asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Departmental Committee recommended by the Select Committee of Public Accounts, to report upon the expediency of extending the system of an independent audit to the accounts of our Army and Navy expenditure, was appointed; and, if so, when; and, whether that Committee has made any Report; and, if so, if he has any objection to lay said Report upon the Table?

Sir, the Committee to which the hon. Member for Hackney refers was appointed under the superintendence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and made some progress in its inquiries. Various circumstances, however, occurred to delay it, and no Report has yet been presented. I have had the subject under consideration, and I trust that I shall be able to suggest a satisfactory solution of the Question. For that purpose I propose at my earliest leisure—most probably at the end of the Session—to resume and complete the inquiry, and the Report which we shall present will, of course, be communicated to the Departments concerned and submitted to Parliament.

said, the accounts of the Water-ford Harbour Commissioners were not audited by the Controller and Auditor General, for the reason that they neither came within the class of accounts contemplated under the Act, nor had any application for such an audit been made. It was not the present intention of the Treasury to give any further directions on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to certain paragraphs in the Dublin daily papers relative to the arrest of some gentlemen by the police on a charge of injuring iron railings in Sackville Street (which the prisoners declared they were only "straightening ") at three o'clock in the morning, when coming from their club, the acting Police Inspector who received the charge at the police station directing them to be retained till morning; whether it is true that amongst the friends who during the night offered themselves as bail for the accused, was the Commissioner of Police, the superior officer of the Inspector in question; whether the newspapers are correct in stating that the Inspector had been "reduced" by the Commissioner in consequence of this incident; and, whether, having regard to the desirability of the officers and men of the police force discharging their duties in an impartial and independent manner, the Government will recommend the Chief Commissioner of Police in future to leave the bailing of night prisoners arrested by the police to some other friends of the accused?

, in reply, said, he took no notice of certain paragraphs referring to the matter in question, because he did not think they deserved attention. It was not true that the Chief Commissioner of Police offered himself as bail for the accused. There would have been no necessity for his doing so, because, both as Chief Commissioner and as a magistrate, he might have discharged the defendants from custody if he had thought fit to do so. The case went before a magistrate the following morning, and was dismissed, and the police-sergeant who was acting as night Inspector at the time these gentlemen were arrested was reduced to his former grade of sergeant, on account of the want of discretion which he displayed in detaining persons who were perfectly well known to him, and not allowing them to be released upon bail,

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House what is the present strength of the several Brigade Depots at Warley in Essex, in officers and men, particularly detailing the Staff, Commissioned and non-Commissioned; and, whether it is true there are three Paymasters stationed there, and if so, what are their functions?

Sir, the strength of the three Brigade Depôts at Warley is as follows:—Staff, 4 of the 44th, 3 of the 49th, 4 of the 50th—total, 11; officers, 11 of the 44th, 8 of the 49th, 9 of the 50th—total, 28; sergeants, 17 of the 44th, 16 of the 49th, 13 of the 50th—total, 46; drummers, 4 of the 44th, 4 of the 49th, 4 of the 50th—total, 12; rank and file, 149 of the 44th, 111 of the 49th, 94 of the 50th—total, 354; making a total of 185 of the 44th, 142 of the 49th, 124 of the 50th—grand total, 451. It is true that there are at present three Paymasters there. Their duties are to pay the men and Staff of the Brigade and of the two Depôts attached to each, and as the Brigade system is more and more developed, they will pay the Auxiliary Forces and Pensioners and all local services in each sub-district. Two of the three Brigade Depôts are only temporarily at Warley, having been moved there from Woolwich in consequence of the sickness at the latter station. The fact of there being three Paymasters at Warley arises from the state of transition of the Depot arrangements generally, and is unavoidable unless the War Department were to dismiss Paymasters merely because three Depôts happen to be temporarily together on account of unforeseen circumstances such as have happened in this case.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay on the Table of the House the Documents relating to the Grant of Money made to the Harbour of Ardglass, in order to explain the intentions of Government in respect to grants of public money to assist in improving Harbours in Scotland?

, in reply, said, there were no documents in the Board of Trade referring to the grant.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government will at once communicate to the House any information relative to the complaints, of whatever kind, made by the Government of India against the King of Burmah, together with a Copy of the instructions given to Sir Douglas Forsyth, Her Majesty's special Envoy to the Burmese Court?

Sir, there will be no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence relating to the differences which have from time to time arisen between the King of Burmah and the Indian Government. Sir Douglas Forsyth has been sent upon a special mission to Mandalay to facilitate an amicable settlement of their differences. No course, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would be more likely to frustrate that object than to make public the special instructions upon which Sir Douglas Forsyth has orders to act, and therefore, I am afraid I must decline to furnish the hon. Gentleman with them.

asked the Postmaster General, If he will make arrangements for the Royal Mail Steamers to the West Indies to call for letters at Plymouth on the outward voyage on the 3rd and 18th of the month, so as to increase the interval between the arrival and departure of the mails, and obviate the inconvenience occasioned not only to merchants in London, but also in Liverpool, Manchester, and the whole of Scotland, by the short time now allowed for replying to letters; and, whether he will make other arrangements, such as offering a premium for increased speed (as in the previous contract) likely to effect the same object?

, in reply, said, he could not adopt the suggestion, as he thought that whatever advantages might be likely to arise from such an arrangement, they would be more than counterbalanced by disadvantages. There was not any offer of premiums for increased speed in the contract.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that scarlet fever has broken out amongst the Soldiers of the Second Life Guards now stationed at Knightsbridge Barracks, and not only in the barracks but in the lodging-houses in the vicinity where many of the married men are located; and, whether, in view of this serious state of things, combined with the alleged unsanitary state of the barracks, he will consider the desirability of removing the barracks to a less densely populated locality?

