said, he desired to ask a Question of the Speaker with reference to certain proceedings in that House when an important Motion which was put down on the Paper for the Evening Sitting, in reference to the Government taking Tuesdays and Wednesdays for the remainder of the Session, was allowed to be put and carried at the Morning Sitting. As he desired to made a short statement on the subject, he would conclude by moving the adjournment of the House. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had for some time an important Motion on the Paper for the 3rd of August, calling attention to the unsatisfactory mode in which Irish Business had been dealt with this Session, and which, doubtless, would have led to an important as well as interesting debate. The Prime Minister some time ago, however, announced his intention to propose that Tuesdays and Wednesdays, including Tuesday, the 3rd August, be devoted to Government Business in the first place. On becoming acquainted with it, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick announced that he would give a decided opposition to the proposal, but he was obliged to leave London for a day or two on business. Yesterday the Secretary to the Treasury moved the Resolution at the Morning Sitting, in the absence of several hon. Members, who had no Notice that it would then be brought on, but, on the contrary, were left under the impression by a Notice on the Paper that it would be made at the Evening Sitting. Now, the Question he wished to ask was, Whether it was for the future to be understood that Motions or Orders put down for an Evening Sitting could be taken at a Morning Sitting, or interchangeably, and without previous Notice—whether the privilege claimed by Government was open to private Members? He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

With reference to the Question which the hon. Member for Galway has put to me on the subject of the Motion made yesterday with regard to the conduct of Business, I have to state that when that Motion was made I said, as will be in the recollection of the House, that to take the Motion in that manner, out of its turn, was most unusual; but that, as it related to the Business of the House, it could, with the general assent of the House, be taken out of its turn, at the Morning Sitting. Having stated that that could not be done without the general assent of the House, I then put the Question—"Is it the pleasure of the House that the Question be now put?" There was no dissentient voice to that appeal, and the Question was therefore put from the Chair; but if there had been a single dissentient voice, I should have submitted to the House that such a Question could not be put. In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that it would be quite irregular to take a Motion out of its turn, except with the general assent of the House, and on a question relating solely to the conduct of the Business of the House.

Do I understand you to mean, Sir, by "general assent" universal assent?

Yes, the universal assent of the House; if there had been a single "No" in answer to my appeal as to the pleasure of the House, it would have been my duty to decline to put the Question.

considered it was clear that a Motion should not be taken out of its turn. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and that Tuesday's proceeding would not be taken as a precedent.

said, that the rule just laid down by the Speaker was the same as he understood was stated yesterday. He thought that hon. Members had yesterday agreed to waive their right, for though the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) spoke against it, when the Question was put there was no negative. He trusted what had occurred would induce the Government to be more regular in their proceedings. There were many Members like himself who considered it their duty to remain night after night until the rising of the House, in order to keep a check on this tendency to irregularity on the part of the Government. He believed that in the present case a hundred Members had stayed away in the morning under the impression that the Motion of the Secretary to the Treasury would be preferred at the Evening Sitting.

said, that after eliciting such a satisfactory answer from the Speaker, he would be happy to withdraw his Motion. Though hon. Members who were present did not object, it was absent Members who were interested.

moved, in page 12, line 12, to leave out at the end of the clause the following words:—"But nothing in this section shall extend to a case where the tenant is adjudged bankrupt." It would be unfair to the creditors generally if these words were retained.

said, the effect of the Amendment would be nothing more or less than to abrogate virtually, if not actually, the law of distraint. ["No, no!"]

denied that it would have that effect, as landlords would be entitled to be paid in priority in cases of bankruptcy. Such an interpretation was to him quite a new reading of the law of distress

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that as the Bill was, as a general rule, making provision for extending the time during which notice to quit was to be given, it was desirable to retain the exception in question. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare was quite correct in stating that the landlord had a preferential claim in cases of bankruptcy to that of the trade creditor; but the clause, which was not in the Bill as originally introduced, had been adopted by the House of Lords after full and careful consideration.

said, that the question of the length of notice to quit, which he thought had been very hastily treated on the previous night, or rather early that morning, involved the interests of the English tenants of the middle-sized and far smaller farms in a direction and to an extent that the Committee had scarcely appreciated. The whole tenour of the Bill was to create a new right in the tenant—a right to recover compensation for outlay in the improvement of the farm, which had not been recouped by increased produce. That tended to increase the liability of the landlord; the presumption upon which the right was to be founded was, that the capital of the landlord was to be used hereafter as the security for the improvements made by the tenant. To invalidate or to impair the power of recovery of rent in arrear by the landlord would be manifestly inconsistent with the expectation that he would consent to furnish, by becoming security for the tenant, capital that he had not hitherto provided for the cultivation of the farm. If the period of notice to quit were extended from six months to a year, which in many cases would be practically to nearly two years, it was manifest that unless additional provisions of law were adopted, the extension of the period of notice must invalidate, to a great extent, the power of the landlord promptly to recover rent in arrear; in fact, whether as to rent or as to compensation for improvements, it must disincline the landlord to give credit to his tenant. Now, it was in the ease of the middle-sized and smaller holdings that the capital of the landlord was most largely employed in the cultivation of the farm, when held from year to year; it was in these cases that the partnership of the landlord with the tenant was the most direct. Long leases, such as prevailed in Scotland, interrupted this partnership. Tenure by lease required a tenant of larger capital, and the tendency of leases was to enlarge the farms, and thus to absorb the smaller tenantry. He (Mr. Newdegate) held that that process of absorption was, in a national sense, highly deleterious. Scotland was the land of leases, and he would show from the Census Report of 1871, that the system of leases and large farms tended to the diminution of the agricultural population—

"The agricultural class alone exhibited the most marked decline. In 1861 that class numbered 372,247 workers, and thus constituted 25·45 per cent of the total persons engaged in occupations. In 1871 only 270,008 persons were engaged in agricultural pursuits, constituting only 18·39 per cent of the total persons engaged in occupations. The agricultural class had thus within 10 years experienced a decrease to the enormous extent of 102,239 persons, being 37·8 per cent of decrease. A decrease has been exhibited at all the decennial Censuses since 1821, but in none so markedly as between 1861 and 1871."

