asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of George Calvert, Temperance Hotel, Gainsborough, who was recently lined £2 and costs for keeping his house open for the sale of coffee after public-houses were closed; and, whether, if such a fine be legal, any alteration will be proposed in the Law?

, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the case referred to. The house was one which, if it had been in London, under the old. Early Closing Act of 1864, would have been compelled to close at 1 o'clock, and it therefore now came under the general law of the country in reference to houses in which drink might be consumed, though not sold. He had no present intention to alter the law, which had on the whole worked beneficially.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a decision alleged to have been given at St. Martin's, Stamford, Petty Sessions, by which a number of indigent women were sentenced to a fine of 30s. each, with the alternative of a month's imprisonment, with hard labour, for gathering sticks in Cliffe Forest, the damage amounting to 6d.; and, if he has seen cause for interference to prevent the carrying out of the Sentance?

, in reply, said, that his attention had been called to the matter by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), and upon making inquiries he found that nine women, some of them old offenders, were not taken up for gathering sticks, but practically for breaking down the underwood and selling it. He considered that the justices were quite right in the principle of their decision, for it was quite necessary to put a stop to such a practice; but, at the same time, in his opinion, the punishment inflicted was decidedly too severe, and therefore he had ordered the greater portion of the penalty to be remitted, and the persons to be discharged from custody.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to an article in "The Daily News" of the 11th instant, entitled "The Diphtheria Hospital on Woolwich Common;" and, whether the allegations made in such article are substantially correct; and, if so, what action is intended to be taken in the matter?

Mr. Speaker, the Question which the hon. Member has put to me would be repeated, I see, on Monday, with some more particulars, I think, and I have therefore endeavoured to obtain the information sought by the hon. Member, and also by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) at the earliest possible opportunity. The first outbreak of diphtheria at Woolwich began in November, and it was not apparently confined merely to those cottages, but existed even in others in quite another part of the town in a very bad form. I think there were some 8 or 10 cases in Woolwich town itself, nearly all of which were fatal; in those cottages there were, I think, 35 cases, of which only 15 were fatal, so that the proportion was larger in the town than in the country. In the Cambridge cottages there was only one case; but they are very much improved buildings, not on the same common, and some considerable distance from those now in question. These cottages appear to have been built about the beginning of the century, without any due regard to the drainage or to the effect of the proper construction of such buildings. When the first outbreak took place, I directed the Army Sanitary Commission to make inquiries about these cottages, and they recommended a certain number of remedial alterations, such as throwing two rooms into one, draining, cementing the walls, and other things of that sort. Those operations do not appear to have been sufficient to stop the progress of this very severe disease. In consequence of diphtheria having recently broken out again within the last few days, and there being several cases, and in consequence also of my attention having been called to the article in question, I made further inquiries, and directed that the Sanitary Commissioners should again go to Woolwich and personally examine these cottages. They have been there this morning, and their Report is certainly not at all favourable. One of the Commissioners, whom I have seen, says that the article is, to a certain extent, exaggerated in the description, but that these cottages are, no doubt, most unsatisfactory; and, on the whole, they do not recommend that any further progress should be made with those remedial works at first proposed. I intend, therefore, as early as possible—certainly within a week—to remove the brigade depôts of the 49th and 50th from Woolwich to Warley. These latter barracks were meant for the training of the Militia; but in a pressure of this kind, it is better to find room in them for these unfortunate families which have suffered so much distress. I propose, therefore, to remove them to Warley till the barracks are built at Hounslow, and we shall so get accommodation for the whole of these families. Part of these barracks is already occupied by soldiers. I believe the construction of them is very good, and apartments will be at once properly prepared for these families. It will probably be done within a week, and it shall certainly be done as quickly as possible, because the time has come when some very strong measures should be taken to remove these poor people. I may add that they would have been removed to Woolwich, but the disease existed in the town itself, and the dread of it made it impossible to obtain lodgings to which they could be removed with any advantage to themselves.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, now that the Easter Recess will intervene before the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill, If he will inform the House whether the Government have any intention of modifying Clause 41 (the Liability Clause) of that Bill?

Sir, the Government intend to modify Clause 41 of the Merchant Shipping Bill referred to by the noble Lord as the Liability Clause. They propose to substitute for the provision, extending the unlimited liability of a shipowner, a provision preventing a shipowner from contracting himself out of his existing liability for damage caused by unseaworthiness.

asked the Secretary of State for War, supposing the Adjutants of Militia did not take the retiring allowance before the 1st July, What retiring allowance, if any, will be granted to them?

, in reply, said, that the time which was proposed, and which was to be limited, was to give an opportunity for adjutants of Militia to choose whether they would accept the retiring allowance offered them, and go or remain, subject to the retiring allowances that existed at present, and subject also to the new conditions to be imposed on them under the new Brigade Depôt system.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience resulting from the existence, in many cases, of numerous and undigested Acts relating to the same subjects, and to the expediency of making better provision for the consolidation from time to time of such Acts, and to move the following Resolutions:—

"(1) That it is expedient that when any new Act is passed amending or incorporating any former Acts (other than General Clauses Acts) the new Act and the former Acts should be printed for the House so soon as may he, in such form as to show what parts of the said Acts respectively are in force: (2.) That it is expedient that when any new Act is passed materially amending any former Acts relating wholly or partly to the same subject-matter, a Bill should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the next Session of Parliament, or so soon after as conveniently may be, for consolidating into one Act so much of the said several Acts respectively as relates to the same subject-matter: (3.) That it is expedient that when a Consolidation Bill is introduced into this House it should be referred to a Select Committee, who shall report how far the Bill differs in effect from the Acts or parts of Acts proposed to be consolidated, and that no amendment should be allowed to be offered upon any part of the Bill which, according to the report of the Select Committee, does not differ as aforesaid, except such amendments as may be consequential upon alterations made in other parts of the Bill."