Sir, on the 14th instant the medical authorities reported that since the 26th of May, the date of the first case, three cases of scarlatina had occurred among the men and three among the children living in barracks, and three among the children living outside the barracks. On the 17th instant one trooper was admitted into hospital with symptoms of a mild attack of scarlatina. All the cases have been of mild type, and nearly all are convalescent. In reporting the case on the 17th instant, the Surgeon Major 2nd Life Guards said—

"This is the only case I have had among the men since the 3rd instant, and I have no fresh cases to report among the women or children living in or out of barracks."

asked the Lord Advocate, in the absence of Mr. Attorney General, When (having regard to the near approach of the Circuits, and the consequent absence of many legal Members) the Committee on the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment Bill will be taken?

, in reply, said, he was unable to state on what day the Committee would be taken. The convenience of legal Gentlemen would be consulted with reference to the day when the Bill would be set down for going into Committee.

said, the answer not being specific, he would repeat his Question on Friday next.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement made by Dr. Garner in his annual report to the governors of the Clonmel District Lunatic Asylum:—

"Patients are often conveyed to the asylum under the provisions of the Act 30 and 31 Vic., c. 118, guarded by an armed escort, generally handcuffed, and as often as not bound hand and foot. In one case the unhappy patient, in addition to his bonds, arrived enveloped in a bag reaching up to his throat. In this plight he had travelled on a car nearly 40 miles. In another—that of a puerperal maniac—the restraining cords cut deeply into her wrists and ankles; the chances of recovery are thus, I need not say, heavily weighted. More than two-thirds of the admissions are under the authority of this statute, so that the necessity of a more decorous mode of conveyance is all the more pressing;"

, in reply, said, the police had already received orders to avoid all unnecessary suffering to patients conveyed to lunatic asylums in Ireland. He had made inquiries of the Inspector General of Constabulary, but did not find that any complaint had been made to him of the improper conduct of the police of Tipperary in this respect; nor did he find that any statement had been received by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums similar to that which, according to the hon. Member, was made by Dr. Garner in his annual report to the governors of the Clonmel District Lunatic Asylum. This statement was, however, of so serious a nature that he would cause inquiry to be made in regard to it, and he should be happy to communicate to the hon. Member the result of the investigation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has any communication to make to the House with reference to the recent death of a convict in Portland prison, and the declaration of the jury at the inquest accusing the assistant medical officer of unkind treatment of the deceased; and, if it is true that a military prisoner named O'Brien, now undergoing sentence of penal servitude for life at Chatham, has been in chains since Christmas, or at any time since his conviction, and, if so, for how long a period; and if it is also true that his mother went a few days since to see him, but, after having been brought to Chatham, was told her son had forfeited his right to a visit and had to come away without seeing him?

, in reply, said, that in consequence of the verdict of a coroner's jury he ordered a special inquiry to be instituted into the conduct of the assistant medical officer at Portland prison with reference to the recent death of a convict there. That inquiry was conducted by persons well qualified to form a correct judgment—namely, Dr. Guy, Dr. Bristowe, and Captain Stockwell. If the hon. Member would move for a Return of their report, he (Mr. Cross) should have no objection to place it on the Table of the House; but at present he would only refer to the concluding portion of it in which they stated that having taken all the facts of the case into consideration, they had no alternative but to acquit Dr. Bernard of the charge of want of skill, want of attention, and want of substantial kindness. At the same time, they said it appeared from the evidence that he had exhibited a certain abruptness and brusqueness of manner which would go far to explain the convict's dislike to him. It was true that a military prisoner named O'Brien, now undergoing sentence of penal servitude for life at Chatham, was put in chains in the middle of last year. On the 29th of June, 1874, he was discovered to have made a hole in the wall of his cell with a view to effecting his escape. For this offence he was, according to the rules of the prison, placed in light chains for six months. In consequence, also, of this misconduct he was placed in another class of prisoners and his right to see his friends was curtailed. It was for this reason, and for this reason alone, that when his mother went to see him she was told her son had forfeited his right to a visit, and she had to go away from Chatham without seeing him.

said, that on an early day he would put another Question on the same subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, in reference to questions on the same subject on July 10th of last year and February 18th of this year, Whether any decision has yet been arrived at by him in regard to the new rules affecting the leave of those uncovenanted civil servants in India whose cases have remained undecided since last year; and, if not, what has become of the list of uncovenanted civil servants in Bengal which accompanied a despatch from the Government of India, dated May 26th, 1874, and upon whose cases a decision was deferred until the receipt of further information from that Government, while the list for the province of Oudh was accepted by him, and the officers mentioned in it were admitted, two years ago, to the benefit of the new rules?