They found that the same process was now going on in England, and the disturbance which had been fomented between the farmers and the labourers would tend to accelerate what he believed to be a great national evil. The Census for England and Wales showed that in the year 1851 the holdings ranging from 50 to 250 acres numbered 60,864; in 1871 they had fallen to 51,460. In 1851 the holdings from 300 acres to 700 acres numbered 6,908; in 1871 they had increased to 7,370. He might be asked why he alluded to that matter on the question of the notice to quit. In the case of the smaller holdings landlords were essentially partners with their tenants in carrying out improvements, and if the landlord were impeded in giving effect to notice to quit, which was his remedy against rent falling into arrear and against waste, the process of leasing land for considerable periods, of enlarging farms and of suppressing the smaller holdings would be still further accelerated. The fact was, that unless further provisions were inserted, the tendency of simply extending the period of notice to quit must tend to deprive the smaller tenantry of the credit the landlords habitually extended to them. It was most inexpedient to disturb the yearly tenure of land in England; it represented a partnership between the landlord and tenant which had been most beneficial to the community in England; he had always adhered to the opinion that there ought to be on every estate a certain number of small holdings, of such a size that the most industrious of the labourers might aspire to become tenants of them. He had illustrated this in practice on his own estates. One of his best farms was held by an excellent farmer, two of whose sons were holding larger farms than their father, who had himself begun life as a parish apprentice.

reminded the hon. Member that the Amendment before the Committee had reference to the bankruptcy of tenants.

would merely add that the amalgamation of small estates with large holdings was a great evil, for not only did the medium-sized and small holdings prevent the undue depopulation of the agricultural districts—the undue and unsafe diminution of the agricultural population; but he had observed when the feud between the farmers and the labourers arose that it had been far more aggravated in the counties where the large tenancies prevailed than in the counties where there were a greater number of small holdings. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would consider the question of notice to quit as it affected the disposition of landlords to give credit to their tenants; credit upon which the continuance of small holdings in great measure depended.

failed to find in the Amendment anything to justify the apprehension of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; but even if there was it would only form an additional reason for his supporting it, because, in his view, the time must come when the law of distress would be abolished. As the words were not in the Bill when it was introduced into the other House, he trusted the Government would consent to their omission.

could not avoid feeling that the words to which he took exception were introduced into the clause in a misconception of the law of bankruptcy, and hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would re-consider the matter before he supported the rejection of the Amendment.

approved of the clause, as it could be of no advantage to any person in the country that land should be out of cultivation for two years.

said, he had an Amendment to propose to which he trusted the Government would assent. The Committee had last night practically decided on giving a tenant a year's notice, and under the Lady Day tenancy that notice would practically be a year. The clause provided that "nothing in the section shall extend to a case where the tenant is adjudged bankrupt;" and he proposed the addition of the words "or where he fails to pay the rent when due and demanded."

said, the subject had been well considered, but it was not thought right to adopt this Amendment. It appeared a rather difficult question. It might be true that a tenant was not able to pay his rent when due or demanded; but the custom was to allow him some considerable time, and if this Amendment were adopted the landlord might take advantage by demanding the rent on the very day, and then and there give notice.

said, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper which he thought was preferable. He thought that in cases where a tenant had not sufficient capital to carry on his farm, it was desirable, both for him and the landlord, that the tenancy should determine, and he proposed to add, after the word "bankrupt," the following words:—

"Or is in arrear of his rent, or where on the death of the tenant the holding is in possession of his executors or administrators."

hoped the Committee would entertain the Amendment.

said, that it differed from that of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts, and suggested that his Amendment should be withdrawn.

objected to "six months." He would, however, adopt "five months," or "four months," or any period within "six months," otherwise, practically, they would give a two years' notice. He would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Government would entertain the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Cheshire.

thought it desirable that some provision should be made to meet the case of the holders of glebe lands, and proposed to add, in page 12, line 14, after the word "bankrupt"—

"That in all cases of agricultural holdings under incumbents of ecclesiastical benefices, the occupier shall he entitled, on the death or removal of the incumbent, to hold his lands for twelve months from the expiration of the current year of his tenancy, and that any agreement re- lating thereto shall continue in force for that period subject to the provisions of this Act."

said, he fully admitted that the subject was one, which, at a convenient time, should be taken into consideration; but he thought it could not be dealt with in the present Bill.

said, that if there was one thing that farmers wanted, it was this—that they should not be subjected to arrangements to which they were not parties. They might suddenly receive notice to quit, or find something more demanded than they expected, and if they did not pay it, they might be worried out of their lives.

proposed to insert the words "or is for six months in arrear of his rent."

made a suggestion to amend the Amendment by substituting the word "five" for "six."

hoped the Government would not accept those words. As to the second part of the Amendment, it had been urged that it might be a great hardship upon a widow to be unable to leave a farm for a long period after her husband's death. He thought such cases were little likely to occur, and that it would be a much greater hardship upon a widow to have to leave a farm at a time when it might be greatly to her advantage and interest to stay longer. As to the first part, the landlord had his ordinary security for his rent, which would be equally safe under a six or a 12 months' notice. The giving of the latter in the Bill was a boon to the tenant; but now the moment hon. Gentlemen opposite had given this boon, they began to fence it round and clog it with restrictions and limitations. The law should remain the same in the case of a year's notice as it had been when six months' notice was sufficient; and he put it to the Government that it was inexpedient when they were giving this boon to the tenant, that they should clog it with conditions which would so much diminish its value.

believed, if some such words were not accepted, a landlord would only have power to get rid of a tenant in arrear by pressing him so far as to make him a bankrupt.

supported the Amendment. If a tenant farmer could not pay his rent in six months he was not in a position to become a successful agriculturist.

said, that he had been a landowner for 58 years, and had always let his land on 12 months' notice. He had never found any inconvenience of the kind suggested. He was a hearty supporter of the 12 months' notice, and did not think these Amendments and exceptions were at all needed.

said, that all leases contained a provision for re-entry in case of non-payment of rent, and he did not think that the clause altered the relation between landlord and tenant in case of non-payment of rent. An Amendment like that proposed might throw some doubt on the powers of the landlord.

would support the Amendment in the interest of the tenant, as it would enable him, if he desired, to leave on an earlier day.

was also of opinion that the Amendment would benefit the tenant and by no means injure the landlord; but it was calculated to create an unpleasant feeling, and he should oppose it.

said, the simple effect of the clause was to provide that wherever, according to the present law, half-a-year's notice was given, for the future a year's notice was to be given, all other circumstances remaining the same, except only in certain cases. By the Amendment now under consideration, it was proposed to except from the operation of the clause tenants who were six months in arrear with their rents. But he thought a case of that sort would be fully met by the existing law.

hoped the Government would adhere to the clause. He did not understand hon. Members voting for a year's notice and then trying to nibble it down.

