accounted for. But, having excluded these, the remaining 243 wore, on the whole, fair examples of the utterly insanitary house and their inhabitants, of the miserable population who contribute to the high mortality and furnish the most difficult problems in the improvement of the city. The exact number of persons living in these houses was 990, and they were compelled to seek houses elsewhere. Before the operations, of the 243 families whoso history had boon traced, 118 lived in houses of one apartment, 96 in houses of two apartments, 23 in houses of three apartments, and six in houses of four apartments. After the operations those 243 families were housed as follows:—96 in houses of one apartment, 116 in houses of two apartments, 16 in houses of three apartments, and three in houses of four apartments; five went to the suburbs, two to the country, three to lodgings, and two to Ireland. The same facts might be stated in another way—Of 118 families living in houses of one apartment when expelled by the Improvement Trustees, 76 removed to houses of the same size, 39 to larger houses, two to lodgings, and one to the country in Scotland; of 96 families living in houses of two apartments, 66 removed to houses of the same size, 10 to larger houses, 17 to smaller houses, one to the country, and two to Ireland; of 23 families living in houses of throe apartments, four removed to houses of the same size, 18 to smaller houses, and one to lodgings; of six families living in houses of four apartments, all removed to smaller houses. Then, as to the rent of the new houses, it might be stated that the increase amounted to 20 per cent on the rental of a house of one apartment, to 20 per cent on a house of two apartments, to 58 per cent on a house of three apartments, and to 28 per cent on a house of four apartments. Then, as to the number of inmates per apartment, it was found that in the old houses 990 individuals were accommodated in 403 apartments, giving an average of 2·4 inmates for each apartment; and that in the new houses 949 individuals were accommodated in 388 apartments, giving still the same average of 2·4 for each apartment. But it was quite certain that the same number of inmates per house or apartment in the old and new houses really meant an increased cubic space in the now houses. This was especially true of the houses of three and four apartments. In the old houses those apartments were merely nominal, in the now they were real. Let me call your attention in this case, as in the case of Edinburgh, to the falling off of crime and the lessening of the number of brothels in the city—namely, a decrease of from 204 to 20, and this in the space of three years, from 1870 to 1873. Having stated what has been done in these three towns, I should like now to lay before the House the provisions contained in the Bill which I am now asking leave to introduce. I will do so very shortly. In the first place, we think this Bill—at present at all events—should be confined to the City of London, to the metropolis, and to large towns. No doubt there are places in the country which are very bad; no doubt there are places in small towns which are very bad; but the evil in those cases may be much more easily remedied than in largo towns. Again, to apply the Bill to small towns would produce too much pressure on the ratepayers. At all events, we think it best, as I have said, for the present to confine the measure to large towns. Then, who are to have the duty of carrying it out? Clearly not private individuals. We think that the body in London should be that which is shadowed forth in the memorial of the Charity Organization Society. There cannot be a better body for the City of London, and the Metropolitan Board of Works should be the authority for the rest of the me- tropolis; and in other largo towns the town councils, which are practically the sanitary authority. Who, then, shall put the Act in motion? We proceed entirely on sanitary grounds. We do not wish them to make great street improvements for their own glorification. It is only sanitary purposes that we have in view—therefore we think the Act should he put in motion by the medical officer of health, who, by his own view, or called upon by a certain number of ratepayers, would be bound to report and certify whether in his opinion the place was an unhealthy district—whether disease prevailed there, and whether that was attributable to the badness of the houses. If he found it so, he would have to state that, in his opinion, it was an unhealthy district, and that an improvement scheme ought to be framed for it. That report would be forwarded to the local authority—being in London the Corporation, in the rest of the metropolis the Metropolitan Board of Works, and in largo towns the town council. The local authorities would then take the matter into their consideration, and if satisfied of the truth of the report, and the practicability of applying a remedy and of the sufficiency of their resources—because we do not call on the town councils to ruin themselves—they would pass a resolution that the district was an unhealthy area, for which an improvement scheme ought to be provided. The improvement scheme would be accompanied by maps, particulars, and estimates, defining the lands it was proposed to take with compulsory powers, and providing for as many of the working; classes as might be displaced in that area, either within the limits of the area or the vicinity thereof. In London that is a very essential matter. You cannot pull down a street in St. Giles's and send the people over to Battersea. If you displace the working class, you must lodge them in the vicinity of the locality, otherwise you make them paupers and deprive them of the means of subsistence. In Glasgow that difficulty was easily met. Happily, even in the most crowded sites of London the actual density of the population per acre is not very great; in some places it may be 300 or more; but although only 300 per acre, they may be living in the worst sanitary condition and dying almost daily. On the other hand, I could mention a space built on by the society over which the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Sydney Waterlow) presides, where the death rate has never yet exceeded 15 per 1,000, and where no less than 1,600 are housed per acre with perfect safety. As I have intimated, you are to provide that the people turned out shall be accommodated in the district, or be provided for in the immediate vicinity of it. I do not suppose that any hon. Member will think that town councils should have the power of taking-other people's property without compensation; but hero comes a question to which I would seriously invite attention. Every farthing spent in law expenses will undoubtedly raise materially the cost of the room which is eventually to be occupied by the poor workmen. The difference of 1s. a-week in the rent may easily be made; therefore, you must take care that no unnecessary cost in law expenses shall be incurred. The action of town councils in bringing Bills in this House is of a very curtailed character. They must have the consent of their ratepayers. We propose that, except as to certain consent on the part of the Government, the present restriction should be swept away. Nor do we wish to put them to the great expense of going themselves for a Private Bill. We wish to relieve them entirely of that expense; and, therefore, when it has been determined that an area is unhealthy and that there shall be an improvement scheme in the metropolis, it shall be referred to the Secretary of State for sanction. The Secretary of State will make inquiry, and if he be satisfied with the scheme, he will take upon himself the responsibility of passing the Provisional Order through this House, and so save enormous expense to the parties themselves. With respect to boroughs, the Secretary of State has no local officer that he can employ, and we propose that they shall be relieved of Parliamentary expenses, and that the Local Government Board shall pass an improvement scheme. When that is done we have not the smallest intention of interfering with the execution of the scheme. The intervention of the Government is simply to give Parliamentary power and save expense. Everything else is left to local government. The next question is—"How can the value of the lands thus compulsorily taken be best arrived at?" I have already alluded to the circumstance that the working of schemes under the English Lands Clauses Act was found to be very expensive in Ireland, owing to the sub-divisions of tenures, to which it had to be applied. Therefore, 10 years ago an Act was passed, known as the Irish Lands Transfer Act, which provides a much simpler mode of ascertaining the value of land. Of course the English Act is incorporated in the present measure for all purposes except one, the provisions respecting valuation being adopted from the Irish Act. Accordingly, an arbitrator will be appointed who will go down to the locality and inquire into all the circumstances. If, however, the owner of any property proposed to be compulsorily taken wishes to appeal to a jury against the decision of the arbitrator, he will have the same right of doing so as he would have possessed under the English Act. The only question then for us to consider is what shall be the basis of the valuation on which the arbitrator shall act. The House will doubtless remember that under the English Lands Clauses Act there were no words specifying what the valuation should be. However, a custom has grown up in England to value the property at its proper value; but when a railway company wants it, 10 or 20 per cent is usually added as a sort of bonus to the owner. Now, we think such a bonus should not be given in regard to property of this kind. We think that a man ought to receive the fair market value of his land, and that of course the goodwill ought to be taken into consideration. Well, when the property has been obtained, the next question is, what is to be done with it? We have arrived at the opinion expressed in the Bill, that the corporations themselves should not be the builders of the houses; that they ought not to be building speculators. We believe there is a vast amount of floating capital which people would be willing to apply to this purpose, but which they do not so employ at the present moment, simply because they cannot get the land. We think that when the corporations have procured the land by these compulsory powers the time will have arrived when such available capital will be made use of; and, therefore, we give most ample power to the local authority to lot or sell the property, on the express condition that there shall be accommodation for the labouring classes. Of course, it is possible that the land might be left waste, if no power of building were conferred on the local authority, and for this reason we reserve to the local authority the power to build in special cases, with the consent of the Secretary of State, or of the President of the Local Government Board. Such is the sum and substance of the Bill. Powers are given for borrowing and lending to the local authority by the Public Works Commissioners at a certain rate of interest. One thing we are bound to insist upon is that the monies employed in carrying out these schemes shall not be mixed up with the general borough rate, but that there shall be a separate account kept of all monies expended under the provisions of the Act. This is, in fact, a sanitary matter, and the accounts, as in other sanitary matters, ought to be kept quite distinct from all other rates and payments. Under the provisions of this Bill, a great deal may be effected; but I should be wrong if I did not once more caution the House not to imagine we are doing a magnificent and a showy work. It is a measure that will do the work silently, but surely. Those who desire to see the results of the Bill must go and look for them, and in a few years they will perceive thorn. Again, I must remark that we do not anticipate any sudden effect. The evil we desire to root out has been the work of generations; and though I believe the ratepayers will be more than fully recouped in the long run, yet for a time, at least, the measure must be worked at some expense. Nevertheless, considering the state of the people at the present time, considering how little has been done for them, and considering also the absolute necessity of raising this almost degraded class, who have been brought up in sickness, and who will perpetuate disease, if we do not afford them the means of improving their conditions, I ask you on those dens of wretchedness and misery to cast one ray of hope and happiness; I ask you on those haunts of sickness and of death to breathe, at all events, one breath of health and life; and on those courts and alleys where all is dark with a darkness which not only may be, but is felt—a darkness of mind, body, and soul—I ask you to assist in carrying out one of God's best and earliest laws—"Let there be light."