Sir, no decision has at present been arrived at by the Secretary of State regarding the application referred to in the Question of the hon. Member. The subject is one upon which it is very difficult for the Secretary of State to make any great change without having before him a statement of the definite opinion of the Government of India. No such statement has at present been received, but a despatch upon the subject will shortly be sent out.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would cause unnecessary expense to appoint two assessors in every case. Assessors were not always easily to be found; besides, it was useless to have two assessors, if the inquiry was such that it could be, and sometimes would be better, carried on with one. Two might always be appointed wherever necessary.

thought a tribunal of such importance ought to have the advantage of more than one assessor, if its decisions were to have any weight. He could not accept the ground of expense as an excuse for depriving officers of the Mercantile Marine of the consideration they were entitled to when their conduct was called in question. He hoped the hon. Member for Hull would press his Amendment, and with every desire to support the Government in passing the Bill, he would support the hon. Member if he stood by his Amendment.

observed, that there was nothing in the clause which would prevent there being two or three assessors, whilst it would ensure that there should be only one in cases in which there was no necessity for more.

said, it was much ado about nothing. Cases where a man's personal liberty was involved were decided by one magistrate; and in this particular instance the point generally was not whether the certificate ought to have been suspended, but whether it ought ever to have been granted. In his opinion, the clause as it stood was amply sufficient for all purposes.

thought that the clause as it stood would meet every purpose that was required; whilst the Amendment would render it necessary to have two assessors, even in small and trifling cases where they were not required.

said, that the officers of the Merchant Service attached very great importance to this Amendment; because upon the result of these inquiries might depend their character and their means of livelihood. They would, however, be satisfied if the person whose conduct was in question was allowed the option of demanding a second assessor. Two assessors were required in the comparatively trifling cases which were brought before County Courts. He did not wish to press his Amendment unduly on the House, but he did think that for the sake of a £10 note a second auditor ought not to be refused.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, sub-section 3, line 30, to leave out "of such skill and knowledge," and insert, "but who shall have no power to vote." The judgment should be that of the Court, the duty of the assessors being ended when the report was made.

pointed out that that was already the case, the assessors being merely the advisers and assistants of the Judge. He was not aware of any cases in which they did vote or could vote.

regarded it as quite clear that assessors had no power to vote.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 31, after "knowledge" to insert—

"Whose qualification shall be at least twenty years' service at sea, five years of that time in a sailing vessel, and ton years as master in either steam or sailing ships in the British Merchant Service; and in all cases of a steam vessel being the subject of inquiry, one of the assessors shall have been ten years master of a steamship."

said, the Amendment had arisen in an over-sensitive jealousy on the part of the Merchant Service towards the officers of the Royal Navy. And yet he did not suppose anyone would have the officers of the Royal Navy altogether excluded from acting as assessors in any case. What, then, was the use of the Amendment? Some authority must be appointed to name the assessors, and it was thought that the High Court of Admiralty would be the best, instead of as at present the Board of Trade, which was the prosecutor. Suppose a boiler had burst, and that an engineer was wanted as assessor, would it be well to restrict the choice in the manner proposed by the Amendment—that the engineer must have been 20 years at sea, five in a sailing vessel? As the clause now stood, the Court could elect the fittest assessors for each particular case.

did not agree with his right hon. Friend that this sensitiveness on the part of the Merchant Service had arisen from jealousy of the officers of the Navy. It arose rather from the circumstance that this was a matter on which their livelihood depended. He was of opinion, however, that if unnecessary restrictions on the choice of assessors were imposed, the object in view would be defeated, because competent men were not to be obtained every day.

supported the Amendment, as he doubted whether naval officers would always have that practical knowledge and intimate acquaintance with the coast where the accident to be inquired into might have occurred, that would qualify them to act as assessors.

also supported the Amendment. These Courts of Inquiry were often a scandal to justice. He did not believe there was any jealousy on the part of the Mercantile Marine with respect to officers of the Royal Navy; but he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was a fair and reasonable one, inasmuch as the object was to secure that there should be on the tribunal at least one assessor, who was practically acquainted with the working of the Mercantile Marine. There was a strong feeling against placing the decision of many important questions in the hands of a single stipendiary magistrate, who might have little or no experience, assisted by an assessor who, however able in other respects, knew nothing of the Mercantile Marine. He earnestly hoped the President of the Board of Trade would in some way modify the clause, so as to meet the very general feeling which prevailed on the subject.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to the acceptance of at least a portion of the Amendment, and not leave the decision of important questions affecting the Mercantile Marine to naval officers only. The Mercantile Marine had a right to some distinct representation in the Court. Something should be done to give them confidence in it. He suggested that at least one of the assessors should belong to the Merchant Navy. That would, he thought, go far to meet the justice of the case. Officers of the Royal Navy had not always a knowledge of the particular circumstances under which the casualties to be investigated sometimes arose.

could not understand why any limitations should be placed on the exercise of the functions of the Chief Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in appointing assessors. No such interference existed in the case of the Home Secretary, who had to appoint stipendiary magistrates almost every day. He hoped the clause would be agreed to as it stood in this respect.

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He did not know where the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) was born and bred that he should say that the way justice was administered in this country was scandalous. After all, suspension of a certificated officer was not so great a loss as was imagined, for very often a good ship was waiting for the person suspended when the time of suspension expired. He would rather have a clever young man with six than an old woman with 60 years' experience for surveyor or assessor.

said, what was wanted was a good counsellor to assist the Judge. He would suggest the omission of the terms of service from the Amendment, so as to allow the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, as far as practicable, to select from persons who had acquired a knowledge of and concerning the Mercantile Marine.

was in favour of one of the assessors being connected with the Mercantile Marine. He wished to point out that the clause made no provision for the appointment of an assessor with a knowledge of steam sailing in cases relating to steamers.

said, he was in favour of the appointment of a tribunal in which the Mercantile Marine would have confidence. He did not think that would be the case here. An officer of the Royal Navy might be as good a sailor as ever went to sea, but he had no practical knowledge of the particular circumstances he might be called upon to decide. He would, therefore, recommend his right hon. Friend to re-consider the subject, and amend the clause in such a way as to give some guarantee that assessors appointed should really have practical experience in the matters which would be submitted for their judgment and decision.