said, there was usually a clause in an agreement giving a landlord a right of entry in case of arrears, and this Amendment would be only equivalent to that arrangement.

said, the Amendment would give a power, but would not compel the landlord to exercise it.

contended that the Amendment was totally different from the case of a bankrupt. It was not in any way in favour of the tenant, and was not at all necessary for the protection of the landlord.

said, if the landlord could not get rid of a tenant in arrears except by giving a year's notice, he might be compelled to drive the tenant into bankruptcy; but, if he could give six months' notice, he might not have to resort to so harsh a proceeding. He did not think the Amendment was entirely in favour of the landlord; under some circumstances, in might be in favour of the tenant. The Government were anxious to hear what could be said on both sides; and, having done so, they were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire.

held that the period should be less than six months, inasmuch as if the rent were not paid at 12 o'clock on the day upon which it was due, a notice to quit at the end of the six months following could not be served upon the tenant, who would in that case remain in possession for 12 months.

thought there was great force in the consideration, and for that reason he would move to substitute the word "five" for "six."

pointed out that there ought to be a demand of the rent before the notice could be given.

proposed to add to the Amendment "the same having been duly demanded."

said, there must also be a period allowed after the demand in which to pay the rent before the notice could be given.

suggested the addition after the words "or is for five months in arrear of his rent," of the words, "the same having been lawfully demanded in writing, and not paid within 14 days after such demand."

accepted the Amendment.

said, that having been always most strongly opposed to the clause, he wished, before it passed, to enter his protest against it, and hoped, as he should not delay the Committee any further, that the Government would kindly answer his inquiries on two points. The first was, whether if a landlord and tenant agreed to adopt the provisions of this Bill, they could do so in all its clauses, with the exception of Clause 43, inasmuch as the words "necessary and sufficient" had led some persons to imagine that this clause was compulsory. He also trusted that the hon. and learned Attorney General would before the Report study the words of the clause as it now read with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton), which the Committee had just carried; and take care that by that Amendment the landlord had not in any way forfeited any rights he had under the law of distress and ejectment.

said, it was quite competent for any landlord and tenant to adopt generally the provisions of the Bill, and, at the same time, contract themselves out of the clause under consideration; that, in fact, it was not more compulsory than any of the other clauses of the Bill. With regard to the other inquiry he would look into the matter, and take care that the landlord's position with regard to the law of distress and ejectment was not damaged by the clause.

moved an Amendment, in page 12, lines 19 and 20, to alter the words "farm labourers' cottages" to "cottages or other houses," so that land might be taken for cottages required by foresters, gardeners, &c.

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that landlords might, at any time, take the land required by the labourers for building speculations.

moved an Amendment, in page 12, line 21, by substituting for the words "of gardens for labourers," the words "for labourers of land for gardens."

said, if land was to be allotted in this way, it was difficult to say what purpose it might be applied to. He suggested that the word "gardens" be struck out.

suggested the words "or for other purposes," in reference to the requirements of labourers.

wished for a definition of the word "labourers." He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would give it.

objected to the words "or for other purposes," and moved to leave those words out.

also objected to the words "or for other purposes," and wished to know what they meant and where they would end.

said, this was very irregular, and it was entirely done in the interests of the landlords. ["No, no!"] He said yes, and he thought it most unfair.

said, they were giving landlords a power under the Bill in reference to the taking possession of the land when they might require it; but, in his opinion, they should take care that the rights of the tenants were protected.

thought they were going too far in the manner of dealing with the rights of the tenants.

said, the difference was made as to the time of giving the notice. At present, if the landlord wished to obtain a small part of the farm in order to give a labourer, or any other person, a piece of ground for a garden, he must give the tenant notice to quit the whole of the holding. This clause would enable him to give notice only for the portion he wished to resume.

moved an Amendment, in page 12, line 23, proposing to give power to the landlord to obtain possession of part of the land from the tenant, on notice, for the purpose of sinking for coal, ironstone, limestone, or other minerals.

objected to the Amendment, the effect of which would empower the landlord to take from the tenant what might be the best part of his holding.

said, the tenant ought, in common justice, to have power to throw up his holding when he was deprived of land for these purposes.

apprehended that the tenant could give a counter-notice.

said, he would propose words in line 33 to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.

then proposed, at line 26, after "the making of roads" to add "tramroad, siding, canal or basin, or any wharf, pier, or other works connected therewith."

remarked that the effect of these Amendments was to extend the clause to speculations which had nothing to do with agricultural operations.

replied that his proposals were intended as much for the protection of the tenant as the landlord, as they would prevent the former from being turned off his farm when only a portion of it was required by the landlord.

said, the Amendments gave landlords privileges which they did not possess at present.

said, they would not alter the position of landlords in manufacturing districts; and unless these Amendments had been proposed, he should have been obliged to give notice to all the tenants on an estate in Lancashire of which he was trustee.

stated that in many, if not most, existing agreements there were powers of reentry for purposes analogous to these.

proposed to amend the clause by giving the tenant the power, within 28 days after receipt of a notice from the landlord of a resumption of a part of the holding, to serve him with notice to give up the holding of it.

said, it was not intended to deprive the tenant of the right to give notice to the landlord. He would promise to look to the matter, and hoped that on that assurance the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment. It was almost impossible at a moment's notice to ascertain how an Amendment of this kind might affect other parts of the measure, and therefore it was that he wished to have an opportunity of considering the point raised by the hon. Member.

quite agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General in respect to the difficulty of ascertaining how an Amendment, of which no Notice had been given, might affect other por- tions of the Bill; but he thought Government should bear this in mind, and give Notice in respect to its own Amendments, so as to explain to the Committee the changes which they might effect.

said, he had now to propose what he thought would be one of the most important Amendments which had been moved, and which would tend to make the Bill a reality and not a sham, as it had been irreverently called out-of-doors. The clause, as it stood, said that—