asked when the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members, and expressed a hope that it would be delivered to-morrow. He also asked when it was proposed to take the second reading, and considered that as many largo towns would be affected it would be well to allow some time to elapse before proceeding with that stage of the Bill. The whole measure seemed to hinge on the action of the medical officers of vestries, and he must therefore express a hope that they would be placed in a position of greater independence than they at present occupied, especially in London, where they were at the mercy of vestries composed to a great extent of the owners of small properties which were too frequently in a bad condition. With respect to the action of the local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman had not informed the Housey what restrictions they would have the power to impose on those who might wish to build upon the sites that were provided. It was evident, however, from an incidental remark, that the right hon. Gentleman saw the necessity of taking precautions against the "same evils arising which now called for legislation. He could not conclude those few remarks without saying that the whole credit of the movement belonged to certain people who had boon working for a very long time in this direction. In particular he might refer to the Metropolitan Association, over which Lord Claud Hamilton presided; to Lord Shaftesbury and to the associations with which he had been connected; to the Act passed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), and under which Act much more good would have boon done but for the alterations made in it by the House of Lords; and more especially to the Committee appointed by the Charity Organization Society, which with the Royal College of Physicians had paved the way for the present measure. He must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the prompt manner in which he had acted upon the representations which had been made to him, and he hoped that the Bill would result in a great improvement in the condition of the working people.

said, that having devoted many years of his life to this subject, and having been for some time Chairman of a Company which had erected many improved workmen's dwellings, he bogged to offer a few words of congratulation to the Home Secretary for the manner in which he had dealt with the whole question. The way in which he had referred to the evidence in the Reports as to Edinburgh and Glasgow showed that he had boon most anxious to grapple with the whole of the difficulties involved in an important and complicated question. The right bon. Gentleman had referred to the death-rate and the difficulty of making accurate calculations in reference to it; but he did not mention the fact that the houses built for the industrial classes by the societies were mainly occupied by families in which there were a largo number of children, so that the death-rate in the other houses were much higher than would appear even from the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman. He feared that if the initiation was to depend upon the medical officers there must be some external power to stimulate them to action. He know that in many large vestries and local bodies the members were frequently owners of small property, and that they would exercise their power over the medical officers to prevent proceedings which would affect their own pockets.

said, that among all the measures shadowed forth in Her Majesty's Speech there was not one of more importance than that now brought forward, and he would venture to add his congratulations to those which had been already offered to the right hon. Gentleman for the earnest and felicitous manner in which he had brought the subject before the House. But, assuming that the Bill was to apply to the whole country, he feared there would be very serious difficulty in carrying out its provisions to any great extent, in consequence of the great power of origination and management given to the local authorities. In the first place, much expense would have to be incurred, and local authorities did not like to give it to their constituents to say that they had thrown heavy burdens upon them. He thought therefore there would be great danger of the measure failing, unless the Government reserved power to interfere in certain cases. In the next place, unless something were done to take the matter out of the hands of persons who would look mainly to dividends, there would he great danger that what was called economy would interfere with the public good. The experience of Glasgow, which was very nearly the same as that of Paris under M. Haussmann, would show that in the most favourable circumstances there must be great loss. He believed the loss in Paris was 32 per cent upon the amount actually invested in the operations; and that would be something like the probable loss in London and elsewhere. If, therefore, the medical officer was to start the improvement, as he was the creature of the vestry, and the vestry the creature of the people who had to pay the rates, very little good would be done. If the work was to be done by private, rather than public effort, there would be another source of danger. Once you got within the ambit of private effort, you got within the ambit of private gain; and where good dividends were looked for, it was not the class which Parliament wanted to benefit most that would derive the advantage, but the class above them. Any one who had gone through the low dens described by the Homo Secretary, and had then visited the Pea-body Buildings, must know that the two were inhabited by a very different class. The fact was, unless care were taken, they would be sweeping away one class of people to provide residences for another. In the Peabody and other buildings many people were charged 7s. 6d. a-week rent. That was very nearly £20 a-year, and to talk of people—who lived in such dens as the Home Secretary had described, and which the present measure was intended to abolish—paying £20 a-year—was simply absurd. If, therefore, Parliament wished to succeed in the object it had in view, they must deal with the matter on principles of philanthropy rather than of dividend. He would suggest therefore that they should not confine themselves to sweeping away the dwellings complained of, but take powers to alter and improve them if possible. He would at the same time offer another suggestion with respect to dwellings not structurally altered. Not long since a very interesting correspondence had appeared in The Lancet, in which revelations of a most painful character had been made. It had been found by commissioner appointed by that paper, that in many cases dwellings of five or six stories, with several rooms in each story and separate families living in each room, were supplied with water only at the lowest story. One instance was given of a poor woman in a wretched state of debility who had to bring every drop of water she required for her family up five flights of stairs in one small vessel. The consequence was that the water necessary for health could not be brought up at all. Assuredly something should be done to compel every landlord who let his houses in separate tenancies to provide separate water accommodation for each. He bogged to thank the Home Secretary for making a brave, loyal, and earnest attempt to deal with one of the most pernicious misehiefs of our country at the present time.