said, he objected to the Amendment that whereas the clause did not exclude engineer officers the Amendment did.

condemned the Amendment on the ground that as drawn it would defeat its own object. By it a really competent man might be excluded if his period of service did not come up to the prescribed limit.

observed, that the word "suspension" of certificate in the existing Acts had been altered in the clause to "cancelled," and therefore it was desirable as officers of the Merchant Service attributed great importance to the formation of the tribunal, to be careful how it was constituted. Officers of the Royal Navy would not be able in many cases to comprehend the difficulties masters of vessels might be placed in, and he distinctly objected to their sitting as assessors.

said, that the High Court of Admiralty would be instructed by the Board of Trade as to the class of men to be selected as assessors, according to the nature of the investigation. While he could not accept the Amendment as it stood, he would undertake that when the Report was brought up it should be so far amended as to give the High Court of Admiralty the power to appoint in all cases at least one assessor connected with the Mercantile Marine.

said, in that case he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 32, to leave out "High," and insert "Local." He did so with the object of giving the appointment of assessors to local Judges of the Admiralty. It would also secure immediate inquiries, carried on at a small cost, by persons whose local knowledge would be valuable.

thought it was desirable to carry out as far as possible the object of the Bill, which was to make the appointment of assessors as independent as possible, and especially to avoid appointments in localities with which the parties to cases for inquiry were connected.

expressed a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed, thinking that it would be almost impossible to get local men as assessors who had not some connection with the parties to the cases under investigation.

thought it would be much better that these appointments should rest with the Judges of the High Court of Admiralty, and then persons so appointed would be above suspicion.

moved an Amendment to the effect assessors in a local inquiry should not be chosen from among the assessors of the High Court of Admiralty, the object being to prevent assessors of the High Court having to sit there in cases which they had already heard.

moved, as an Amendment, that the list of assessors of the High Court should be advertised in The London Gazette. It was important that the panel selected by the Court of Admiralty to try these cases should be made public.

said, that would possibly preclude the appointment of the best man for a particular case if he were not in the advertized list.

pointed out that no provision was made for the appointment of assessors in a case in which proceedings were taken by persons independently of the Board of Trade.

said, that hitherto proceedings had been taken, and probably would continue to be taken, through the Board of Trade.

said, the clause clearly contemplated independent action.

said, he would look into the matter, and bring up words to make it clear.

said, it ought to be made clear that no proceedings could be taken except through the Board of Trade.

moved an Amendment to the effect that six assessors should be chosen by ballot from a list, and that each party should strike out the names of two, the remaining names to be the assessors to assist on the hearing of the complaint. He said that this was the system at present in force in the Court of passage, at Liverpool, which was possessed of Admiralty jurisdiction. His object was to get an impartial tribunal, and the striking out of the names was in the nature of a challenge, only more convenient.

opposed the Amendment.

moved, in page 6, line 29, after "made" to insert—

"Where the inquiry relates to a collision no assessor who shall aid the Court shall afterwards assist the High Court of Admiralty in hearing a case relating to the same."

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it referred to circumstances which did not arise, as all cases of collision would ordinarily go before the High Court of Admiralty, and not be heard by local Courts. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool that it would be well to bring his proposal forward when the Committee came to consider the 47th clause, which related to inquiries as to wrecks.

thought the Amendment was entirely beyond the scope of the Bill.

moved an Amendment giving the person charged power of requiring that he should be tried by a jury instead of by assessors. A similar power was given to the accused in the Labour Bills of the Home Secretary.

said, that there was a general willingness in the Mercantile Navy to accept, as the best tribunal, the stipendiary magistrate or County Court Judge, assisted by two assessors. One of the great objects in view was to prevent cases of this kind being investigated by those who had local interests, and upon whom local prejudices and influences might be brought to bear, as would be the case with a jury

thought the tribunal provided by the Bill was an excellent one, whereas a jury of shopkeepers, however estimable they might be, would be wholly unfitted to try questions of this kind.

could hardly think the hon. and learned Member for Salford was serious in making the present proposal.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 6, to insert the words "or suspended" after "cancelled." Under the existing law the Board of Trade had power to suspend an officer's certificate as well as to cancel it, and suspension was the course pursued in the great majority of cases. This Bill proposed to get rid of the power of suspending certificates, and only empowered the Court of Inquiry to cancel them. Such a provision would often prevent the Court of Inquiry from doing justice; and, moreover, it did not appear what would be the status of a man whose certificate had been cancelled, and who might apply for another certificate after a certain lapse of time.

opposed the Amendment, and observed that if an officer's certificate was suspended for incompetency, it was surely absurd that he should at the end of the period of inaction, when he would probably be more incompetent still, receive it back again. He proposed, however, to accept an Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond), giving power to the Board of Trade to qualify the order by directing the defendant to apply at the time specified to be examined for a certificate of the same class as that cancelled, or to direct a certificate of a lower grade to be substituted for the one so cancelled. In this way the interval would be spent in practice, and the lost certificate regained on proof of competency.

said, that the change proposed by the Bill was recommended by the legal advisers of the Board of Trade, in their evidence before the Royal Commission.

said, a distinction ought to be drawn in cases where the certificate was cancelled for incompetency and where it was cancelled for misconduct.

said, a captain who happened to get too much to drink when not on duty ought not to have his certificate cancelled; but if he got drunk on board his ship, or while on duty, not only ought his certificate to be cancelled, but he should not be able to get another.

said, he did not know why this power of suspension had been left out of the Bill.

said, drunkenness in command of a ship was incompetency, and habitual drunkenness would be distinct proof of a captain's unfitness to command a ship.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, sub-section 5, line 7, to leave out all after "fit," to end of sub-section, and insert—

"Or may, if it thinks fit, qualify such order by directing that the defendant may at the expiration of a certain time to be then and there specified, apply to be examined for a certificate of the same class as that so cancelled, or may direct a certificate of a lower grade to be there named to be substituted for that so cancelled."