"Nothing shall prevent a landlord and tenant, or intending landlord and tenant, from entering into and carrying into effect any such agreement as they think fit, or shall interfere with the operation thereof; "

and what he now asked the Committee to do was to insert after the word "agreement" the words "securing to the tenant bonâ fide compensation for his unexhausted improvements." If adopted, the Amendment would make the Bill a real and substantial measure, as it would give to the tenant farmer as a matter of right—secured to him by law—compensation in respect of the capital he had expended upon the land. It raised, in short, the question whether the giving of proper compensation should not be a subject of compulsory, rather than of permissive legislation. They were all agreed that compensation for unexhausted improvements ought to be; what, then, was the objection to saying that it must be awarded? He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had done his best throughout the discussions to make the Bill more acceptable to the tenant farmers of England. Nearly all his Amendments in this direction had been opposed by the Government, although some of them had found support in the votes—and still more in the speeches of Members on the Government side. He would forgive them all their opposition, if they would only give favourable consideration to this Amendment. Now, what had the House done? They had declared that the tenant farmers ought to have by right something which the law did not give them—namely, compensation for unexhausted improvements. They had, moreover, care- fully defined what that compensation ought to be, and how it should be given. They had pointed out what they considered the best way of giving it, and all that his Amendment did was to say that, if landlords preferred to give it in some other way they might do so, but that they should not contract themselves out of the Bill altogether without giving it in any way at all. It might be said that the Amendment would lead to litigation; but it would soon be discovered what the Courts would hold bonâ fide compensation to be, and he believed there would be little difficulty in the matter. The question of compulsion had not yet been really decided by the Committee. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had stated his views upon the subject at length upon the second reading of the Bill. But he had not then pressed his Amendment, because he owned that its permissive character was not the main or only principle of the Bill, which did admit that compensation should be given to farmers, against which a vote against the Bill upon second reading or Committee would have seemed to be given. For the same reason he had voted with Government upon the question of going into Committee upon the Bill, when the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) again raised the question of compulsion and against advice insisted upon a division when the real issue could not be before the House. That issue was now fairly before them. According to his promise upon the second reading, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had brought it forward in a legitimate manner, and he earnestly pressed the Government to accept the Amendment.

said, the question whether the Bill should be compulsory or permissive in character had been fully discussed on the second reading, and he hoped he should be excused from going into the matter again at that late period of the Session. The Government considered that the Amendment was in restriction of the freedom of contract, and therefore against the principle of the Bill, and on that ground they were unable to accept it.

said, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich was an important one. The Prime Minister had told them that the principle of the Bill was freedom of contract. That was a principle which the House had not formally adopted. What was wanted was, to secure compensation and security to farmers in the carrying on of their practical business as farmers. There was another interest to be kept in view, and that was the interest of the whole community having capital invested in land, so as to secure the largest possible production of food of all kinds. What he desired was that a Bill dealing with this subject should be a reality. It was partly declaratory, and partly enabling. He wanted to make the declaratory part a reality, and to relieve the limited owners. With respect to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that he felt himself in a difficulty. He had an Amendment on the Paper, one of a series of Amendments which had been carefully prepared, to reserve freedom of contract, and if he voted with his right hon. Friend it would be with the reservation that he would at later stages in Committee have the right of urging that some real security should be given to tenants. The adoption of the principle involved in those Amendments would give substantial value to the Bill, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give it their serious consideration. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. and learned Attorney General for the courtesy with which they had uniformly treated their opponents during the consideration of the Bill; and it was but just to add that the discussions which had arisen on the provisions of the Bill were highly honourable to the country Gentlemen who were Members of the House, and evidenced the kindly feeling which existed between them and those who were connected with them in the position of tenants.

, as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, regretted that the Government had not seen their way to the adoption of the principle to secure bonâ fide compensation to tenant farmers for unexhausted improvements.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that those who on the second reading of the Bill pointed out its shortcomings did not wish to oppose its progress, because, though defective in itself, it contained seeds which would in future bring forward a bountiful harvest of land reform. It was a great thing to enunciate the principles on which landlords and tenants should conduct their mutual relations, and, though not compulsory, it might be expected that in course of time custom would grow into accordance with law. As to the objection that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would infringe the principle of freedom of contract, it was only necessary to say that in many other instances they had set aside that principle; and in every particular case that point must be discussed as one of policy and expediency with reference to the special circumstances of each case. Why, even the high priest of that new religion—the noble Lord the Member for Haddington—had supported an infringement of it in the case of miners, as the House had done in the case of the Artizans Dwellings and other Bills passed that Session. Whatever might be his line on this Bill, where the interest of the masses was concerned the noble Lord was ready to treat them as children. These questions, however, were not to be settled by a phrase, but must be determined by considerations of policy, expediency, and necessity. He had heard it said over and over again that what was wanted to be done by the Bill was to constitute a model agreement and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene) had said, a model lease; but was it not treating the tenant farmers of England like children, if it was said that the House was going to occupy itself night after night in telling the tenant farmers what was the best kind of lease and what was the best kind of agreement which ought to subsist between them and their landlords? If it were necessary to draw a model agreement for a farmer, why should not such agreement be drawn for all other classes of people? As he had said, he advocated a Tenant Eight Bill on the ground of the great land reforms that would in future come from it. The speech delivered by the Prime Minister last week would be memorable in the history of the land tenure of this country as being founded on what might be termed "the supply of food" argument. If increased security given to the investment of capital in the soil should increase the supply of food by 25 per cent. amounting, as it was stated it did, to £240,000,000, it would be equal to the creation of new wealth of the most valuable kind to the amount of £60,000,000 a-year. That would at the same time greatly increase the demand for labour in this country, and the agricultural labourer would greatly prefer to remain at home than emigrate to any of our colonies. Those who sanctioned a permissive Bill should remember that the House, whatever it might do with regard to Corporations, never sanctioned the permissive principle between individuals. He (Mr. Fawcett) never did anything to jeopardize the Bill—he was bound to confess that, though very imperfect, it would be productive of much good. The most important of the tenant farmers assembled at Wilts were in favour of the principle of the Amendment they were now discussing; but what would they say when they heard that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) had declared that there was only one landlord in the House in favour of the Bill? What danger could there be in making the Bill compulsory? The landlord interest was fenced round in it with every security, and he could see no reason why the principle of compulsion should not be adopted. Nothing in the first class could be done by the tenant without the permission of the landlord; and the landlords could, if they liked, contract themselves out of the Bill. As to the improvements of the second and third class, they were simply comprised in the term "good husbandry;" and no possible disadvantage could come to a landlord from his tenant spending his capital in what formed good husbandry. It was evident that the Prime Minister, in common with the farmers generally, himself did not expect that the measure would be attended with any great and immediate practical results; but it was a measure which laid the foundation for a great land reform; and he (Mr. Fawcett) ventured to predict that in after years the name of the right hon. Gentleman would be associated not only with a great political change in our Constitution, but also with the fact of his having originated a still more important reform in the land tenure of the country.

said, he was not disposed to admit the authority of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Fawcett) upon questions of agriculture. He (Colonel Brise) looked upon the Bill as one for extending the Lincolnshire and other existing customs, and for meeting exceptional cases of hardship. He believed that the time had not yet come for compulsory measures. If, however, they were legislating only for some particular part of the country, or for the Eastern Counties only, then compulsory legislation, so far as the third class of improvements was concerned, would be no great injury to the owner, and of very great importance to the occupier. As to other improvements, however, such compulsion would be very unfair to the landlord in some cases. It would be unfair to the landlord, for instance, where he had bought up the custom, or where there had before been no custom in existence. He believed, upon the whole, that the Government had acted in the interests of the occupier in not giving way to many of the Amendments which had been brought forward.

accused the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) of departing from his principles as a political economist, in advocating compulsion versus freedom of contract.

thanked Her Majesty's Government for having introduced the measure, and believed that, considering the improvements it had received in Committee, it would be of great benefit to the country. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich, "in good agricultural language," not to "hurry any man's cattle."