said, that the Bill was now in print, but there were some typical errors to be amended, and therefore whether it could be delivered to-morrow, or not until the day after, it was not in his power to say. He was in hopes, if the principle of the Bill was accepted, that the House would allow him to proceed to the second reading on Monday, on the understanding that some time would elapse before the Committee would be taken. The hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy) had talked of the medical officers being influenced by the vestries and local boards. But, if he (Mr. Cross) was to judge from the reports which had been presented to him by the medical officers, he felt sure they would be willing to grapple with any authority in this matter. If such reports as had been presented to him were sent in to the local authorities, the latter would have plenty to do for several years in working the measure, and erecting suitable buildings. It was essential to the scheme that suitable dwellings should be built; for surely the hon. and learned Member opposite did not mean that when a number of rookeries were pulled down, other rookeries should be put up in their place. Precautions, however, were taken that when the local authorities let the land, certain provisions of a stringent nature should be carried out. Beyond that, hon. Members would find that the Government had inserted special powers in reference to the metropolis, and the appointment of per- sons to carry out the provisions of the Bill.

asked, whether the Bill applied to Scotland?

said, that, as it stood at present, the Bill applied to England only, but that the Government intended to leave it to the Committee to decide whether its operation should be extended to Scotland and Ireland also.

, in rising to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Friendly and other Societies, said: Taking into consideration the number of Bills that will be brought forward to-night, it is neither necessary nor convenient that I should occupy much time in asking the House for leave to introduce a measure for consolidating and amending the laws relating to Friendly Societies. The principles of the Bill I propose to lay before the House are mainly the same as those of the Bill of last Session, with which hon. Members are familiar. We propose to continue the present system of registration of Friendly Societies, but we propose to make such amendments in that system as will enable it to work with better effect. The Bill will, therefore, in the main be similar to that of last year; but during the Recess, a great many communications have been made to me by persons connected with and interested in these societies, and the Government, having carefully considered those communications, have made several Amendments in that measure. In framing those Amendments, we have borne in mind that this great system of Friendly Societies is one which has sprung from the people themselves, and that, therefore, in whatever alterations we might make in the system, we should be careful to carry the people with us, and to act in harmony with the work which is going on. I will now state in a very few words what are the principal alterations which we propose to make in the Bill. In the first place, we propose to make one great change in the measure as it stood last year, by abolishing the proposals for local registration. I am not at all sure that those proposals were not good in themselves, as they would have conduced to that which is the great object of this legislation—namely, the enlarging of the information to be laid before those interested in these societies. There were, however, two objections to those proposals which weighed considerably with us—one, that to carry them out would be very expensive; and the other, that we could not establish a system of registration by clerks of the peace, without running the risk of bringing about some want of uniformity in their decisions and views, a result that might load to much confusion. Under these circumstances, we have dropped those proposals for local registration, and registration will be carried on in the same way as at present, except that the Registrars of Scotland and Ireland, who will be retained, will be subordinated to the chief office in London, and thus there will be but one system of registration for the United Kingdom, directed from a common centre, while the special peculiarities of each part of the Empire will be considered and met by having officers competent to decide any questions that may arise. We have also endeavoured to meet the objections which have been raised as to what are characterized as the too great powers which the Bill of last year proposed to give to the Registrars. It is, of course, inevitable, if a Bill of this sort is passed, that some power should be given to the Registrar, not for the purpose of putting power in his hands, or those of the Government, but for the convenience of the societies themselves. It would be utterly impossible to provide by legislation for every case that might arise, and if an attempt were made to do so, we should have a series of cast-iron rules, which would work most inconveniently for the societies themselves. It was, therefore, proposed by the Bill of last year to give certain powers to the Registrar with reference to certain particulars which would operate for the convenience of the societies. However, we now propose not to give certain of those powers, and to modify some of the others proposed to be given. Among those which we do not intend to give is one of considerable importance. Under the Bill of last year, it was proposed that the Registrar should, under certain circumstances, have power not only to order the dissolution of a society upon the representation of a certain proportion of its members, but to re-arrange and alter the benefits and the contributions of the society. There can be no doubt that it would be a very convenient and useful power for a properly constituted authority to exercise. Cases will frequently arise in which the members of a society may find that they are going on in a way that must ultimately result in disaster, and that while it would be a pity to dissolve it, the rate of contribution must be increased, or the rate of benefits must be lowered, if they are to tide over the difficulty. We, however, find that an objection is entertained by the societies to entrusting the Registrar with such powers, and, as the main principle that we desire to carry out is to give information to the societies which they may utilize for themselves, and as we do not propose to interfere with their working in any unnecessary way, we have thought it right to omit that power from our Bill. Therefore, the powers of the Registrar in this respect will remain as they are at present, and whenever a petition is presented by a certain proportion of the members of a society, he will proceed as at present to investigate the grounds on which the petition proceeds, and, if necessary, to decree the dissolution of the society; but he will not have power to alter the amount of either the contributions or the benefits. Another provision of a rather important character we have omitted from the present Bill, merely because it is not convenient that it should appear in an Act of Parliament. It is that which directs that the Registrar shall cause tables of mortality to be prepared for the use of the societies. A good deal of misunderstanding has arisen on this point, and it has been supposed that if these tables of mortality were prepared and issued under an Act of Parliament, they would be regarded by the societies to whom they were furnished, as being compulsory, or at least as having a sem- blance of Government authority. Under these circumstances, we dropped that power; but, as we think it of great importance that proper tables should be prepared and issued to promoters of these societies, it is the intention of the Government to do that which they can do without an Act of Parliament, and that is to give directions for the preparation of a proper number of tables, applicable to as many different sets of cases as they can provide for, and to issue them for those who wish to take advantage of them. There will be comparatively few other alterations made in the Bill. It is proposed somewhat to alter the proportion of members who may call for a general meeting of the society; it is also proposed to omit certain words with regard to the appointment of public valuers, which have been misunderstood; and it is provided that that the valuers shall be appointed by the societies themselves, merely requiring that the name, address, and profession of such valuers shall be stated in the returns they may make, so that they may be known as persons of some standing. There will also be some change made with regard to the investments. At present the law requires that the investments of these societies shall be considerably restricted, and we propose to allow a much greater latitude in the form of their investments, in order to assist the societies to improve their position, subject to certain necessary precautions in the matter of publication and audit. The great principle of this Bill is that by it we recognize a state of things existing which we do not de-sire to interfere with or to disturb, but to assist and promote; and we desire, as far as possible, to provide for giving due publicity to the facts bearing on the status of different societies, so that those in whom the members have confidence may be able to tell them what appears to be the real position of the societies. Neither do we intend in any way to introduce unnecessary Government interference. On the contrary, our principle is to leave this good work which has sprung from the people to be carried on by the people themselves. We do not adopt the principle of "Everything for the people, and nothing by the people." We desire that the people should do this work for themselves, and our only wish is to assist them in doing it. I need only to refer to one other clause in the Bill, which is one of considerable interest—namely, the one which relates to the insurances on the lives of children, with reference to which there has been considerable agitation in the minds of those connected with these societies, and on the part of the public generally. I think that a good deal of misapprehension has prevailed on this subject. In introducing this clause into the Bill last year, nothing could have been further from the intention of the Government than to cast any imputation upon the parents of this country as a class, but it must be recollected that there are persons who may avail themselves of the laxity of the law on this subject, who are not the parents of the children whose lives are entrusted to them. We know that there are many cases in which unfortunate children who are the offspring of illegitimate intercourse are entrusted to unscrupulous and careless persons, who may be inclined to make money of them—we know the history of baby-farming, and how melancholy that history is, and it is a most beneficent principle of law which throws its shield over such unfortunates; therefore, in introducing this clause, we had no desire to bring a general charge against the parents of this country that they are not careful of their children's lives, nor to put any restriction upon their making a reasonable and proper provision for the burial of their children in the event of their death. We propose, however, to make some alterations in the Bill as it stood last year. We propose to do away with the restriction which it was intended to impose with regard to the insurance of children under three years of ago, in so far as it extended to a prohibition of insurance in more than one society. We think that prohibition unnecessary, and that there are cases in which it would be bettor to insure for small sums in more than one society, than for a largo sum in a single society. As regards the amount, we propose to limit it to £3 instead of 30s. in the case of a child under three years of age, leaving the sums for children under five and ten as before. It is further intended that certificates should be granted in a more formal way than at present, so as to prevent any mischief which might arise from that cause. In this respect it must be remembered that there will be an exceptional privilege granted to the societies with which we are dealing, for it is one which does not extend to persons who wish to insure in the upper and richer class of society. I think there are no other points to which I need draw attention. I hope there will be no objection to the introduction of the Bill, and from all that reaches mo, I believe there will be no great difficulty in inducing the House to pass the second reading. Of course, when we come to a discussion of the Bill in Committee, there will be many points demanding consideration. We trust the House will be prepared to agree to the second reading within a reasonable time, and an ample opportunity will be given for the discussion of details. I hope we shall be able to pass this measure, for it seems to me one which would be of great advantage to the classes for whose benefit it is designed. It has been framed, as I have shown, with no desire to interfere restrictively with the operations of these societies, but on the contrary, to facilitate and advance them. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.