, with reference to the proposed Amendment, said, he would move the omission of the words "to be examined," in justice to a large class who were entitled to certificates without examination.

moved to leave out sub-section 8 in order to insert—

"The Board of Trade may regrant a fresh certificate to any person whose certificate has been cancelled, provided such person undergoes a further examination to qualify him for the same, and that a period of not less than twelve months has elapsed since the cancelment of his certificate and the period of his undergoing such examination."

said, that the eighth sub-section must certainly stand. The clause was a mere repetition of the existing law.

said, it appeared to him that the sub-section was perfectly right, and without the power it contained much injustice might be done.

moved an Amendment to the effect that the conduct of the inquiry and the evidence given before the Court should be as nearly as possible subject to and according to the laws of evidence and procedure in civil cases. At present the assessors "broke in" and asked questions which they had no right to put, whereby the course of justice was impeded.

said, that the object which the hon. Member desired to secure had already been effected. The inquiry must be held in England before a stipendiary or metropolitan magistrate, and it would be in the nature of a civil proceeding.

said, that the Bill separated the inquiry into two parts—that which referred to the loss of the vessel, and next as to the conduct of the officer. What he feared was that the latter inquiry would be too strictly legal, and that the officer would not himself be allowed to give evidence. It was very desirable that the officers should submit themselves to examination.

also doubted whether a person charged with drunkenness or incompetence, for instance, could give evidence. It would be more in the nature of a criminal than a civil proceeding.

believed that these were all of the nature of civil proceedings, and that the officers concerned would in all cases have the right to be examined. If it were not so, the Bill would require to be amended. He would look into the matter, and see whether any Amendment was necessary.

said, he was satisfied with that assurance, and would withdraw the Amendment.

moved an Amendment to provide for the payment, by the Board of Trade, of the defendant's costs in case the charge made against him proved to be untrue.

reminded the hon. Member that the Courts had full power to make such an award. If the Board of Trade was the complainant that body would have to pay the costs.

moved, in page 7, at the end of sub-section 8, to add—

"9. No party other than the Board of Trade or the owner of any ship shall be at liberty to make any such complaint, unless he shall have previously given security to the satisfaction of the court to which such complaint is made to answer the costs thereof."

did not think that the Amendment was necessary, for, as he understood, though complaints might come from other parties, the Board of Trade would be the sole promoter of proceedings.

remarked that if it were laid down that the Board of Trade or the owner were the only parties at liberty to make complaints, a great many cases which might be known to sailors only would be excluded.

observed, that the Amendment did not say that no one, with certain exceptions, should make a complaint, but that no one should do so without giving security for costs. He did not see, if this Amendment should be accepted by his right hon. Friend, why the owner of a vessel should be exempted.

said, he had no desire to prevent any person from making a complaint if he had grounds for doing so, but he thought it would be better not to press the Amendment.

said, that in the case of a sailor the Summary Jurisdiction Act would apply, and he would be able to go before a magistrate. To make the Board of Trade the prosecutor, considerable amendment must be introduced into the clause.

said, that by the clause it was competent for any person to prefer a complaint without first applying to the Board of Trade.

said, the object of the Amendment was to meet cases where there would not be time to apply to the Board of Trade, and thereby prevent delay. He had no objection to leave out the words "owners of ships;" but he would persevere with it in its amended form. There was no doubt whatever that great hardship would be inflicted by leaving the clause as it stood. He himself knew a case where the captain of a ship was put to an expense of £30, caused by a vexatious prosecution brought by a sailor.

wished to have something definite inserted in the clause to show whether proceedings were to be confined to the Board of Trade or not.

said, it was seldom or ever that proceedings had been taken in the past, excepting by the Board of Trade, and it had, therefore, not been thought necessary to insert any provision against frivolous complaints by individuals.

was not satisfied with the experience of the past as a guarantee against anything that might take place in the future. fie thought it should be put beyond doubt whether the whole proceeding might not be taken by any private person or whether it could only be taken by the Board of Trade. There should be no ambiguity on that point.

said, as the clause now stood, no doubt, a private person might take proceedings; but, owing to the Amendment made by the hon. and learned Member for Sal-ford in the earlier part of the clause, this clause would require to be remodelled, which might be done on the Report.

, before parting with the clause, wished to have some distinct understanding as to the nature of the alteration to be made—whether it would throw open the complaint to all the world or confine it to the Board of Trade. For his own part, he preferred the latter.

reminded hon. Members that the question had already been discussed in a fuller Committee than there was at present—namely, on the proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond) to confine complaints to the Board of Trade. The Committee was of opinion that complaints ought not to be confined to the Board of Trade, and the Amendment was rejected. He did not know that much alteration of the clause would be required. It had been drawn with the view that complaint might be made to anybody. He did not suppose these cases would frequently happen. It would be hard to an owner not to have his costs, and it would be equally hard on the sailor to deprive him of his remedy because he could not give costs.

hoped the President of the Board of Trade would maintain the clause, and accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford.

said, it would be by no means unlikely, under the clause, for complaints to be made out of spite, arising from quarrels between masters and men.

said, that seeing the feeling of hon. Members generally, he would accept the Amendment, with the omission of the words "or the owner of any ship."

said, there were many reasons why it should not be permitted for seamen to call in question the competency of the master, and he was not disposed to admit the principle without further discussion and consideration.

feared that the Committee was getting into a state of confusion, because while it had been decided that private persons might make complaints, there was no machinery provided for enabling them to do so. After a sailor had given security for costs, he could not give notice with respect to the appointment of assessors, that being in the hands of the Board of Trade.

thought that the wording of the 3rd instruction might easily be adapted to the Amendment, by substituting for "the Board of Trade" the words "the person by whose application the complaint is made."