, in seconding the Motion, said, he believed that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) asked the attention of the House to a subject which was well worthy of its consideration. The matter had been thoroughly thrashed out for the last 20 years; first by the Royal Commission on Statute Law Revision which was appointed in 1856, and then by a Select Committee which sat in 1868. The Commission and the Committee had both reported, Departmental memoranda had been issued, and the House had also been enlightened on this subject by the opinion of Parliamentary draftsmen and other distinguished officers who had given their time and thought to it. In an article in The Quarterly Review, attributed to the Parliamentary draftsman, it was truly said that—

"Parliament will not consent to the passing, without complete discussion and investigation, of Consolidating Bills containing new and disputable matter mixed up with old law."

remarked that on Friday last the House resolved to consider whether any means could be adopted to improve the manner and language of Acts of Parliament, and it would be his duty on Monday next to move the appointment of the Members of the Committee on that subject. The name of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) would be on that Committee. This was a subject which could not with advantage be discussed in detail in a full House—at any rate, not until it had undergone a greater amount of investigation than it had at present received, either by the Royal Commission of 1856 or the Select Committee of 1868. The Resolutions pointed to two things—one, the Amending Bill, and the other the Consolidation Bill. With regard to the last, the consolidation of Acts of Parliament had been under the serious consideration of the Government for some time past. A correspondence upon it had passed between the Lord Chancellor and the Committee for the revision of the Statutes, and within a short time Papers upon the subject would be placed upon the Table of the House. Under those circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Liverpool would feel content for the present with having called attention to the matter, and that as it would shortly come before the Committee, he would withdraw the Resolutions.

said, that after the explanation of the hon. and learned Attorney General he would withdraw his Motion.

, in rising to call attention to the evidence relating to Marine Insurance taken by the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships; and to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She will be pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of the Law, to report thereon, and to make recommendations with the view to establish the Law and practice of Insurance on the principle of indemnity for losses actually sustained,"

said, he wished to remind the hon. Member that he might call attention to the matter, but could not make a Motion, the House having already affirmed the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

said that he could at all events show that the facility for insuring at the full, and sometimes at an exaggerated, value was a primary cause of carelessness and recklessness. For that purpose, he would quote some remarks made by Mr. Harper, the Secretary of Lloyd's Salvage Association, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships. Mr. Harper pointed out that the care of a ship was divided into a hundred particulars—care in the selection of a master, care in the selection of a crew, care in securing that the ship should be in a proper state of repair before leaving port; and that watch fulness was likely to be relaxed when the shipowner knew that if his vessel were lost, he would recover all the money he had invested in the ship, with, in some cases, a large profit in addition. In order to show the extent to which, under the various decisions which had been given in our Courts of Law, Marine Insurance had been allowed to exceed that strict indemnity for loss which it was originally intended to secure, it would be more convenient that he should refer to a case that had actually occurred, and which illustrated the working of the law of Marine Insurance. The case was that of the Sir William Eyre, which was brought under the notice of the Royal Commission by Mr. Cowen. That vessel sailed in 1863 from Glasgow to New Zealand. She was intended to discharge her cargo at Otago, then to proceed in ballast to Calcutta, and there to take in cargo for which a freight amounting to £4,000 was to be paid. The ship was stranded before she reached Otago, but she was temporarily repaired at the cost of the underwriters on the out-ward freight, and proceeded in ballast to Calcutta, where a further survey was made, and it was discovered that the ship was not worth repairing. She was lost shortly afterwards in the Cyclone of October, 1864. The damage which the vessel was found at Calcutta to have sustain-ed having been caused before she reached Otago, the underwriters on the policy to Otago were held liable to pay £6,000. The shipowner had insured in the sum of £4,000 the chartered freight home-wards from Calcutta; and as the ship had become a constructive total loss, the House of Lords held that the underwriters were bound to pay the £4,000. Finally, the shipowner, before he knew that his vessel had been seriously injured, had insured her in the sum of £8,000 by a time policy for three months after her arrival at Calcutta, and, although the ship, when insured, was a total loss, he recovered his insurance. The total sum thus recovered amounted to £18,000 on a ship valued at only £8,000 by the owners themselves. No doubt, that was an extreme case; but other cases in which underwriters were called upon to pay the shipowners a sum considerably in excess of that which was necessary to provide an indemnity were of frequent occurrence. He would now refer briefly to the various descriptions of marine policies, and point out the anomalies which arose under them. The first was the valued policy, in which the value of a ship or goods was stated on the face of the policy. It might be reasonably supposed that where the value stated was considerably in excess of the real value of the ship or goods, the Courts would refuse to sanction such over-valuation; but that was not the doctrine held in our Courts of Law. Underwriters were not allowed to set aside the value, as stated in the valued policy, except upon plea and proof of fraud. When they turned from the commercial aspect of the question to those larger considerations which had reference to the safety of life at sea, he thought hon. Members would be disposed to agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Willes, in an able Memorandum which he had written upon the subject of Marine Insurance, in which he said—

"The system of valued policies, whatever its convenience, and it is great, does encourage fraudulently disposed people to put a high value on comparatively worthless vessels, and gives them an interest in the loss of their property."

"One of the most beneficial inventions of civilized society. No one will neglect his actual possessions, a good certain and present, with the hope of recovering in case of loss only an equivalent for the thing lost, and even, at the most, an equivalent. To this, let it he added, that the recovery cannot be obtained without care and expense, and that there must be a transient privation."