said, he approved the omission of the provisions in the Bill of last year authorizing the Registrar to prescribe alterations in the rules of the societies. These societies had been founded by the people, and it was right that they should be left to be managed by the people with as little interference as possible. But the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave to the Registrar the power of dissolving a society whenever he thought proper to do so. That was an extreme power, and he would suggest that before exercing it the Registrar should be bound to inform the society of the defects he found in its affairs, so as to afford it an opportunity of making whatever change might be needed. In that way, the dissolution of a society might be averted.

said, he must acknowledge that the Bill of last year had boon improved. It had always seemed to him that a system of local registration might be attended with considerable difficulty, and he was disposed to think the change in regard to the regulation of investments would prove beneficial. As to the other alterations, they would be better able to judge of them when they saw the Bill. The chief question to his mind was whether the Bill was bold enough to meet the difficulties of the case, and he thought it right to take the earliest opportunity of suggesting this point for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. He would also urge the desirability of allowing a considerable time to elapse between the second reading and going into Committee, so as to afford persons in the country who were practically engaged in connection with Friendly Societies an opportunity of studying the details of the measure.

said, he must congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the manner in which he had introduced the Bill. He was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman had adopted many of the suggestions made to him last year, and especially that the proposal to create local Registrars had boon abandoned; for he believed that such a system would give rise to a serious want of uniformity in the operation of the law. He was gratified, moreover, by the proposal to limit the powers of the Chief Registrar, which under the former measure would have been almost unlimited, and he heartily concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the adoption of the rules published by the Registrar should be made optional, as there were many societies of a peculiar character to which they might not be applicable. As to the clause determining the number of members who might call a meeting to investigate the affairs of a society, if it had been retained as in the Bill of last Session, many large societies might have been put to very great inconvenience and expense by a very small number of troublesome persons. He fully approved likewise of the clause relating to the insurance of children. It had been observed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) that the Bill was not sufficiently bold. For his part, he thought that it lacked nothing of that quality. In dealing with these societies, it was necessary to remember that they had been founded by working men for themselves, without the aid of the State, and they did not stand in need of any nursing, or interference in their internal arrangements. All that was required was that there should be such legislation as would pro- tect the members from fraud so far as Government could do so, and thus give the public confidence in their management, and that certain lines should be indicated beyond which they must not go. He agreed in thinking that they ought not to go into Committee on the Bill for a considerable time after the second reading, the time fixed for which he should like to know. By doing so they would permit of the provisions of the measure being thoroughly discussed by the people who were interested in the different Friendly Societies throughout the country.

said, that the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow (Tuesday). He proposed that the second reading should be set down for that day week, and would assure the House that ample time would be allowed between the second reading and the Committee.

said, that day week was too early for the second reading.

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Regimental Exchanges said, the measure was one which he had introduced late last Session, and which there was not then time to go on with. He had explained the nature of the Bill last year, and had been very anxious that it should come on for discussion. He did not however propose on the present occasion to enter on that discussion, which would not be advantageous to the House; and he know that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were anxious to take part in discussing the Bill, and who were opposed to it, would not offer any opposition to its introduction. Those hon. Gentlemen had asked him not to fix the second reading for an early day, and in deference to their wishes he would fix it for that day fortnight, instead of for Monday next, as he had originally intended.

said, that although the Bill was drawn in few and simple words, he believed its consequences would be neither few nor simple. He was glad therefore the right hon. Gentleman had named a somewhat distant day for the second reading, because it was most important that hon. Members should have an opportunity of studying the bearings of the question, which was most complicated in its nature, and the details of a proposition which was of a distinctly retrograde character as concerned the legislation of this country, and would have a very deep effect not only upon the Army, but upon the whole circle of our public services. When the day fixed for the second reading arrived, if no more qualified person stopped in to undertake the task, he should move that the Bill be read upon that day six months, and he earnestly hoped that he should be able to make good the few words he had now spoken to the satisfaction of the many and perhaps a majority of hon. Members.