Sir, I rise to move for leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for giving further powers to the Board of Trade for stopping Unseaworthy Ships. This measure the Government recommends to Parliament on the postponement of their larger and more complete measure for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts. The House is aware that that complete measure proposed means for checking the overloading of ships; for making more definite the liability of shipowners in respect to loss of life and damage to property at sea; for consolidating, or, rather, codifying the provisions for discipline at sea; and for improving the mode of inquiry into casualties at sea. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) also introduced a Bill on this subject, but mainly on opposite principles—a Bill for supplementing the classification of ships by private registry offices, through the Government undertaking to complete the classification and periodical survey of all ships. I believe that the Government Bill was framed on the right principle. It was framed on the principle on which all our legislation has hitherto been based—namely, that of enforcing responsibility on those who conduct the Mercantile Marine service of this country to take all reasonable precaution or means in their power to protect the lives of those who are employed by them at sea. Unfortunately, the measure, by delay, has lacked time for thorough discussion and for passage through Parliament this Session, and it has had, consequently, to be postponed. I believe the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby—and in that opinion I shall I think be borne out by the great majority in this House—is based on wrong principles. ["No, no!"] Well, I merely wish to point out to Parliament the difference between the two Bills. That of the hon. Member for Derby attempted not only the punishment of offenders, but a needless and harassing Government constant inspection and warranty of all unclassed ships, and on the part of Government it actually undertook the conduct of the merchant shipping itself; and, as I think, a Bill based on that principle, so far from securing life at sea, tends rather to a greater loss of life at sea, by removing the principal check of the liability of those who are conducting the service, and the responsibility of seeing to all practicable security from off their shoulders. I point out the different principles of the two Bills brought before Parliament this year for the purpose of showing that, while in the case of the Government Bill we were unable to proceed this Session, yet, considering the other Bill, we were unable to adopt it in lieu of the Government measure, because we believe that it proceeds on a wrong and dangerous principle. But there are measures which may be passed in the interim, and which may remain in force until the Government is able to pass more complete legislation on the subject. Measures may be taken which will have the effect of more effectually stopping, in the meantime, unseaworthy ships from going to sea. This is not the first time that we have attempted legislation with this object. We have passed many Acts already; and I may point out the stimulus which was given to legislation on the subject by the hon. Member for Derby only followed upon our first attempt to legislate in this direction. There are the Acts of 1871 and of 1873, which empower the Board of Trade, upon complaint, or upon their having any other means of believing that the ship going to sea is in an unseaworthy condition, to detain her for survey; there are also powers under those Acts enabling one-fourth of the crew of any ship to allege in defence of any one of their number who had deserted or absented himself from the ship, that the ship was unseaworthy and in a dangerous condition demanding survey. I can only say that these powers have been honestly carried out to the best ability of the Department. During the last two years the Board of Trade have stopped 558 ships under these powers upon the ground of want of survey and bad construction, and about 58 ships have been stopped on the ground of their being overloaded. Nobody doubts that unseaworthy ships are sent to sea; but what I want to point out to the credit of the Department, and, of course, to the satisfaction of Parliament, is, that such care has been taken in exercising the power under these Acts, that out of these 558 ships stopped on the ground of unseaworthiness, 515 were, on investigation, proved to have been unseaworthy, and others are now under investigation which may add to the number, showing that scarcely any vessels have been stopped except on good grounds. Considering the great importance of stopping the great mercantile traffic of this country upon insufficient grounds, I think that the House will congratulate itself that the Acts passed in the interests of the lives of our fellow-subjects have been carried out with so much success for their object, and so little vexation to the well-conducted shipping interest. Of the 58 ships stopped on the ground of overloading, all of them had to be lightened of their cargoes. These are great powers, and they have been carefully acted on. At the same time, owing to the nature of the Acts, they have not been applicable to all emergencies, or adequate to all possible occasions; but they are capable of great expansion. What the Bill that I now ask the leave of the House to introduce seeks to do is to carry out still further the provisions of these Acts in the particulars to which I have alluded; to strengthen the Executive by giving the Government the power of more rapid and direct action in this direction. The Bill proposes to enable the Government to appoint a sufficient number of officers forthwith, and from time to time, to detain unseaworthy ships—that is, ships in defective condition, or overloaded, or improperly loaded—for the purpose of being surveyed, and not allowed to go to sea till set right, without waiting for authority from the Board of Trade, but immediately reporting. The House is aware that the Surveyors of the Board of Trade can only now report; upon which authority is sent down to the officers of Customs, and the proposal of the Bill is to give the Government the right to delegate such powers. The Bill is proposed only for one year, both on account of the strong powers asked for, and as a guarantee that the Government will lose no time next Session in legislating more completely on the subject. The Bill also proposes to allow one-fourth of any crew to demand a survey of an alleged unseaworthy vessel without the preliminary of desertion, and without even the necessity of giving security for costs incident to the prosecution of the complaint, precautions, of course, being taken against frivolous or vexatious allegations. Now I hope these two provisions, which are the main provisions of the Bill, will be sufficient to prevent a great number of unseaworthy ships from going to sea, in the interval between this time and the passing of a measure next Session of a more comprehensive character. And it will also encourage Parliament to give the Government these powers for the occasion, that they are powers which can in no case be vexatious to owners of good ships, and can only be a terror to those who own bad ships. In any general measure there must be provisions of a more or less harassing character to the owners of good ships; but special powers to selected officers to detain glaringly overloaded ships from going to sea till righted will not interfere with well-conducted trade. There is also this advantage—that the second provision enables seamen themselves to set in motion the inspecting officers without the preliminary of having to incur the charge of breaking the law, and without the embarrassment of having to give security for costs, though liable to punishment for frivolous complaints. I can only conclude by saying that these preventive measures for increasing the security of life at sea are, in our opinion, of the first importance; and I know perfectly well that there will be no difference of opinion upon either side of the House, that Government should have adequate powers for such an object. We are all equally anxious for the increased security of the lives of our seamen in a necessarily perilous and most important national service. We can only differ as to the best means, and the necessary powers and interference of Government for the attainment of that end. I hope Parliament will consent to give the Government the powers which they ask for on the present occasion. I can speak for the sincerity and earnestness of the Government in wishing to carry out their full and complete measure on the earliest occasion next Session. I deeply regret the delays which have postponed the measure which I had in my charge, and I can only promise, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that if Parliament will now give these special powers to the Government, they will be resolutely and effectively carried out in the Department itself. I now move for leave to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the course which Her Majesty's Government have adopted with regard to legislation upon Merchant Shipping has placed the House in considerable difficulty; but, being in this difficulty, I think it is the duty of the House of Commons to see how we can best extricate ourselves from it calmly and dispassionately, doing full justice to the great interests of life and property involved. I am sure that it will be the universal wish of the House that we should approach the question, as I have stated, with calmness, and that in a matter so vitally affecting the lives of seamen and the prosperity of our Merchant Shipping we should exclude Party considerations. The hours remaining at the end of the Session are so few that I think we shall all be disposed to approach this question in a business-like fashion, and to consider the proposals of Her Majesty's Government upon their merits at the present juncture. I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his contrast between the original Bill of the Government and the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). I think it is almost unfortunate that he should at this particular moment have introduced such a comparison at all. As regards the Government Bill it is withdrawn; as regards the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, that is still before the House; but everyone must be aware that to carry it at the present period of the Session would be an exceedingly difficult, if not an impossible task. At the same time, I wish to say that I should consider personally that the hon. Member for Derby, and those who are in favour of his Bill, will be perfectly in their right if they run their Bill against the Government Bill, and attempt to press it upon the acceptance of Parliament. But while I say that they will be perfectly in their right if they follow that course, I think it would be to be deplored if those who do not hold the view that it is wise to accept a compulsory classification or the regulated load line, should allow their judgment now to be biassed either by the withdrawal of the Government Bill, or by the incidents which have taken place since in connection with this agitation. Let the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby stand upon its merits, as he has proposed it, and as others may be able to sustain it by argument. And, on the other hand, I am sure the House of Commons will not allow itself to be influenced in its opinion upon this great question by the temporary incidents which have taken place upon it. It appears to me that what we have to do to-day is to proceed to consider what may be the best means of extricating ourselves from the difficulty in which we are placed. Of course, it is hard upon the shipowners that at the close of the Session they have to consider a proposal on the spur of the moment such as has been made by Her Majesty's Government; and while I give every credit to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for endeavouring to remedy, to a certain extent, the withdrawal of the Bill of the Government, at the same time we must regret that that withdrawal was not accompanied at the time by an explanation. The Bill was withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with but a formal and ordinary expression of regret, and the Government would have saved themselves very considerable reproach and comment if, when the Bill was withdrawn, they had stated that they would substitute some such measure like the present for it. It would have facilitated, I think, the discussion of the measure in the House of Commons, and, still more, it might have prevented that display of feeling out-of-doors which, creditable as it is in many respects, sometimes impedes calm and dispassionate legislation. I think the Government will feel that this display of feeling is due to a certain extent to their having withdrawn the Bill without showing that they intended to deal with the question until the current ran so high that they were compelled to introduce a Bill to deal temporarily with the subject. But we have now the announcement of the Bill, and I do not, as far as I can judge on the first announcement of its provisions—I do not think it is of so stringent a character as we were led to believe it would be by the short explanation which fell from the Prime Minister the other evening. I am sure that the shipowners will consider it with every desire to strengthen the hands of the Government, feeling, as they will do, that it is directed, not against the good shipowners, but against the bad ones. I venture most humbly to bespeak an impartial consideration for the measure of the Government. With regard to the withdrawal of their Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated—and I think it may be fairly repeated—that he himself would wish it to be thoroughly understood in the country that the Bill was withdrawn not on account of any pressure of the shipowners in this House to prevent or obstruct its discussion, or from any obstruction offered to it here, but on account of other causes. Let me recall in one sentence only the history of that discussion. There was but one day for the second reading of the Bill, and when an adjournment was moved, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), sitting on this bench, supported the Government in requesting that the Motion for Adjournment should be withdrawn. Therefore, there was no obstruction on that occasion. On the next occasion, when the Bill went into Committee, there was a discussion only till 9 o'clock, and the rest of the evening was spent simply in postponing the consideration of two clauses, because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did not entirely understand them himself. The third night was spent on the "advance note;" and that that discussion was rational was shown by the Government themselves abandoning their proposal at the conclusion of the evening. On the next night great progress was made in the Bill, the 30th clause having been reached. I feel it right to again state, therefore, that no action of the House of Commons with regard to the Government Bill has at all obstructed its being carried through this House. If it has been withdrawn, it has been withdrawn without any of these extraneous causes; but I am anxious not to allude to those causes, because I think our duty now is to discuss the proposals of the Government with every desire, notwithstanding any temporary inconvenience, to pass a measure even in the few hours that remain of the Session—a measure which may tend to save life and to remove that imputation from our Merchant Service which late events have, to a certain extent, cast upon it.