said, he was sure that every one would admit the great importance of the question before the House. It was a melancholy subject to reflect upon, for the Report of the recent Commission on Unseaworthy Ships showed that in three years 3,300 vessels, representing 1,000,000 tons of shipping, and involving a very large loss of life, had been wrecked. Even, however, as far as the mere destruction of property was concerned, it would he a great mistake to look upon this as essentially either an underwriter's or a shipowner's question. The underwriter covered himself by increase of premium, the ship-owner covered himself by raising freights, and the real loss fell upon the consumer, who had to pay more for the goods he required. That this immense loss was to a certain extent due to preventable causes was generally admitted, and Her Majesty's Government had brought in a Bill upon the subject, which he hoped might do good; but which, after all, did not go to the root of the question. He had not much confidence in Government inspection, as he feared that it would tend to become a form which would give little security to the public, and would tend to relieve the shipowners from responsibility, while inflicting on them unnecessary annoyance and vexatious interference. The only real mode of checking the evil was, in his opinion, to act upon the motives of the shipowner. The House knew what had been done by shipowning companies which took the sole care of their own vessels. One great company had, indeed, landed more passengers than they took on board. They also knew how seldom vessels from Australia with gold cargoes went to the bottom and took the gold with them. It was very far from his wish, however, to make any attack on shipowners. On the contrary, it was certainly their interest that the law should not only be clear and consistent, but such as to offer all possible encouragement to care and prudence. In the present state of the law, however, it was actually in some cases better for the shipowner, in a pecuniary point of view, that his ship should be lost. Surely, such a state of things was entirely contrary to public policy, and the true principles of insurance. Insurance ought to be a contract of indemnity. The present state of the law, however, in regard to it was most inconsistent. A person could not over-insure against fire, and it was contrary to law to insure a life in which the insurer had no pecuniary interest. The compensation awarded to sufferers by railway accidents had a tendency to render the companies more careful. Supposing, however, that a railway company could actually make a profit out of a bad accident, would the public stand such a state of the law, which would be most injurious to the public interest? Even this, however, was hardly a parallel case, but suppose the stationmaster and pointsmen could make a large profit out of a fatal accident, was it not obvious that this would add one more to the terrors of railway travelling, and would certainly not conduce to the safety of passengers? There seemed to be three points which specially required attention—namely over-insurance, insurance of gross freight, and the law as regarded seaworthiness on time policies—that it, when a ship is insured for, say, six months or a year. As regarded the first, Mr. Harper called the attention of the Commission to a case in which a shipowner had insured his vessel for £36,000. She was abandoned by her crew, but subsequently picked up and brought into port. It was found that it would take £16,000 to repair her thoroughly. On that, the shipowner claimed for a constructive total loss, swearing that the ship, though insured for £36,000, was really only worth £15,000. He proved, in fact, that this was the case, and the underwriters actually had to pay £36,000, on the express ground that the vessel was really only worth £15,000. In the case of "Barker v. Janson" a vessel was insured for £8,000, she being at that time, though unknown to the owners, a mere wreck and, in fact, valueless. Yet the Court held that, under the existing state of the law, the insurers were bound to pay. Mr. Stevenson, then Secretary to Lloyd's, truly pointed out that if a vessel worth £20,000 is insured for £30,000, the shipowner virtually insures for £20,000, and then bets £10,000 that she will go to the bottom. Again, in the case of freight, the over-insurance of freight was surely very objectionable. Last year, for instance, a vessel sailed from Quebec for Liverpool. The freight, as per charter party, amounted to £3,500, but was insured and valued for £6,000. The ship was lost in the River St. Lawrence. Now, if she had completed her voyage prosperously, the owner would have earned £3,500, less, at least, £1,000 for wages, &c, so that his net receipt would not have exceeded £2,500, while because the voyage was not successful, because the ship was wrecked, he got £6,000. Another markable anomaly in the present state of the law was, that while the question of seaworthiness could be raised in the case of a policy on goods, or on a ship if insured for a voyage, it could not be opened on an insurance for time. As regarded the sailors, the law only allowed them their wages up to the time a vessel was lost, and had always held that a seaman could not insure his wages, for it was obvious that if he could, you would weaken his motives for bringing the voyage to a successful termination. It was stated in evidence that all the mutual insurance clubs forbade over-insurance. Surely that was a very remarkable fact? The present state of the law was condemned by the highest authorities. Benecke, in his great work on Insurance, said—

"The consequences of over valuation are so dangerous that they deserve the attention not only of underwriters, but even of the Legislature."

"The very essence of the contract of Marine Insurance is that it is a contract of indemnity.… And its whole spirit is violated if the insurer can make the occurrence of such casualties a means of gain, for this would give him an interest in procuring sea losses, which would be opposed to every principle of commercial policy."

, who had given Notice of an Amendment to the Motion to leave out all the words after the word "law," and insert—

"And to consider and report whether Marine Insurance on ships and freights should be established on the principle of indemnity for loss, or whether the amount covered should not be limited, so that the shipowner should have in every case to bear some portion of the loss arising from any disaster to his vessel,"

"The system of Marine Insurance, while it protects the shipowners against losses which would otherwise he ruinous, tends to render them less careful in the management of their ships."

said, he was aware that they could not come to any decision that night on that most difficult and delicate subject, and the only result of the conversation would be some suggestions, which he hoped the Government would take into their careful consideration. He must begin by explaining that the gentleman to whom reference had been made (Mr. Cohen) was a Royal Commissioner, and not a witness, and the evidence which had been attributed to him, was elicited in answer to questions put by him to witnesses. The first suggestion he would offer to the House was the necessity of the greatest possible caution in dealing with or legislating upon this subject. The Royal Commissioners themselves had proceeded with very great caution. They felt that Insurance was the basis of the vast mercantile fabric which had been built upon it in this country, and there was danger in touching any of its great foundation stones. He therefore hoped the House would also show, not timidity, but reserve in forcing on the Government any specific propositions. The Commission felt that before that difficult question could be solved, a further investigation was absolutely necessary, and that it should be conducted by one or more Judges and by the ablest lawyers in London, assisted by a person practically conversant with Insurance. He was not there to say that what was the theory should not be the practice of Insurance—namely, that it should be an indemnity only against loss; but the question what was the value of a ship was more easily asked than answered. There were peculiar circumstances of time and locality attending the sending to sea of every ship known, only to the owner at the particular time, and which when taken fully into consideration, made a material difference, and put a special value on a ship. If they limited the insurance to three-fourths of the value, what was to prevent the owner from making a contract to protect him in respect of the margin uninsured? Many ships had undoubtedly been overvalued; but he had come to the conclusion that over-valuation was the small exception to the general rule. The reckless and improvident shipowner undoubtedly gained from over-valuation by the loss of the ship; but the prudent ship-owner gained in the lower premium he had to pay by under-valuation; and in his case the amount of premium was a consideration as to whether he should insure his vessel or not. He entirely agreed in the opinion expressed by the late Mr. Justice Willes, that any change in the law would be abortive, unless underwriters were seriously disposed to aid in giving it effect. If serious obstacles were imposed on Insurance, the business would inevitably be driven out of the country into the hands of foreigners. One of the greatest dangers to be apprehended was over-competition. Competition tended to relax surveys, and the rules of construction as to the strength of the vessels. Before he sat down, he should like to make one observation. He did not know whether "coming events cast their shadows before" in the announcement made by an hon. Member opposite of an intention on the part of the Government to appoint a Departmental Commission to inquire into this question, but he trusted the Government had not formed such a determination. As representing a mercantile community, he said such a Commission would not give satisfaction. The subject was full of difficulties which the greatest lawyers might hesitate to confront, and if a Departmental Commission were appointed, it would be known perfectly well that the persons forming it went into the inquiry with biased minds and a foregone conclusion. He wished the field to be perfectly clear, and the inquiry to be conducted by the ablest and most experienced men in the country, because they would have to perform a difficult and delicate task, on the execution of which would depend the attainment of a just and equitable solution, uninfluenced by sentimental considerations. He hoped the Government, if they had formed any such conclusion, would reconsider it, because a Departmental Commission could not carry on the inquiry satisfactorily to the country.