said, that when at the close of the last Session the right hon. Gentleman withdrew the Bill, and intimated his intention to re-introduce it, he himself announced that he would again oppose it, Her Majesty's Opposition was then nowhere. He (Mr. Anderson) had to complain of considerable apathy on their part; but he hoped that on this occasion the announcement that they had just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs meant that Her Majesty's Opposition under their new Loader really intended to take up that most objectionable Bill and give it some-tiling like a strenuous opposition. It was undoubtedly the most retrograde and reactionary measure that the Government had yet attempted, with the solitary exception of the Endowed Schools Bill, and on the second reading he should be most happy to join with the hon. Member for the Border Burghs in opposing it.

said, he did not rise to give the Notice of Motion which he had intended to give—namely, to read the Bill a second time that day six months—because his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had already done so. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that that Bill applied to all regimental ranks, and that under the Army Regulation Act the ranks of major and lieutenant-colonel were to be filled by selection. Surely it could not be intended that when an officer had been selected to fill a special post he should then be permitted to accept a bonus in order to exchange into a regiment which might be more convenient for him? He had to thank his right hon. Friend for postponing the second reading till Monday week, because he must remind him that that Bill introduced a totally novel principle—namely, that of giving a Parliamentary sanction to payment for exchanges—a principle altogether unknown in every other service of the Crown.

, in rising to move—

"That the Chairman he directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts,"

said: The necessity for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts arises not so much from want of powers in the Executive Government, for the powers already given are not yet half developed, although they are being developed as rapidly as I think they safely can be. What is rather wanted is a supplement to former Acts, enabling the Executive to exorcise existing powers more effectively. The difficulty in dealing with the subject is to give the Executive adequate powers for securing public safety without interfering with the freedom of private enterprize. I am sure the Committee will all agree that freedom is essential to mercantile enterprize, and that mercantile enterprize is of the essence of our national prosperity. Since the Protective system ceased it is more than ever imperative that the Legislature should leave unfettered the self-dependence and elasticity of our Mercantile Marine. On the other hand, we must all allow that the eager competition of mercantile enterprize tends to becoming reckless of human life, and on that account the Legislature have found it necessary to interfere for the public safety. They have done so. Since the repeal of the Navigation Laws the principal Act has been the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. From that time down to the year 1873 frequent amending Acts have been passed. In that year the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) called more active attention to the subject, and stimulated legislation—as I freely admit, most creditably to himself and most usefully to the country. At the same time it must be borne in mind that he only stimulated legislation which was then in progress, and that the Act passed after he brought the subject so much forward was simply a confirmation and extension of the Act which had preceded it by two years. In 1873 Her Majesty issued a Commission to the Duke of Somerset and others to inquire into the subject, and the Royal Commissioners collected a mass of the most authoritative evidence, and made a most able Report. I suppose everyone in the House who is at all interested in the matter is well acquainted with that Report. Of the suggestions made by the Royal Commission, some of the most important are not ripe for immediate legislation. The subject of marine insurance, for instance, though I believe it to be at the root of the whole matter, could not be dealt with hastily or immediately by legislation until some concert had been taken with other nations. Such correspondence we are now engaged in. When I say that marine insurance is at the root of the whole matter, I mean that those who degrade the Merchant Service by using unseaworthy ships are rendered more reckless by the present state of the law on marine insurance. Another subject not yet ripe for legislation is pilotage, and a third relates to tonnage dues, which—and I myself had painful experience of this last year—cannot be dealt with here as yet on sound principles with any chance of securing international agreement. Some of the suggestions made by the Royal Commissioners, not requiring legislation, have been at once carried out, and the present Bill proposes to carry out the remainder. For example, we have strengthened the Marine Department of the Board of Trade by adding a second nautical adviser. We have improved the organization of the surveying staff; and here I may say that it was impossible to do so more quickly, for the men were not to be found. We have also added to the Department a law adviser, who will conduct prosecutions for the Board of Trade. The other suggestions of the Royal Commission require legislation, and with these points the Bill deals. They may be ranged under four heads, and in this respect the Bill follows the divisions of the principal Act of 1854 in order to avoid as much as possible rendering more complicated legislation which is too complicated already. The Bill deals with the discipline on board merchant ships; the safety of ships and those on board; improved inquiries into casualties at sea; and the training of boys for service at sea. I may, perhaps, mention that I have had prepared by the Board of Trade a digest of all the existing Acts on the subject, on the plan of the Digest of Sanitary Acts, which was prepared in 1873. I had to-day the pleasure of laying on the Table this digest of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and, as there is a complete index, I hope it may almost supply the place of an actual codification of the law. I will now state briefly to the Committee the mode in which the Bill proposes to deal with the four subjects of discipline, the safety of vessels, inquiries into casualties, and training boys for the service. With regard to discipline, the Royal Commission say, in their Report, that the evidence affords ample proof that masters of vessels have not at this moment sufficient control over their men, and that the men can be guilty with impunity of the grossest dereliction of duty. Following their suggestion, the Bill will propose, in the first place, to render illegal the system of advance notes. The object of that alteration is to save the sailor from the crimps, who are at the bottom of the want of discipline in the Merchant Service; and the Bill provides, at the same time, means by which sailors may get any necessary outfit from the shipowners. Then we recast what I may call the criminal code of the Marine Service, The Bill takes out of the hands of the Board of Trade and the local Marine Boards, charges against certificated officers—that is, masters, mates, and engineers—and places all such proceedings in the hands of stipendiary magistrates; or, failing them, in the hands of the local Admiralty Courts. At the same time, it is proposed that all Assessors should be appointed, not, as hitherto, by the Board of Trade, which ought to be the prosecutor, and should not, therefore, share in the office of Judge, but by the High Court of Admiralty. It is also proposed that if, before the now tribunal, a certificated officer should be convicted of incompetency, his certificate should in no case be suspended, but should be cancelled, either wholly, or with a lower certificate substituted. As to the offences of seamen, the Bill proposes to repeal all the existing enactments on this subject, and to make a better classification, graduation, and arrangement of many scattered enactments constituting what may be called the criminal code on board ship. The only addition to the list of offences—and it is strange that at such a late hour it should be necessary to make such an addition—will be neglect to keep a look-out or sleeping on the watch. A now principle will be introduced, by which double punishment will be inflicted in cases of drunkenness and other offences committed under circumstances which endanger the ship, or the lives of those on board. The Bill also proposes a somewhat more easy and summary process in the case of all offences short of mutiny. On this point I may say that a measure is in contemplation, enabling Her Majesty to enter into Consular Conventions with other Powers, which will enable Her Majesty to make mutual arrangements with those Powers for bringing the law to bear in foreign ports. So much as to discipline. Now as to the safety of ships and seamen. The principal Act of 1854 contains one whole part—Part IV.—relating to the safety of the ship and prevention of accidents. The Act of 1862 improved those provisions. The Act of 1871 imposed upon the Board of Trade the delicate and difficult duty of stopping unseaworthy ships, and also made the sending such ships to sea a misdemeanour. The Act of 1873 increased the duties of the Board in the way of stopping ships from going to sea on the score of unseaworthiness or overloading. As to Government survey, the Bill does not depart from the principle, now acted upon, of obtaining good and trustworthy information, and dealing only with cases which are reported as suspicious. The Committee, probably, know what is done now in the way of legislative survey. Besides the survey of all ships on the first Registry, the Board of Trade surveys passenger ships annually, stops all ships suspected of being unseaworthy, enforces repairs or alters loading, and takes legal proceedings in certain cases. I agree with the Royal Commissioners that a general periodical Government survey of all ships would, even if possible, be most mischievous and vexatious, and not only that, but I will go further and say that it would be fatal to its object; because if the Government were to certify continually all ships in the Merchant Service, it would be impossible, in the case of any casualty, that anyone but the Government should be made responsible. On the other hand, on the principle which has boon adopted by Parliament, and which we continue to act upon, proceedings against ships reported to be unsoaworthy have led almost invariably to conviction and punishment. Every such case acts also as a general warning to owners of unsoaworthy ships, and this course of action tends to the total eradication of unsoaworthy ships from the service. We altogether decline to certify the whole Mercantile Navy; a course which would not only be vexatious in itself, impede improvement, and shackle our commerce in foreign competition, but which would relieve shipowners of the liabilities which are the chief security of public safety. The Bill makes other provisions for safety by dealing with overloading, deck-loads, supply of boats, adjustment of compasses, and by increasing the liability of ship-owners for damages to persons or property on board arising from the unseaworthiness of ships. As to overloading, we see no possibility of making a compulsory load-line. On the contrary, we think the attempt would be most mischievous and delusive; but we do adopt the suggestion of the Commissioners that there should be an added scale of feet downwards amidships to test the buoyancy of ships, as a caution against overloading, as affording instructions to the surveyors, and as a record and evidence in case of casualty. As to deck-loads, we do not entirely adopt the recommendation of the Commissioners, but we do to this extent—that every ship carrying a deck-load should report to the Customs the weight, hulk, and character of any such cargo, and should also have an entry to that effect in the log-book. The various regulations as to the provision of boats in the Acts of 1854 and 1862, and the Passenger Acts, are all reduced in the Bill to a uniform principle, with elastic rules to meet special eases; and the adjustment of compasses we propose to entrust only to persons who have been examined and certified as competent for such a duty. As regards the liability of ship-owners, we propose to make it unlimited with respect to any damage to persons or property on board, caused by their having knowingly, and without excuse, sent unseaworthy ships to sea. Lord Campbell's Act is also extended to seamen. The Bill proposes to make a charge on the Mercantile Marine for the training of boys for the Merchant Service. Lastly, it makes a material improvement in the system of investigating casualties, separating the first inquiry into the circumstances and causes of any casualty from any criminal proceedings subsequently taken against all who appear to have been culpable. The preliminary inquiry by the Receiver of Wrecks will remain the same as it is, except in so far as regards its extension to foreign ships and boats, the omission of the condition of material damages having been incurred, and a slight improvement in the nature of the evidence. The formal inquiry which may follow the preliminary one will be simply an inquest, and taken altogether out of the hands of ordinary justices and placed in the hands of stipendiary magistrates with Assessors appointed by the Admiralty, so that the Board of Trade will stand altogether clear of any judicial action, ready to take criminal proceedings in the ordinary Courts of Law as prosecutor against guilty parties. These are the main enactments proposed by this Bill, which is a measure entirely independent of party. Drawn up with careful attention to the Report and collection of evidence of the Royal Commission on the subject, I hope it will, with perhaps some modifications, be accepted by the House. The question, though not a party one in any way, is one of great national interest; and I believe, after having carefully considered the matter with those who are best able to give advice, that the Bill will be found calculated to ameliorate the condition and character of our merchant seamen, place the shipowner in a sounder and more satisfactory position before the law, and at the same time enable the Department, on which a delicate and difficult task is imposed, to develop more vigorously the powers with which it has been entrusted.