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, fine 23, after "discipline "to insert—

"Any master or other person in command of a British ship, who, by neglect of the. load in taking-soundings shall cause the loss of the vessel then under his command and he convicted of the same, shall forfeit his certificate, and be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, if human life be sacrificed by the said neglect shall be deemed guilty of felony."

said, there was no necessity whatever for the proposed Amendment, because the Bill already provided for neglect, including all such cases. By specifying particular kinds of neglect exclusion of others might be inferred.

then moved the omission of the clause altogether, because it was so vaguely worded. It provided no machinery by which the charges could be made or the Act put in action.

explained that nothing about a prosecutor was said in the clause, because, pursuant to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, the Bill constituted a public prosecutor in the shape of the Board of Trade, who in all cases would be charged with the duty of putting the enactment in force.

moved, in page 8, line 10, to leave out "or without." He apprehended that one of the principal objects of the Bill was to save life at sea, and they must all admit that one of the most active causes of loss of life at sea was the want of discipline on board merchant vessels. Mutiny frequently involved the loss of the ship and also loss of life, and under this clause a person guilty of mutiny was to be sentenced to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, "with or without hard labour." To most men who misconducted themselves on board ship imprisonment without hard labour was not imprisonment at all, because they preferred idleness in prison to hard labour at sea, and he therefore thought that some punishment of a penal nature was necessary.

objected strenuously to the proposed Amendment, thinking that a discretion ought to be left with the presiding Judge. At the same time, he considered the system of hard labour altogether wrong. ["Oh, oh!"] Perhaps those who cried "Oh" knew nothing about the matter. Hard labour, as prescribed by the Prisons Act of 1865, was entirely a mistake, the true principle being industrial labour. At Devonport Gaol they had given up hard labour, and the result was, that the prisoners were put to industrial labour, and taught trades, and went out into the world very different men from what they were when first imprisoned. A whole wing had been built to that gaol entirely by industrial labour, and with a great saving to the ratepayers. Under the present system anyone sentenced to hard labour was for the first three months placed to what was called "first-class hard labour," which was the greatest absurdity under the sun—he had to wind up a winch or go on the treadmill, or carry shot from one end of the prison yard to the other and then bring it back again. The whole system was fallacious.

agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the Judge ought to have some discretion; but with regard to Devonport Gaol, the fact was that the discipline at that gaol had been found so little deterrent that the Admiralty had been obliged to cease sending prisoners there under the Navy Discipline Act, and had sent them to Bodmin Gaol instead, where the discipline was more strict.

said, the principle on which the prisoners were treated was identically the same in both gaols.

thought the Court ought to have the discretion of awarding or not awarding hard labour, as proposed by the clause.

said, there might be cases where the extenuating circumstances were such that it was desirable not to inflict hard labour.

pointed out that no change was made in the existing law by the clause, and deprecated the Committee sliding into a debate on prison discipline.

had no objection to substitute the words "industrial labour" for "hard labour," in the clause; but, in its present shape, the punishment proposed could not act as deterrents. He would not trouble the Committee to divide.

said, that it was understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to lessen the penalties to which seamen would be subject, but instead of that, the Bill, and this clause particularly, inflicted more penalties and more punishments on seamen and apprentices. As a protest against this sort of legislation he would move the omission of the clause altogether. The system of increased punishment had rendered our Mercantile Marine more and more demoralized, and he thought the time had come to try some other policy than that of creating new forms of punishment with a view of improving the class for whom they were legislating.

asked why the penalties imposed by the clause should apply only to seamen and not to officers. This clause was unnecessary, because if carelessness or drunkenness endangered life or property they were already punishable with other offences under Clause 13; whilst if they did not they could hardly be called criminal offences, liable to be punished by imprisonment. He therefore thought the sub-sections of the clause relating to those matters should be struck out.

declined to accede to the proposal, because the crimes punishable by the clause were different from those in the clause already passed. That was why the penalties imposed by the two clauses differed in nature and application. In the one case the punishment was for insubordination on the part of seamen, and in the other for incompetency of officers to command. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) that the punishments should be made milder than they were. The Royal Commissioners in their Report especially pointed out that the discipline was becoming rather too lax for the safety of the service, and did not give sufficient control to masters over their crews as regarded danger to life and limb.

supported the Amendment for the omission of the clause.

said, if the clause was retained, it would have to be amended in its phraseology. For the word "continued "there would have to be substituted renewed or fresh acts of insubordination.

said, that the 13th clause exhausted all offences contemplated by the Bill, and yet the clause under notice provided that a sailor guilty of simple disobedience of orders, which might not lead to any harm, should be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be punishable with hard labour. He submitted that such an offence ought not to be punished with hard labour.

said, the Secretary of State had stated that the remedy for breach of contract should be by civil process, and also for the offence of disobedience; but, as regarded sailors, the right hon. Gentleman guarded himself, and said that the class of offences contemplated by the clause, considering the character of the employment of the sailor and the grave consequences that might result from disobedience short of loss of life or destruction of the ship, was a very serious one, and such as ought not to be allowed to go unpunished.