said, he was well aware of the great difficulties of the question, and that it was possible for underwriters and insurers to evade any legislation, unless it met with their approval; and unless Parliament gained the assent of the underwriters to legislation, it was liable to become waste legislation. The subject was so full of intricacies and delicacies that it was extremely difficult for an Act of Parliament to follow them through all their labyrinthine windings. In his evidence before the Commission, Mr. Harper spoke strongly on the question, for he said that if insurance were done away with, the business of the country would be at an end. That might be an exaggerated way of putting it; but, at all events, it showed the feelings which actuated him. The Motion asked the House to assert the principle of "indemnity" as the principle of the contract of insurance, and the hon. Mover of the Amendment suggested a limitation insurance to two-thirds of the value; but that only shifted the difficulty, for the same conditions applied to the two-thirds as to the full value. While he would urge the granting of a Commission, he would say it would not be wise to limit it or shackle it in any way by assuming any principle, for the Commission ought to go into the whole question fully determined to see how it bore on all points. Indemnity might be an excellent principle to arrive at; but, judging from the Report of the Royal Commission, they were not yet in a position to say that indemnity and nothing more nor less, should be the principle of our legislation. Several witnesses before the Royal Commissioners were emphatic on this question. Mr. Stephenson, late secretary to Lloyd's, was asked by Mr. Cohen whether he would allow overvaluation—whether, if a policy were filled up at five times the real value of the ship, he would allow it to hold good—and he said—

"No, certainly not; if £20,000, for instance, is the absolute settled value of the ship, and if she is insured for £30,000, what practically happens is that you make two contracts; one is to pay £20,000 if the ship is lost, and the other is a bet of £10,000 she will not get home."

"(1) That whether in a time policy or in a voyage policy there shall be an implied warranty on the part of the shipowners that the ship be and continue seaworthy; and (2) that in the case of any valued policy it shall be competent to the underwriter to plead that the sum claimed is in excess of the loss suffered, and that in open policies there shall be deducted from the value of freight claimed to be earned at the due termination of the voyage, such expenses as by reason of the loss of the ship have not been incurred."

said, he differed from the conclusions which had been arrived at by the noble Lord below him the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington). The Royal Commissioners had issued two Reports, the conclusions of which were timid and diffident—the first gave no opinion whatever on the subject, and the second merely reechoed the evidence of the officers of the Board of Trade. These officers were most able men, but the duties thrown upon the Department had increased so much that they could no longer be satisfactorily discharged. The question before the House was not, however, in reference to that Board. It was one of insurance. Several hon. Members had referred to the disasters which took place at sea, and he considered that they had in no degree exaggerated the evils arising from over-facilities in regard to marine insurance. There was no doubt that preventible disasters existed to a very considerable extent; and if the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had made some mistakes, and exhibited indiscretion in making charges he could not substantiate, yet the general scope of Ms allegations was perfectly true. He (Mr. Maclver) was no advocate for relieving shipowners of proper responsibility; but he thought that the responsibilities recommended by the Board of Trade and by the Royal Commissioners were a mere shadow that never had been, or could be, enforced. Under Clause 11 of the existing Act, it was already a misdemeanour intentionally to send unseaworthy ships to sea, and he (Mr. Maclver) asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions had taken place under the Act? The man who sent ships to sea intending to lose them, deserved to be hung; but, in truth, legislation failed because it aimed to remedy that which was not the disease. Ships were not, unless in the rarest instances, lost intentionally, or from anything that could constitute misdemeanour; but rather because it was nobody's interest in particular to make sure that they would go safely. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had told the House that there had been four or five prosecutions, but with what result? Substantially none, and why? Not merely for the reasons stated, but because such legislation must nearly always necessarily fail. Dead men told no tales, and when ships went to the bottom, nothing could be proved. The only case he knew in which any real result had come of such a prosecution was one instituted against a Belfast firm, which despatched a miserable little coaster called the Nimrod from Belfast to the Clyde. If the Nimrod had foundered, the firm would have got free; but the vessel reached a port where the Board of Trade managed to stop her under their survey clauses, and the owners were now in gaol. The law, however, could be evaded, if owners took good care not to know that their ships were unseaworthy; and so it was not of the slightest use. The best passenger vessels in the country sailed under a very stringent survey, and that survey, though not as good as it might be, was a great source of safety to travellers. The question before the House, as he had said, was one of insurance. If it could be arranged that disasters at sea should be made unprofitable, a large class of preventive losses would practically cease. He could tell the House that over insurance at Liverpool was exceedingly rare; indeed, so far as the great towns on the banks of the Mersey were concerned, it was utterly unknown, and underwriters there would look very coldly upon any owner who wanted deliberately to insure vessels for more than they were worth. There was certainly nothing in the nature of habitual or intentional over insurance amongst shipowners in his part of the country; but there might sometimes be reasonable difference of opinion in regard to the value of a vessel, and even, in his own experience, he had seen builders of equal reputation tendering to build at figures varying as much as £10,000 or £12,000 from each other for the same article. He referred to passenger steamers; but even in regard to sailing vessels the varying value was in a different way almost equally marked. Vessels which were worth £7 per ton some years ago had since become worth £17, and at present were valued at £14 per ton. It would be seen, therefore, that it was very difficult to fix any definite and exact proportion in regard to value. There was, however, no such difficulty in the case of cargo; and over insurance in regard to cargo happened to be the rule rather than the exception. The custom of trade, and especially in regard to bulk cargoes such as grain, coals, or iron, was for owners of cargo to insure a 10 per cent profit. Vessels so laden were those which most frequently went to the bottom. The merchant, broker, or character, were all insured, and their profits in each case were safe to them, provided only the vessel was lost: and it was not a question of only one, but frequently even of two profits, because if one cargo was lost there was another to replace it. The shipowner was, no doubt, also insured. Nobody meant the vessel to be lost; but, practically, it was not the interest of those persons to see that the vessel was not over-laden. It would certainly occur to them to do so, if the loss of the vessel meant a loss of money to them. Something might be done in the way of remedying the evil in the direction of controlling insurances; but he did not think the appointment of another Royal Commission was the right way to set about it. Whilst giving all credit to the recent Commission for their honesty of purpose, he thought that the results of their enquiry offered little encouragement in regard to the appointment of a second Royal Commission upon what was practically a branch of the same subject; but in justification of the eminent men who composed the late Royal Commission, he would point out that they had many formidable difficulties to contend with. How could they get at the truth? Was it reasonable that the owners or builders of unseaworthy vessels, or any other interested persons, would voluntarily come before the Commissioners and give them information, or that the men who were obliged to make their living by going to sea in such vessels would tell them what they knew? The Commissioners sat in London; they had no power, so far as he was aware, to compel the attendance of witnesses, and there was no cross-examination of witnesses before them by counsel. No doubt, many valuable witnesses, who were anxious to tell the truth, appeared before the Commissioners; but others, he believed, attended for no other purpose than to throw dust in their eyes. On the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill, he hoped to give his reasons why the House should heartily support the President of the Board of Trade in his honest endeavour to bring about a better state of things, which, however, could only be done by referring the Government measure to a Committee of earnest men possessing such technical knowledge as would enable them to make its clauses effectual for the purposes intended.