said, that when first he heard the Government intended to bring in a Merchant Shipping Bill his hopes were highly raised, and he felt like a shipwrecked sailor who saw a sail in the horizon bearing down towards him; but now he had ascertained what kind of a measure it was, he felt like that shipwrecked sailor would feel when, the ship having come quite close to him, it suddenly altered its course and left him to his fate, with the only consolation that his case would be inquired into when the vessel reached home. Since he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he must confess his hopes and the expectations in which he had indulged had undergone a similar diminution. The President of the Board of Trade had certainly respected the rights of property, and the right hon. Gentleman had told them he did not wish to interfere with the freedom of commerce. The Committee had also had the old bugbear again dangled before them. They were told that shipowners would be held responsible for wrong-doing. He maintained that responsibility in this case was an utter delusion, because as a rule the registered owners were not the actual owners of the ships, and thus it would be most difficult to punish the proper parties. Before proceedings could be taken against a ship-owner, it would be necessary to prove that he had previous knowledge of the ship's unseaworthiness, and it would be found that the Bill in this respect was an utter delusion. The existing law on this point was practically inoperative. The President of the Board of Trade had told the Committee that shipowners could be made responsible; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not a fact that only one firm had been punished? and he would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought that even they would have been done anything to if they had been Members of Parliament? The Board of Trade would rely on the detection of vessels on certain information afforded to them. What kind of information did they require? The right hon. Gentleman had also said he would decline to certify the whole of the Mercantile Navy of the country. He (Mr. Plimsoll) never proposed anything of the kind. What he said had reference to unclassed ships, and to the necessity for their examination. He wished to direct the attention of the Committee to a case which had recently happened. On the 19th of December last he received information from a most reliable source, which he could thoroughly trust, that the owners of the La Plata were sending out the Sydney Hall, with the remainder of the cable which the former ship had to lay, in a very unseaworthy condition. The fullest particulars were given to him as to the repairs which were necessary, and he was told that 46 seamen would be taken on board the next morning. The information was so specific that he at once sent a messenger up to Whitehall begging the Board of Trade to stop the ship, offering at the same time the name of his informant, but said that he would rather have the responsibility placed upon his own name. At 10 o'clock at night a special messenger came to say that the Receiver of Customs was to detain the vessel, but with the distinct assumption that if the information proved erroneous, he should indemnify the Board of Trade and the owner of the ship for all costs and charges. He (Mr. Plimsoll) did not shrink from that responsibility, and the vessel was stopped; and he subsequently learned that the vessel had been condemned by the Board of Trade, and a large quantity of repairs were ordered to be done upon her. The owner protested against this, and offered £100 for the name of the person who had given the information; and he also called in an independent surveyor, but that gentleman certified for more extensive repairs than had been ordered by the Board of Trade. Now, if the Board expected any one to give them information, which could only be given at the peril of the person giving it, he asked the Committee how much information that Board was likely to get? He be- lieved that the Board had acted only on information so forwarded to them; but, practically, the only persons who knew what was the condition of the ship were the people on board, and people who had business relations with the owner; and neither of these classes of people could give information without running the risk of sacrificing their means of livelihood. It was in vain to suppose that, under such circumstances, information would be forwarded to the Board. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, said he adopted the recommendation of the Royal Commission to the effect that a scale in feet should be marked upon every merchant vessel amidships, to indicate the number of feet she was out of the water. This was a step in the right direction; but he would observe that they already had from every port a statement of the amount of free-board, and to paint such matter upon the side of the vessel would not be much more useful. Moreover, unless the unit adopted was much smaller than a foot, the use of the scale would be of little use in the case of many ships sailing from English ports. He had a record of one vessel which was loaded with iron, and which left in mid-winter with less than 11 inches of free-board. A steamer—the Volga—left Cardiff in 1873, having 15 feet depth of hold, and the return stated that she had only one inch of free-board. By his direction a letter was written to the Board of Trade to know if there was any error in the return, and the Board replied that they saw no reason to doubt it. There were two other vessels, each having 13 feet depth of hold and loaded with iron, and they had respectively 4½ and 7½ inches of free-board. The Committee had been told that in future there would be more strict inquiries in the case of ships which were lost; but what he wanted to see was the adoption of a system under which the loss of ships would be prevented, at any rate to a very considerable extent, by a careful examination of them before they were allowed to proceed to sea. One-half of the losses would be prevented by the expenditure upon preliminary examinations of the money which was now found necessary to pay the expense of Board of Trade inquiries into the circumstances attending the loss of vessels and the enormous waste of human lives. On the whole, the measure introduced by the President of the Board of Trade was weak and ineffectual, and seemed to fall lamentably short of meeting the requirements of the case, for the reason mainly that it contained no provision for the surveying of ships and none to prevent overloading.