I think, Sir, that under the peculiar circumstances in which this subject stands, the course taken by the Government in regard to it is the only one they could take in view of the naturally excited state of the public mind caused by what I must consider the unfortunate withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill. But I would express once more the great regret I feel that the management of Public Business could not have been so conducted as to admit of the discussion and of the passing of the Merchant Shipping Bill, and I wish to point out to the House, in a few sentences, that, in my humble opinion, the course now proposed is not unattended with inconvenience. This is the second time that a Merchant Shipping Bill—a measure of a very important character in its bearing upon that great interest, and not sufficient, as I think, for the purposes of ensuring safety—has been passed at the end of the Session, at a time when the month of August is about to commence, and we are in this position—that before we can have an opportunity of considering deliberately the requirements of the Merchant service, we are called on to increase the powers of the Board of Trade. I say, then, that this question is in a most unsatisfactory position. It is unsatisfactory, because it works an injustice on shipowners, and is not efficacious for the saving of life. I say it advisedly, and I maintain that no Government surveyor—though I imagine it is the object of the Government to secure the services of the most competent men to conduct this difficult duty with competent skill—that, however, is a Treasury question, and no statutory enactment is necessary for paying them salaries adequate to secure such men; but I say that no Government survey will be satisfactory, and that no Government surveyor can execute this difficult duty with a just regard for the shipowners and for the safety of human life, unless he has a thorough knowledge of the history and antecedents of the ship. That knowledge was possessed by the surveyors of the several associations; but to lay your hands on the defects, it is necessary that there should be the means of tracing the ship back to her origin, in order to know where defects exist in her, and, when necessary, to order the necessary repairs. No Government survey of a ship can decide fairly for the owner or fairly for the crew, and therefore a Government survey requires to be discussed in all its bearings, and I think the Government have acted wisely in taking these powers for a limited time, The Bill is a provi- sional Bill, a stop-gap, but is not a thorough Bill. I trust that the increased power of detaining ships may, in the course of the next few months, be exercised with discretion, but, at the same time, with firmness. We have, however, a distinct pledge from Government that at the earliest opportunity next Session the whole of this question shall be before us. Pending the introduction of a comprehensive measure, I trust we shall not allow ourselves to proceed to legislate upon this difficult and delicate subject, agitated by anything like emotional feelings or sensational observations. This is a subject of a technical and difficult character. I can speak to that effect from some experience—and we cannot expect this House as a body, or the nation at large, to enter into the considerations and appreciate the difficulties that surround the solution of this great question. If we make a mistake we may inflict an irreparable injury on perhaps the greatest interest the world has ever seen, and upon which the commerce of the country is so dependent. It is, therefore, most desirable that the subject should be dealt with in a calm, impartial, judicial spirit. I implore the House—though it may be somewhat excited at this moment—to consider the question deliberately. I think the Board of Trade deserve credit for the course they have taken; but the powers they ask for are difficult to exercise, and we are going now to increase the difficulty and the responsibility which attach to them. I trust, however, they will be entrusted to men competent to perform them, and that the Government will not hesitate, from considerations of cost, to obtain the best assistance they can get.