thought the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had somewhat wandered from the question before them, and had accused the Board of Trade of not prosecuting in cases in which, unfortunately, there was no evidence available to enable them to do so. He (Sir Charles Adderley) thought the question a very narrow one. It was not so much whether the House was satisfied with the existing state of the law, as of the mode in which reform should be made. He took a deep interest in the subject of Marine Insurance, because he believed it lay at the foundation of the amendment of the law which he had in hand at that moment, relating to the safety of our merchant ships, and the prevention of recklessness in our Mercantile Marine. The House could come, on the present occasion, to no issue upon the Motion; but he was very glad that it had been raised by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), who was in every way most qualified to bring the subject before the House, not merely by reason of his own practical acquaintance with it, or the weight he had in that House, but also because he was a Member of the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships which had lately reported. Every one would agree that the state of the law of Marine Insurance was not satisfactory, and that preparation should be made to deal with such an unsatisfactory state of the law. It could hardly be satisfactory that a law of any kind should be absolutely conflicting with its own avowed principle; and yet that was the case here, because the principle of Marine Insurance, as laid down by all recognized authorities, was the principle of indemnity for loss, and yet the decisions of the Judges had from time to time widely departed from that principle to meet the case of contracts voluntarily entered into. The practice of the law was such as to make it in many instances a gain to the shipowner to lose his ships; there were cases of actual intentional over insurance; and he maintained that over-insurance differed only in name from a wagering policy, which was distinctly illegal under the Act of George II. Not only might shipowners gain by the loss of their ships, but others might recover less than they ought to do under the Principle of indemnity for actual loss, for there were cases in which the underwriter was discharged from his liability owing to some latent defect for which the shipowner was not responsible, and of which he knew nothing. In every way, therefore, the law in practice contradicted its theory. Against a revision of the law it had been argued, in the first place, that it was dangerous to disturb the commercial usages of a country like this. But the marine laws of the country must, of necessity, be in perpetual change more or less to meet the many changing requirements of the times; and when he considered that what was under consideration was not a change, but simply a restoration of the principle of the law, he could not admit the objection to be valid. Another objection was, that the market value of a ship might not be the virtual value to its owner. It was perfectly true that its value might be greater to one man than to another, or greater at one time than at another, but no principle of law could meet such accidental circumstances. There must be some definite and fixed principle. There could be no insurance of fancy value, no insurance of adventitious advantages or of an indefinite or accidental proprietary stake. If there was to be a clear principle of insurance, there must be a definite test of value. It had been argued, further, that Parliament had nothing to do with the matter—that it was a question between the underwriters and the shipowners. But surely the fact that the public safety was concerned gave Parliament a right and obligation to interfere. As long as a total loss might be more lucrative than a partial loss, or than actual safety, it was not in human nature for the shipowner to take as much care in the selection of master and crew and in attending to the general condition of his ship as he would do if he felt that he incurred a risk by any casualty. In the interest of the public safety, therefore, Parliament had not only a right, but was under a duty to interfere. It was not to be expected, considering the keen competition that existed between insurance offices, that the underwriters would take it upon themselves to keep down policies to strict indemnity, and there was a diversity of interest among the shipowners also, which made it unlikely that the needed reform would come from them. The Royal Commission to whose Report so much reference had been made entered vary fully into this question of Marine Insurance. They regarded it as of great importance in connection with the subject they had in hand. They declared that it ought to be dealt with, and that it called for careful consideration. He deferred very much to that Report, and the only point on which he differed from the hon. Member for Hastings was as to the mode of dealing with the subject. Unless it was desired to postpone a settlement of the matter, there was no need for another Royal Commission. The evidence of the men best acquainted with the subject in this country had been obtained. It was no longer a question of facts, but a question of policy; and, that being the case, he thought the Government ought to take it up themselves. He did not mean to say that the Government was ready to propose a measure at once. Had he when introducing the Merchant Shipping Bill brought in a measure with it on Marine Insurance he should have been precipitate. Consultation, and important information from men eminent in the law and others, as well at home as from foreign countries, was essential to sound and durable legislation on the subject. He did not propose, however, to wait for an international measure, although it would be advantageous to get other maritime nations to agree with us. In passing, he would say that he did not fear legislating separately for this country as likely to drive men to foreign insurance—he did not think English ship owners were likely to show an excessive desire to insure abroad. The fear that they would was only a bugbear in the discussion, for Englishmen knew their advantages in insuring here, and how difficult it was in some cases to recover foreign insurances. What he wanted was, to ascertain the experience of other maritime countries as to the different systems prevailing among them; and with that object he had ventured, in conjunction with the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, to circulate a list of questions which would serve to elicit the desired information. These questions had been forwarded to the Governments of maritime countries some weeks ago, and he would place a copy of them forthwith on the Table of the House. He hoped the House would share the views he had expressed, and be of opinion that no second Commission was required; but that the Government should take the subject into their own hands, and collect such further information as they thought necessary to enable them to deal with it. In that way, he believed the views put forward by the hon. Member for Hastings would be more effectually met than by the adoption of any Resolution such as the one which had been placed upon the Paper.