, as a Member of the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, said, the Commission approached the consideration of the important questions referred to them with the most perfect impartiality, and the most sincere desire to arrive at a sound and just judgment upon the matters referred to them for investigation. With respect to the question of load-line, it was right to mention that in no other maritime country had it been thought judicious by the Government to insist upon the principle of a load-line in the Merchant Navy, the different circumstances necessary to be considered in fixing a maximum load-line being so complicated, as to make it practically impossible to insist on any uniform rule. At the same time, the Commission felt that it was essential not to absolve shipowners from all responsibility in this matter. In common with all those who took an interest in the subject, he wished to acknowledge in the fullest manner the immense services which had been rendered by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) in directing public attention to this question. He thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in respect to the extent to which loss of vessels at sea was to be attributed to over-loading. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated very truly that the condition of the law in reference to marine insurance lay at the very root of this most important subject. In the present state of the law, there were many cases in which the insured could recover more than the value of his ship if it happened to be lost, and it was most desirable that the law should, if possible, be amended, and marine insurance limited to indemnity for losses actually sustained. If the present state of things could be revised, it would be a most desirable consummation, and he trusted the Government would not lose sight of the point. If no other means could be adopted, a Commission should be appointed to inquire into and report upon the question. He was glad to find that the Government had strengthened the Board of Trade in its Marine Department; but a still further development in this direction would be necessary, if the country was to rely upon the action of the Department to enforce the laws which Parliament had passed.

said, he was disappointed with the Bill as being too severe, and rather than accept the Government Bill, as indicated by the President of the Board of Trade, he would give a preference to the Bill introduced to the House some time back by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). The Government measure left it to the shipowners and shipmasters to determine the seaworthiness or otherwise of the ships; whereas, in the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, rules were laid down for guidance in that respect. It was an attempt to place the shipowners in the position of unlimited liability companies, for the loss of passengers going to sea in their ships, so that the result of a single accident might be to reduce a millionaire to poverty. There were already on the Statute Book, Bills relating to merchant shipping, which contained not less than a thousand clauses, and to these it was proposed to add another lengthy measure—a course the only effect of which would be to make "confusion worse confounded." The principle of prevention would be much better than seeking for a remedy after a disaster had occurred. In his opinion, the first thing which the Government ought to have done was to have introduced a Bill with the object of codifying the existing laws on the subject of merchant shipping. Owing to the enormous number of statutes with reference to the shipping interest, it was quite impossible for masters of ships and shipowners to understand what course they should take. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to repeal the Amendments to Lord Campbell's Act, but what did that mean? It simply meant that shipowners, instead of registering their ships in England, would register them in other countries, where they were safe from the responsibility this Bill sought to impose on them—namely, unlimited liability for loss of life and property. He admitted there were some things in the Government measure which he thought would be a considerable advantage, and one of those was the prevention of over deck-loading. He was also very glad that it was proposed to abolish advance notes, and he suggested that the shipowners and shipmasters should be permitted to pay the wages of the seamen on board ship directly they arrived in port, instead of at the shipping offices. In that way, they would be able to keep the men out of the hands of the crimps. His own opinion was, that the only way out of many of the difficulties that had arisen was by appointing a competent staff of surveyors, to have a proper survey, especially if they were to insist upon a recognized load-line. He did not think there need be any insuperable difficulty in carrying out such an idea. It was dealt with at New York and Montreal. For his own part, he would rather have a regular survey and a load-line applicable to the build of the vessel, fixed when first loaded in some degree such as was suggested by the hon. Member for Derby, than be subjected to the uncertainties and inconveniences of the existing law.

thought it would be better to discuss the merits of the Bill on the second reading, when they had the details before them; for the hon. Member for Derby had told the House that the Bill was utterly weak and ineffectual, while the junior Member for Hull had said it was so stringent that he preferred the recommendations of the hon. Member for Derby. He (Mr. Rathbone) could not agree with the junior Member for Hull that it was desirable to codify before they amended a branch of the law—quite the contrary, amendment ought to come first and codification afterwards. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he had given that the law should be digested.

said, that on a future occasion he would be quite prepared to discuss all the details of the Bill; but, on the present occasion, he should abstain from doing so. He was glad that some legislation was to be attempted on the subject. It was not, and ought not to be regarded as a party question, and the sole object of the House ought to be to abate human misery and preserve life. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give aid on a liberal scale to training ships for the Mercantile Ma- rine, the money to be provided out of the Mercantile Marine Fund; but as that fund was contributed by the shipowners, the proposal would, in fact, be a tax upon them. Besides, foreign shipowners contributed to the fund in question, and it was worthy of consideration how far they ought to contribute towards the training of boys for the British Mercantile Marine. The right hon. Gentleman would, he trust, lay upon the Table full details with regard to these points at a future stage of the Bill. In dealing with insurance, the right hon. Gentleman said, the assent of foreign Governments to the main portions of the proposed clause must be obtained; but it appeared to him that in the Report of the Royal Commission several recommendations were made which did not so much affect the general law of insurance, as the special law of this country, and which might have been judiciously included in the Bill. He had no doubt, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show the Committee that he had taken steps to procure the assent of foreign Governments to some greater changes in the general law.