I do not moan, Sir, to remark upon the conduct of the Government in withdrawing the Bill, or to compare that which the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade has just asked leave to introduce with that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), which stands for a second reading to-morrow. It is not my intention either to oppose the introduction of the Government measure, to which, however, I confess I see some grave objections. Our time is very limited for discussion, and it would be absurd to enter now on the discussion of its proposals. We must have the Bill printed and before us, and we must discuss its provisions; and we shall then, no doubt, be able to form a judgment on them, and to compare them with those which have been so much advocated in the course of these discussions. Even now, late as it is in the Session, I would suggest whether it would not be desirable, if not right, to embrace in the discussion the principles of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. I only now rise to speak on my own part and that of Friends near me, that it was not understood that this Bill, when its introduction was promised, was to be brought in without protest or comment on our part, but that we reserved to ourselves the right of, on the second reading, taking steps to ensure an ample discussion for the purpose of urging on the House the principles contained in the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby.

Our moments are so precious now, that every speaker in this debate will best show his sincerity to the object in view by talking as little as possible. The first duty before us is to have the Bill passed a first reading, so that we may see it in print, and at once know what exactly are its provisions; but I may indicate in a sentence or two my disappointment with the measure proposed. I invite the attention of my hon. Friends around me to this, that there should be before us one or other of these courses—either to give up the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, and endeavour to engraft on the Government Bill such Amendments as may bring it nearer perfection than it is in its present state; or, should the Bill of the Government be found incapable of satisfactory Amendment, to stand by the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. Now, in order that right hon. Gentlemen opposite may know what is before them, I wish to point out that they have failed to notice two important points that are least debated on this sore question—namely, they do not deal with the question of deck-loading, nor with the carrying of cargoes of grain in bulk. Now, shipowners themselves will say that these are the points in the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby which are least objected to, and yet they are the two that this. Bill leaves untouched. I protest, for one, against that failure in the Bill of the Government. I do not pretend to speak in the name of the hon. Gentleman; but I believe that he himself would have opposed it, and that the shipowning Gentlemen themselves have a serious objection to committing powers of this description to officers of the Board of Trade, and that, if driven to a choice, many would prefer to give up an additional week to the consideration of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, so that they might see in black and white in the clauses of the Bill how they stood there, and how their property was to be affected, rather than be handed over blindly to the discretion or the competency, unproved as it is, of the officials of the Board of Trade. I hope the Bill will be placed in our hands as early as possible, and that the Government will tell us when they mean to proceed with it.

Sir, with reference to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), which I must say I heard with surprise, that the provisions of the Bill do not seem to go far enough, I cannot, of course, form a judgment of the nature of those provisions, until we have an opportunity of perusing the measure itself. It does appear to me, however, that the powers the Government propose to take are of a very serious character indeed. That it should be in the power of a portion of the crew of a ship to stop that ship, and demand that a survey shall be made upon her, just as she is about to commence her voyage, and that they should not be in any way responsible in the event of the survey being against them, does seem to me a very large power to give. I am not going to discuss the Bill now, however, as we shall have an opportunity of doing so hereafter; but I cannot allow the House to imagine that it is not a power of a most vital character. For the very fact of retarding the departure of a ship with a large and valuable cargo must involve the owner in a considerable loss. It may be thought by some a small matter that the power of stopping vessels from proceeding to sea should be placed in the hands of officials at the out-ports; but it is, in reality, a very serious and unprecedented power. We, the representatives of seaports, have much reason to complain of the position in which we are placed. We have been in constant communication with the Government on this subject. We have been down to see our constituents respecting it, and just as we thought it likely that our labours would come to an end, we found ourselves thrown over, and permitted to discuss neither the Bill of the Government nor that of the hon. Member for Derby; and now, at a moment's notice, we are compelled to swallow the Bill just introduced by the Government. Reference has been made by the hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Sullivan) to the desirability of a discussion of the proposals of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. We should be delighted to have the opportunity. I think it desirable, in the interests of the shipowners and of the community at large, and also for the sake of the House itself, that there should be a complete and calm discussion of the principles involved; and I shall deeply regret if we close our labours and go back to the country without having had an opportunity of correcting the misapprehensions and exaggerations in regard to figures and details which now exist. I believe there is the greatest desire on the part of the shipowners and their Representatives to treat the matter in a fair and candid spirit. I do not find fault with the President of the Board of Trade, and it is only an act of justice to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had much communication, to say that, although differing often with him in opinion, I have always found him actuated by a sincere desire to press forward this important question.