said, the subject had been too often treated as a shipowners' question, whereas not one-tenth part of the insurances applied to ships. The great bulk of the insurance business was done on cargoes, and thus it materially affected the whole trade of the country. He must assert, in opposition to a remark of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that a very large proportion of the insurance of this country was at this moment done with foreign insurance companies. He was inclined to think that there ought to be some limitation placed upon the amount the shipowner should receive in the event of the loss of his ship, which would prevent him receiving more than the actual amount of damage he had sustained. Shipping property was very different from other kinds of property. Its market value was subject to fluctuations of various kinds. It was not bought for the purpose of sale; it resembled real property. A ship contracted for when the average cost of iron was £9 a-ton would increase in value when the average cost of iron was £ 16 or £ 17 a-ton, while the original cost of insurance would remain the same. The value of a ship at the time of her sale might greatly differ from what it was at the time of her construction; and care must, therefore, be taken that in regulating the insurance of vessels a premium was not offered upon cheap and bad ships to the discouragement of good and honestly built vessels. He trusted, therefore, that this subject would not be legislated upon in a hasty manner without taking the advice of practical and experienced men.

said, he wished to point out that a distinction ought to be drawn between insurance proper and underwriting. He should have no objection to the shipowner insuring his vessel for any amount he could procure, provided the person who took the responsibility retained it in all its integrity; but he did object to large policies being underwritten for small amounts, which did not give the parties sufficient interest to make the necessary preliminary inquiries. Such a course would not induce them to prosecute in the event of manifest fraud having been committed.

said, the port he had the honour to represent contained a large number of seamen and of boys who went to sea, and he felt persuaded that the House was moving in the wrong direction on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had spoken of the evil effects of having a large number of underwriters for small amounts. As a shipowner, he might inform the House that he had had no trouble whatever with the large companies, but he had had a great deal of trouble with the small underwriters. He appealed to the shipowners throughout the country to say whether this was not their experience, and whether they would not pay more to the large companies to avoid them. Take, as an illustration, a vessel built in 1872, when iron and wages were very moderate. The vessel would be insured for 12 months at 8 per cent. and underwritten at 4 per cent. that would be a sum of £4,000. By 1873, through the advance of wages and material, the vessel could not have been replaced for £20,000. If insured again at the expiration of 12 months at a cost of 8 per cent. it would amount to a sum of £5,600; but during the currency of that policy the price of labour and material went down again, and if lost, the underwriters would only have to pay the original sum for which the vessel was built. He was perfectly sure that any disinterested Commission or Committee which sat upon the question would come to the conclusion that the proper time to value a ship was not after the vessel had become a loss, and could not be seen by anybody, as in the case of an insurance of a man's life, they might just as well hold an inquest after he was dead to ascertain whether he had ever been worth that money to anybody. He hoped great care would be taken in regard to this matter. He did not shrink from the fullest inquiry, and if it was to be held, he hoped it would be with a full determination to do right and justice to everybody, and that nothing would be done to injure the great Mercantile Marine of this country.

said, if he understood the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) rightly, he had brought the matter forward not so much in regard to the value of the ship, as with a view to promote the safety of human life. That being the case, the House ought to view the question not so much as one between underwriter and owner, as one affecting a large portion, and perhaps the least cared for portion, of the community—namely, the seamen of the Mercantile Marine. The time for legislation had undoubtedly arrived, and the Government was the proper party to deal with it. He was glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken out in the manner he had done to-night. They had had the red rag of foreign competition put before them once more; but they had heard the same thing in respect to factories and agricultural fields, when Bills in relation to them were before the House of Commons, and the fears entertained with regard to it had proved groundless. At the present moment what was our position in the world as a Maritime Power? Our flag was upon every sea and in every bay, the silly cry of foreign competition was absurd in these circumstances.

, who had a Notice on the Paper to call attention to the case of the Irish State Prisoners, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable to continue the incarceration of persons who are now, and have been for many years, imprisoned for political offences,"

said, he must remind the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that he was entirely mistaken in his reading of the history of the first Duke of Marlborough. The hon. Member had stated that Churchill was rewarded for his treachery by having the Dukedom of Marlborough conferred upon him by the Prince of Orange. Now, as a matter of fact, the so-called treachery of Churchill was one of the most disputed historical questions, whereas the treachery of these soldiers was not disputed. The Dukedom was not conferred as the reward of treachery, nor was it conferred by King William, but by Queen Anne, as a reward for his services at the victory of Blenheim. He took that opportunity of advising the hon. Member for Mayo to inform himself of the commonest facts of history before again aspersing the character of heroes whom the country revered.

said, he felt assured that in the observations made by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), regarding the Duke of Marlborough, he in no way meant to detract from the honour and glory of his illustrious name, whose victories on many a field so justly endeared his memory to the English, people. He only, for the purposes of his argument, stated a fact historically true that the Duke of Marlborough, having been in the service of James II., within 24 hours was in the camp of William III. After the able and eloquent speech which they had just heard, he should not have risen were it not that he intended to present some considerations in favour of the Motion different from those they had heard from the hon. Member for Mayo. Apart from the principle of Fenianism, he had always thought that it would end in disaster, and that the many honest, unthinking, and enthusiastic men who joined in the movement would find so to their cost. But how different was the situation in 1864 from the present. Then America had just been terminating a fierce contest, and American politicians, anxious to catch the Irish vote, would be ready to grant the Irish anything. Now, were aid required from them—the pure Americans—they would snap their fingers at the Irish, conscious that within 10 years the German emigration would create a great preponderance in that country. Again, in 1864, in Ireland, he knew that among large numbers of the people an undefined idea of obtaining French assistance prevailed. The late France Prussian War had rudely dispelled that idea. In short, nobody could dream now of creating an insurrection in Ireland. Then, was not that the time for clemency? Not one word had been, or could be said against the moral character of these men. When hon. Gentlemen discussed the actions of men in former times, who were influenced by similar motives, much as they might differ with their principles, they were often objects of their admiration. Well, God knew, these men had suffered enough. Nine years' incarceration with common felons, the scum of English society! At another time it might be urged the Government could be said to be thought afraid; but that could not be imputed to them were they to exercise clemency. The hon. Member for Mayo had alluded to Marshal Serrano being admitted to the Government of Spain; but the case of the Hungarian Army which fought against the Kaiser at Comorn, was even stronger, for they were now received into the special favour of that very Emperor against whom they had rebelled. He believed there were but few in that House who did not feel for these unhappy political prisoners, and he hoped, if not on that occasion, in obedience to the hon. Member's Motion, that very shortly they would be liberated.