said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member that sailors, of all other classes, should be punished with hard labour for carelessness. Clause 13 provided a remedy for all such offences.

said, the offence of gross neglect and carelessness in a sailor was most serious, inasmuch as the destruction of life and ship might result from it.

would not go the length that the hon. and learned Solicitor General went in saying that a sailor should be punished with hard labour for carelessness. What he would suggest was that four weeks' imprisonment, without hard labour, would be sufficient punishment for the minor offence, as there was a great difference between them.

considered that it would be a great mistake to strike out the 17th clause, and that it was necessary to retain it in reference to the safety of life and property at sea.

contended that there were many cases of insubordination which might be contrary to the discipline of the ship, and which might be attended with considerable danger.

was of opinion that every punishment inflicted upon seamen would have the effect of preventing the country from getting good men to join the service. He would withdraw the Motion for the omission of the clause.

proposed an Amendment providing that when a ship was in the vicinity of rocks or shoals it be the duty of the master to keep the lead constantly going.

, in opposing the Amendment, said, the duty of keeping the lead going was only one among many duties, and it was unnecessary and undesirable to specify this particular duty. If duties were to be specified, it would be essential to have a complete list, or those not specified would be neglected with impunity.

said, that the loss both of the Schiller and the Cadiz was clearly attributable to neglect to keep the lead going. This neglect was, in fact, the cause of innumerable shipwrecks, and he should feel it his duty to press the Amendment to a division.

protested against the Amendment being disposed of in so summary a manner by the President of the Board of Trade. In almost all cases of shipwreck in thick weather the loss was caused by neglect to keep the lead going. They were all aware of this, and he should vote for the Amendment.

moved to reduce the period of imprisonment for desertion from six to four weeks, thinking that the penalty under this clause ought not to be more severe than it was under Clause 17.

, looking at the aggravated nature of the offence, could not accede to the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Grieve) had given Notice of an Amendment to make the punishment three months instead of six weeks.

moved an Amendment with the object of giving the magistrates a discretionary power to mitigate the punishment for failure on the part of a seaman to join his ship by imposing a fine of £5 instead of imprisonment with or without hard labour. It was desirable that discretionary power should be given in cases where men failed to join their ships for simple carelessness or because they got drunk on the proceeds of bank notes.

pointed out that the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view was practically met by subsequent words giving the magistrates the discretion in such cases to mulct the offender to the extent of 24 days' pay.

moved in page 10, line 10, to insert—

"Any offence committed by any seaman or apprentice under sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, shall be entered in the log-book by the master within 48 hours after such offence may have been committed."

thought there was no necessity for fixing so rigid a limit.

was of opinion that they got on better before the official log was invented.

did not think there was any occasion for the insertion of the proposed words. The present provision was quite sufficient.

moved its rejection. The clause was too vague and general in its character, and it would act unduly and oppressively on the seamen. These men fell into the hands of crimps, were kept in a state of drunkenness by the system of advance notes, and were then subjected to penal punishment for breach of contract. Contract had been pronounced, both by the Government and a Royal Commission, to be purely civil in its character, and he protested against any proposition which would render the breach of it criminal.

, in supporting the Motion, said, that there was every desire on the part of the magistrates to do justice to all concerned in the cases brought before them, but he thought that this clause would perpetuate the grievance which already existed—namely, that our seamen should be treated differently from any other class of those who laboured for the wealth of this country, and therefore, if the hon. Member for Stafford went to a division, he should cordially support him.

moved an Amendment with the object of doing away with summary arrest within Her Majesty's dominions, by requiring the warrant of a magistrate for the arrest of any deserter from his ship to be brought before him, when he might order his removal to the ship from which he had deserted or absented himself, but permitting his summary arrest in foreign States so far as the law of the place permitted.

admitted that the power proposed to be re-enacted by the clause would be a violation of the ordinary constitutional law, though it had been statute law for 20 years, but pointed out that the circumstances in which seamen were placed were of such a peculiar character as to justify a departure from the ordinary rule of law in cases of their desertion. The ship might be upon the point of sailing, and there might not be any magistrate at hand to whom to apply on the matter. Desertion might take place on various opportunities during a voyage. A seaman's desertion endangered the lives of the rest of the crew. It could not be dealt with as a common breach of contract, nor as amenable to common police arrangements.

supported the Amendment, as there was not any place into which a ship could put where it would not be easy to find a magistrate to grant a warrant. Difficulty might be experienced in some parts of Ireland in arresting, without a warrant, sailors who had deserted, in consequence of the view the people might take of such a proceeding.

urged the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Member for the City of Oxford to limit the operation of his Amendment to the United Kingdom, as the circumstances of the colonies were peculiar.

said, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

ruled that the Amendment, having been put, could not be varied.

moved the omission from the clause of the words "without warrant" with reference to the arrest of sailors guilty of desertion. His object was to prevent such a proceeding taking place within the United Kingdom.

moved, in page 16, line 24, after the word "dominions," to insert the words "except in a British possession, in which the law may otherwise provide." Some such proviso was necessary now that we had given constitutional government to our colonies. Under the Act, a sailor who had deserted from a British ship might be followed 50 miles inland, arrested without a warrant, and brought before a magistrate. That law conflicted with the law in some of the colonies, and in a recent case a sailor thus arrested without a warrant and brought before a magistrate was discharged, because, according to the law of the colony, he had been arrested illegally. Such a capture might be resisted and blood might be shed, in which event the most injurious consequences might ensue.

hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.