, as the representative of a large shipping community, wished to express his opinion that the proposals of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) were more likely to tend to the preservation of life at sea than the programme sketched out by the President of the Board of Trade. Prevention was bettor than cure, and if a survey was to be of any real practical use, it ought to be made before the vessel was sent to sea, and not after the mischief was done. The general feeling in Hull was that it was comparatively useless to make surveys, and to institute inquiries, after a ship had been lost and the lives of the seamen sacrificed. Again, many practical men, in common with himself, were of opinion that there was not the slightest difficulty in fixing a load-line, and shipowners would be much better pleased if such a course were adopted. In all our ports, associations of shipowners, of ship-masters, and of sailors and firemen had been formed, and it appeared to him that such associations, acting to some extent in antagonism to each other, were doing more to damage our mercantile supremacy at sea than was commonly imagined, The Government, while shrinking from the responsibility of fixing a load-line, actually held Courts of Inquiry and punished a captain who was supposed to have exceeded the limit of safety. How could anyone expect captains of vessels themselves to do what Her Majesty's Government, backed up with the assistance of a large staff of surveyors, declined to undertake? In the course of the last few weeks, the captain of a steamer belonging to Hull had the misfortune to lose his vessel; but, although he saved the lives of all on board, and stuck by her to the last, his certificate had been suspended for 12 months. Great indignation prevailed at null in reference to this case, and an appeal had been made to the Board of Trade, but as yet no action had been taken by that Department in the matter.

said, he was glad the Government had taken this important question out of the hands of private Members, but he regretted the Bill did not go further. For example, it ought to have provided for the compulsory survey of all unclassed ships; and he trusted that when the Bill was in Committee, clauses would be inserted providing for that object.

hoped ample opportunity would be given for the discussion of the Bill, for he could hardly believe an Administration so strong as that which now occupied the Treasury Bench would be content to introduce a measure which simply did as little as possible in satisfaction of a great public demand. In his opinion, our merchant shipping could not be properly dealt with by the Board of Trade until that body was itself dealt with. The present Bill did not provide those guarantees for safety which many hon. Members thought necessary; but, at the same time, such parts of the measure as were good would be welcomed. His present impression was that the Bill did not deal with the whole question on a sufficiently broad basis, and he hoped the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) would insist upon the adoption of many of his requirements.

, in moving—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the measures adopted by the Government of India under the authority of a Despatch, No. 160, dated the 8th day of August 1866, and to report whether it is expedient to insist upon the deductions from the bona fide claims of Officers referred to in an humble Address from this House of the 28th day of June 1870,"

said, the claims of the officers of the East Indian Army, referred to in the Motion, had been frequently before the House. The system of purchase in that service had sprung up at the beginning of the present century. It was the custom of junior officers to pay sums of money to their seniors to retire, in order that they might obtain promotion, and when the Directors of the East India Company became aware of the existence of the practice, they informed the officers of the Army that they would not enforce a regulation which compelled the officers on promotion to take an oath that they had not given any pecuniary compensation for the step they obtained, and this they did, being satisfied that the purchase system tended to efficiency, and the bonus system in question was established. The Mutiny intervened, and the re-organization of the Army consequent upon it introduced changes which deprived officers who had retired of the compensation which, under the old regimental system, they might have obtained from their juniors. It was contended on their behalf that they were legally entitled, by the Parliamentary guarantee, to compensation for their loss; but the tribunals to which the question was submitted decided that the officers had no legal claim, and Sir Charles Wood therefore declined to entertain it. Lord Cranborne, however, when Secretary of State for India, proposed a scheme of compensation under which the officers injuriously affected by the amalgamation scheme would receive—as was calculated—about £160,000, and the carrying out of the scheme was to be spread over 20 years. On the estimate made the amount to be paid to the officers during the nine years which had elapsed would be about £100,000, but in fact all that they had received was £35,000. In the year 1870, the late Colonel Sykes moved in that House an Address to Her Majesty on the subject of those claims, and, although the late Government opposed the Motion, it was carried by a considerable majority. The Address was, perhaps, capable of two interpretations; but, at all events, the late Government took no action upon it, except to direct further inquiry to be made. Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, when the Army Regulation Bill was under consideration, urged upon the attention of the Duke of Argyll, then Secretary of State for India, the fact that the compensation provided for officers of the British Army would naturally increase the sense of grievance entertained by the officers of the Indian Army, and expressed a hope that their claims would be favourably considered. Nothing, however, was done, and the present proposal was practically to refer to a Select Committee the subject of the Address which was carried five years ago. The reason the Motion was made thus early in the Session was that a Select Committee on East Indian Finance was about to sit to complete certain inquiries as to which they had taken evidence, but had not yet reported. Before doing so, they could easily, in a few sittings, dispose of this subject, which he now moved might be referred to a Select Committee. An agitation, which was essentially a House of Commons agitation, had been going on for some time; but it was impossible to make a concession that would please everybody, or discuss it satisfactorily in that House, therefore it was he took the course proposed.

congratulated the noble Lord upon the clear manner in which he had explained to the House the way the bonus system of the Indian Army had originated, there being only one omission—that relating to the Directors of the East India Company offering to grant annuities on favourable terms in aid of subscriptions for the officers, in order to induce old officers to retire. He also thanked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India for authorizing the appointment of this Select Committee, thus ensuring a near settlement of the question to which this Motion referred. It was an inquiry which would gratify the officers whose claims were to be the subject of it, and get rid of an agitation which had been allowed to exist for too long a period. So great an agitation for so small a sum was much to be lamented, but the inquiry need not occupy the Committee for more than a few days, because they had simply to determine whether they could, in propriety and fairness, recommend the extent of the concession that should be given to the officers.

, in moving that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Bankers Act, said, he might, perhaps, be allowed, as the title of the Bill did not carry any explanation with it, to state its general effect. No English bank that had the right of issuing bank-notes could come to London, or set up a branch within 65 miles of London, without sacrificing its issues. On the other hand, there was no provision to prevent the Scotch banks—and it was believed to be a casus omissus in the legislation of 1844–5—from coming to London, although they did not thereby forfeit the right of issue. The anomaly had been witnessed in actual operation, because the National Provincial Bank of England had sacrificed its issues in order to come to London, while the Scotch banks need not do so, although they were able to bank in the North of England under conditions forbidden to English banks. He did not take up this question as a question of banks against banks; but in the public interests it was undesirable that the bank monopoly should increase in value. The Scotch banks already enjoyed considerable privileges, and if they were allowed to trade in London, while the English banks could not increase their issues, the value of the monopoly would be increased, and it would be more difficult to deal with it by future legislation, if the House should feel inclined to do so at a future time; therefore, on that ground it appeared to him and others that something should be done. He would explain the Bill in detail on the second reading.

inquired whether the Bill was intended to include Ireland?

said, that the Bill as it was drawn touched the Scotch banks only, but he believed it might be made to include Ireland. He should be prepared to deal with that question if it were found desirable to raise it.

said, that if the Scotch banks crossed the Border they did not bring their note issue with them. There was no objection to the English banks going into Scotland if they pleased—in fact, they did so, and traded there as they wished—and for that reason he should oppose the Bill.