said, he would also ask the Government to accede to the Motion. He cordially concurred in the observations which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), and thought the time had come when bygones might fairly be considered bygones, and that great sore might be removed in accordance with the wishes of the people of Ireland. That step on the part of the Government would give the greatest satisfaction.

said, that he could not support the spirit of the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). Whilst he felt much sympathy on behalf of these unfortunate men, he felt more sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman opposite who had to answer this charge. There was an old saying—

"Oh! what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive,"

intimated that such an observation was not in accordance with the usages of the House.

said, he had not finished the sentence—they did not believe anything of the kind in the sense which their words conveyed to the House. There was no desire on the part of Parliament to oppress Ireland, which was more highly favoured in many respects than other parts of the Kingdom. He had some claim to speak on the subject; for years ago, he did as much as any Englishman could do amongst the Irish people in mitigating the evils of the Famine, and then it was he learnt the lesson that the people themselves felt the crushing influence of the tyranny of the priesthood. Therefore it was that he pleaded on behalf of the people for protection against their priesthood, against the tyranny under which individuals and the interests of their country were ground down. He trusted the Government would even at this late hour investigate the origin and nature of Fenianism, and trace it to its source; and if they did, they would find that that same malignant power which was imperilling and destroying, and had destroyed for generations, every true interest in Ireland, was still imperilling the interests and the safety of the land.

said, he gave every credit to the hon. Member for Mayo for his motives and feelings in introducing the subject which he had so very ably brought before the House. He could assure the hon. Member that there was not the slightest wish or desire on the part of the Government to throw either disgrace or dishonour upon any Irishman from one end of the country to the other. In considering this matter, however, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that there was one point connected with the Fenian conspiracy which had not been named by him—namely, that the Government of the day, when they thought they could safely do so, drew a broad line of distinction between the several classes of prisoners convicted during the Fenian outrages, and gave a large amnesty to those who were simply convicted of political offences. There was, however, a class of prisoners—and he regretted to say they were a large class—imprisoned for crimes and offences committed about that time which, in the opinion of the Government, were not political offences. The first two prisoners in the list were those connected, he was sorry to say, with what he had before, and what he must still call, the Manchester murder. Whatever might be the political feeling of those persons who attempted the rescue, and who really caused the death of the policeman, they were living at that time under the protection of the laws of this country, and they attacked the van with such violence that they deliberately killed the constable; by the law of England they were convicted of the crime of murder, and for that crime three of those persons, in his opinion, most justly suffered the punishment of death. It was in connection with that crime that two of the first persons on the list were still kept in prison. Of the next two persons on the list one took an office at Birmingham for the express purpose of buying arms and of providing with arms those who were contending at the time against the English Government, and the other man was a gunmaker, who was employed to make up the arms. They were living at Birmingham at the time. They were convicted for acting in contravention of the laws of the country, and not for committing political offences. The next class were the soldiers. Now, the hon. Member had said that everybody owed allegiance to the Crown. That was true, but a soldier entered upon a special duty; he owed a separate allegiance, and a breach of that separate allegiance by a soldier was a special danger to the country which must be avoided. It would be perfectly intolerable that a person who had taken the oath of allegiance and joined the British Army should when any danger pressed upon the country go over to the enemy and then be held irresponsible for that act. He (Mr. Cross) was bound before he sat down shortly to remind the House that this matter was brought before the House when the late Prime Minister was sitting on the Ministerial Bench in 1873, and the words which he then used seemed so entirely to apply to the present case that, with the permission of the House, he would read one extract from them—

"I am sorry to say, Sir, that there is a strong and most conclusive reason, one which over rides every other reason, for not extending this amnesty to the men referred to, and for leading us to conclude that these men are not political prisoners at all in the sense in which indulgence might be extended to prisoners of that character. It is a sound principle of modern administration, that when there has been a convulsion in a country and the contagion of strong' feelings has led men to join it—when it is put down by the arm of the law, the individuals who were parties to it should be dealt with very leniently. But, Sir, I know no reason why single individuals, who, without the apology of contagion, have endeavoured to bring about bloodshed, should be so treated."—[3 Hansard, ccxvii. 997–8.]

, in moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill, explained that its object was to place servants who were in the employ of the Home Government of India under the Superannuation Act of 1869. The Bill would apply to two classes of persons—first, the Auditors of the establishment, and, secondly, certain Members of the Council. The Act constituting the India Council provided that all who were appointed Members of that Council should be appointed for life, and it enabled them to retire after 10 years' service with a pension of £500 per annum. In 1869 the Duke of Argyll brought in a Bill by which their tenure of office was reduced to 10 years, but the Secretary of State had power to grant them, if he thought fit, a further term of office—namely, for five years, but under that measure they were not entitled to any pension. The present Secretary of State thought it was advisable, in order to get men of the highest calibre to serve, that power should be given him to grant them pensions if he thought it right to do so. The object of this Bill was to place them under the Superannuation Act of 1869. If the Secretary of State gave them pensions, he would be bound to lay before Parliament the Warrant or Minute by which he granted such pensions, and, therefore, if any abuse were committed in that respect, the House would have ample opportunity of discussing the matter.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was substantially the same measure as that which had been considered by a Select Committee, and that its provisions had received the sanction of the Association of municipal corporations. It proposed to give an increased time formating the needful provisions for a contested municipal election, and also to assimilate the law relating to municipal elections with respect to nominations with the law relating to Parliamentary Elections, and thus to prevent the nomination of bogus candidates. Besides these two main provisions, there were a number of smaller details, the substantial effect of which would be to assimilate the laws governing municipal and Parliamentary elections.

, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that whilst admitting that it was high time to put a stop to what were commonly known as bogus nominations, he considered that the Bill interfered much too largely with the present provisions of municipal elections. He should be quite willing to read the Bill a second time if it were understood that it would be open to him or any other hon. Member to object to going into Committee upon it.

hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would agree to that arrangement. So far as he could see there was no principle whatever in the Bill, partaking as it did rather of the character of an omnibus measure, and he objected to certain clauses.

said, he would agree to the suggestion.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and enable them to carry into effect a certain proposal for the rearrangement of the Dioceses of London, Winchester, and Rochester, and the erection of a new Bishopric of Saint Albans, said, that as the matter was of some public interest, he should state very shortly what the proposition was which the Government had to make upon the matter, and how they had been enabled to make it. Hon. Members were quite aware that the dioceses of London, Winchester, and Rochester had, in the opinion of all men who had thought about the matter, and who were competent to judge, largely outgrown the dimensions of such a diocese as one Bishop could practically do the duty of. But in all these matters, the first great difficulty, however much it might be wished to subdivide a diocese, was the question of funds. In considering the question, the Government had come to the conclusion, first of all, that it must not be held to be a necessity in the Church of England that every Bishop who might be created in future should have an income of £5,000 a-year; and, in the next place, they took it as a maxim, that in the formation of any new dioceses no money was to be taken from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Having stated that, he would now explain that the reason which had induced the Government to introduce this Bill was the very generous offer made by one of the Bishops concerned. The Bishop of Winchester had an extremely large diocese, extending up into a very crowded part of London; his episcopal residence was at Farnham, and up to the present moment he had also one of the largest houses in St. James's Square, Winchester House. It struck that Bishop that that House was hardly wanted by the Bishop of the diocese. It was an extremely large and valuable property, and the rent would no doubt be very great. The Bishop conscientiously felt that his residence in London was not so long as to require such a residence, and the rent, he thought, could be put to a much better purpose. He therefore came to the Government through him (Mr. Cross) with what he might call a most generous and noble offer, placing that house entirely at the disposal of the Government on only one condition—that whatever money could be obtained by its sale should be devoted to the foundation of the new See. He must tender his thanks publicly to the Bishop for that generous offer on behalf of the Church. When the matter came to be considered, several proposals were brought before them. Eventually, the Bishops of London, Rochester, and Winchester, and the Archbishop, together with some other person, were formed into a Committee, and a scheme was the result, which had been modified, but eventually assumed the form he was now about to state to the House. He would state the limits of the diocese of St. Albans, and the territorial rearrangement of Winchester, Rochester, and London consequent on its formation. The new See would take Essex and Hertford from the diocese of Rochester; Rochester, therefore, would have considerable relief, and would take from Winchester East and Mid Surrey, and from the Bishopric of London St. Mary, Newington. There would be ample work for St. Albans, and they would also by this means be able to provide for the spiritual wants of a great part of the south of London—he believed to the satisfaction of every one concerned. The next question was how the funds should be provided for the new Sec. Whatever might be the produce of the sale of Winchester House, it would be entirely devoted to the endowment of the See of St. Albans. He would now state the income of the three different Sees, as they would be on the first avoidance of the present Bishops. The arrangement after the avoidance of the Sees of Winchester and Rochester would be this—Winchester would have £6,500 instead of £7,000; Rochester would have £4,500 instead of £5,000, and the £500 to be taken from Winchester and the £500 from Rochester, would be added to the sum to be gained by the sale of Winchester House, to form an endowment for the See of St. Albans. That sum would be augmented most probably by certain funds not legally attainable at present, but which eventually would be appropriated to this purpose. They were of opinion that they could now present this Bill to the House, and request its sanction to the formation of this new See, with a complete scheme to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to sell Winchester House, and to devote the sum realized to the foundation of the See of St. Alban's. As soon as a sum was obtained which would produce £2,000 a-year, the Bishopric would be founded. The Bishop would be in possession of the See, and on the avoidance of Winchester and Rochester, he would have £500 from each added to his income. The probable result of the arrangements would be to secure for the new Bishopric an income of between £3,000 and £4,000. As to the other arrangements, of course everything must be done with the consent of the Bishops of London, Rochester, and Winchester, and the consent of all had already been amply obtained. In the most generous way all the Bishops had given up all their patronage in the parts of their dioceses, which they were consenting to give up. The Bishop of Rochester would during his lifetime continue to receive the same income as at present; but he had come forward to say he gave his consent to the sale in his lifetime of Danbury, and the devotion of the proceeds to the erection of two residences, one for the See of St. Albans, and the other for the See of Rochester. The Bill was simply a Bill for the rearrangement of the three dioceses of Winchester, Rochester, and London, and he presented it to the House without asking for a farthing of money from any one, only desiring that they would authorize the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to carry the scheme into effect. He presented it really as a gift offered to the Church by the Bishops concerned; and he tendered them thanks for the sincere and earnest liberality with which they had come forward to make the offer. It could not be made in any way with a view to their own advantage, and it was dictated solely by the wish to devote their means, as far as they could consistently with their duty, to the sole good of the Church. [Mr. WHITWELL: Will the new Bishop have a seat in Parliament?] With regard to that, the precedent of Manchester would be followed exactly. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.

said, there was no doubt that the Episcopate ought to increase with the growth of the population, and he therefore had great pleasure in thanking the Government for the introduction of the measure, for no one could have heard the statement that had been made without the greatest gratification. While desirous of expressing his sense of the great generosity which the Bishops of these dioceses had shown, he trusted it was not intended by this Bill to shut the door to a larger measure, whatever form it might take. For his own part, he could see no incompatability between a general measure and a specific one like the present. He must also state that at St. Albans there was a magnificent Cathedral, but a Bishop without a Chapter was like a military commander without a staff, and he therefore trusted that a Chapter would be provided for this Bishopric. He would also like to know what was going to be done with the parishes of Addington and Croydon?