said, he saw no reason why this law, which was applicable to sailors deserting in the United Kingdom, should not also apply to similar offenders in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. There could be no doubt that the Act of the Imperial Legislature would override any law passed by the local Legislature of any colony with reference to this subject. Although this power of following and arresting a seaman was exceptional, it was necessary to enable trade and commerce to be carried on. While the captain was going in search of a magistrate, the sailor who had deserted might slip away and elude his grasp. If a man were arrested under this Bill, and could show that the arrest was unjustifiable, he could recover £20 from the person causing his arrest; while if a man were arrested under the warrant of a magistrate he would have no remedy.

said, he had heard with amazement the doctrine that an Imperial Act would override the Acts of a Colonial Legislature. He differed from his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who, he thought, had laid down the proposition he had in terms too large. The Common Law of England would no doubt prevail in any colony where there was no existing law, and so would a statute prevail in certain cases. But where representative Government had been granted to a colony, an Imperial Act could not override the law of that colony, so long as that constitution existed. He ventured to say that if any attempt to carry out this clause were made in a colony having a Legislature of its own, where arrest without warrant was illegal, any person who arrested a man without a warrant would be liable to an action for false imprisonment.

said, he was unable to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, because it had always been held that on certain Imperial questions the Imperial Parliament could legislate for a colony. At the same time, as a matter of policy, he put it to the President of the Board of Trade, whether it was desirable to enforce that change of the law on colonies which had responsible Governments, such as Canada; Australia, and the Cape? It was desirable, as far as possible, to limit Imperial laws to the United Kingdom.

hoped the Government would accept the advice of the last speaker and not endorse the high Prerogative doctrine of the Solicitor General. It was exactly by such a dangerous assertion of power on the part of the Imperial Legislature that they lost their great colonies in America, and he thought the Crown Lawyers of the present day would have profited by that experience of the past. It was both unnecessary and impolitic to raise those questions in regard to colonies having representative institutions.

said, that they had already decided that that power of arrest without warrant was necessary in some cases, and, if it were abolished, he did not hesitate to say there would be no safety in the Mercantile Marine service. It had existed for 25 years without question and without abuse. The only point now in dispute was that raised by the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Pontefract, who wished to extend the words of limitation "so far as the law of the place so permits," so as to make them apply to a colony. He believed the law followed the ship, and that that would enable the shipowner to make an arrest in any part of the world under this Act. At the same time, he was willing to accept the words of the right hon. Gentleman, "except in a British possession in which the law may otherwise provide."

said, that as the next Amendment was of considerable importance he would propose that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

expressed a hope that the Committee would proceed with the Bill until 1 o'clock. If they did not, he should have to ask the House to sit at 1 o'clock to-morrow.

moved, in page 10, line 41, to insert—

"Provided always, That no master or owner of any ship, nor any other person with respect to any ship, shall be entitled or allowed to proceed against any seaman or apprentice under the provisions of this section or of the preceding section, unless such ship shall at some time previously have been surveyed by a Board of Trade surveyor, or by a surveyor employed by the committee of management at Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping, by the Liverpool Underwriters' Registry of Foreign Vessels, or by some other British or foreign corporation or association for the time being approved by the Board of Trade, and shall have received a certificate of classification good for a certain period, which period shall, at the time of such proceedings, be unexpired."

thought the question could be more conveniently discussed when an Amendment of which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had given Notice came on for consideration.

recommended the withdrawal of the Amendment, in order that the subject might be fully discussed at a later stage of the Bill.

proposed the omission of the clause, and said, there was no first-class vessel that was not either classed or surveyed. He believed that under this clause a great deal of hardship would be inflicted on the true British sailor.

was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that all first-class vessels were classed and surveyed. To his knowledge numerous first-class ships were neither classed nor surveyed.

asked the hon. Member to name a single first-class vessel that was not either classed or surveyed.

said, this was a most important clause, one affecting the lives and welfare of sailors, and he should certainly go into the Lobby and vote in favour of the hon. Member's Motion to omit the clause.

remarked upon the importance of the Amendment, and should also support the hon. Member who moved its omission. It was a remarkable fact that although that clause was proposed for the sake of shipowners, no shipowner in that House had raised his voice in favour of it. The large and good shipowners did not care about the clause, because they were always sure to get good men to man their ships; but it was the bad shipowners that the sailors did not like to enter into contract with, and they were constantly punished for refusing to go to sea in their ships.

moved that the Chairman report Progress, observing that it wanted only 20 minutes to 1, and that the next clause related to the un sea worthiness of ships.

I will not oppose the Motion, because I wish to show the House that I am sensible of the courtesy which they have always extended to me.

, in moving that the House go into Committee upon the Bill, promised that none of the clauses which were opposed should be taken.

thought that the measure ought not to be proceeded with at that hour of the morning.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, all that he asked was that the House would forward the Bill a stage, and the questions to be debated might be considered hereafter.

said, he should move to report Progress. A Bill of this importance should not be considered at so late an hour (twenty minutes past 1 o'clock).

moved that the Chairman should leave the Chair.

, moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

, referring to the opposition to the previous Bill, thought no more business should be taken. He should therefore move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

did not see why Irish Members should interfere with the progress of Scotch business.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis) was not an Irishman, though he had done an Irish constituency the honour of representing it. Generally the Irish Members were only anxious to assist Scotch Members in managing Scotch business according to Scotch ideas.

said, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who had important Amendments on the Paper, had gone away. He wished to know if the Lord Advocate had made any arrangement with him.

said, he had not. He thought the hon. Member should have been in his place.