said, he thought the difficulty in which they were placed had arisen from the want of sympathy with the feelings of people outside of the House on that subject, and he believed the Bill now about to be brought in would not allay the public anxiety. That anxiety existed because, from one cause or another, rotten ships, overloaded ships, ships with excessive deck cargoes, and ships with improperly-stowed grain cargoes were sent to sea. And the only step now proposed to be taken was to enable the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to send representatives of his Department to watch the going out from the ports of those vessels which were popularly believed to possess the faculty of drowning, and which, in fact, did drown, Her Ma- jesty's subjects. He invited the Government to consider whether it would not be wise to embody, in a temporary measure of that kind, some legislation that would go to the causes of the public alarm. He did not deny that, under the Bill, there would be some limited increase of the relief which had undoubtedly been felt in consequence of the activity of the Board of Trade in stopping ships. No doubt, the Government would do a little good by going a little further along the same path; but that would afford no effectual remedy, or prevent the sending to sea during the coming winter of improper ships, or of ships which were improperly loaded. In the matter of deck cargoes, what difficulty could there be in incorporating in that measure the provision in the hon. Member for Derby's Bill, forbidding any ship from going to sea in winter with a deck cargo without the permission of the Board of Trade? Why should the Government confine their measure to the narrow object of adding to the number of watchers at the ports? They proposed to allow rotten ships to be fitted and prepared for sea, to allow them to be loaded improperly, and to receive deck cargoes, and then they would appoint watchers to put their hands on them at the last moment. Why not prevent the thing at the outset? They might easily legislate against deck cargoes; they might further provide against the improper stowage of grain cargoes; and they might also, when public feeling was justly excited on a question of life and death, compel every shipowner in the coming winter to obtain a certificate that his ship was seaworthy. It might be said that would bear hardly on the shipowner; but the present state of things bore hardly on the feelings of the country. The right hon. Gentleman told them he had stopped 558 bad ships and 58 overloaded ships, thus holding out to the country the strongest confirmation which could possibly be given that the general statements of the hon. Member for Derby were correct. Why, then, should the Government themselves not go straight to the point, and give them, even in a temporary measure, some of that protective legislation which the public required? He admitted that there was more difficulty in regard to overloading. But the President of the Board of Trade, by taking proper advice and not confining himself entirely within the limits of his Department, might, with assistance from other quarters, be enabled to deal with overloading. The Government, in short, could do something with these matters, and if they did, he thought they would stand in a better position before the country, after dealing with the evils against which the public protested, instead of only seeking to increase powers which had been found insufficient. He objected to the cardinal principle which the right hon. Gentleman laid down as the only sound basis of their legislation. He agreed with the hon. Member for Derby in thinking that what the country wanted was not the responsibility of the very persons who were arraigned for neglecting the safety of the lives of their sea-faring population, but that their legislation should be directed to affording a remedy against palpable well-known and remediable evils. This was, in some respects, a peculiarly paternal country. They were told what they must do, and what they must not do, and the fact was, they could hardly do a single thing in this country without being interfered with by some Act of Parliament or some public Board. Some time ago, at Pembroke, they had a long altercation as to whether a chimney should be raised 40 feet high or only 20 feet; but the parties were compelled to raise it 40 feet because of the legislation of that House. And if Parliament dealt in that way with the height of a chimney and a thousand other things in all their daily lives, why were they to be told that the only security for the lives of their seamen was the responsibility of those very shipowners who had been drowning them up to that moment? He took the shipowning Members of that House at their word, when they stood there and declared, as they had done repeatedly, that legislation of the kind which the hon. Member for Derby sought would not affect them, because they did not send bad ships to sea or overload them. Then, why did they protest against that legislation? He did not wish to imply that any hon. Member of that House was interested in the class of ships against which protection was wanted; but he asked them to support those who resisted the machinations of men of bad character who were reckless of the lives of our seamen. The Government would, he thought, add error to error, if they limited the Bill to the provisions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. A Bill so limited would not satisfy the public mind. Moreover, he maintained that, by a little courage, they might just as well as not insert in that measure clauses which being avowedly temporary would, at the same time, be effective, and while giving satisfaction to the country would also redound to the credit of their framers.

said, that as his name was on the back of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby's Bill he might be excused for saying a few words. He hoped that Bill would not be forgotten, and that the House would in some way or other be asked to decide upon its principles; for he was quite sure that the country would not be satisfied with the measure just proposed by the Government. That measure did not strike at the causes of the evil, but would only take precautions to watch it. But watching an evil would not do any good. It would not do to say that the shipping interest was very great—what they had to do was to save the lives of their seamen, and to protect them by all the means in their power in carrying on their dangerous calling. That was what the Bill of his hon. Friend did, and he (Mr. Roebuck) was certain that his hon. Friend would not be at all content, unless some step was taken to get the House to decide on what he thought were the proper precautions for attaining that object. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade merely proposed to watch the ships going out; but why not watch them when they came home, as the whole of the mischief generally occurred on the homeward voyage? He should also take steps to protect our sailors in foreign parts, and if they did that they would protect their lives. Why should they not in this Bill consider the question of overloading? Why should they not consider the question of deck loading? Why should they not consider the mode of shipping grain in bulk? These were all things which they could do if they only pleased. At all events, he promised them that the promoters of the hon. Member for Derby's Bill would attempt, if they could, to run their Bill against that of the Government, and would propose the necessary remedies if the Government did not do it themselves, so that the Government and that House would be made responsible for the Act which might be passed.

said, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had asked the question why honest ship-owners should object to legislation which would not touch themselves? He (Mr. Rathbone) answered, because they believed the legislation referred to, although it would not touch their interests, would cause more loss of life than it would save. ["No, no!"] He spoke the opinion of the very large body of shipowners who had been successful in saving life, and their practical judgment was surely entitled to some weight. The hon. Member for Pembroke had also asked why the Government during the coming winter should not undertake to survey everything connected with the shipping that would leave our ports. It should not; simply for this reason—that the attempt to do it would be vain; that they could not do it so effectually; and that the result of their trying to do so would give a charter of indemnity to those who wished to be careless or dishonest. One of the most important points relied on by the hon. Member for Derby was a compulsory classification of ships. Now, he had taken a list of ships which that hon. Member had reported as missing, and he found that all those who had lost any number of lives were classed A 1 at Lloyd's. He did not, of course, mean to suggest that there was any connection between their being so classed and that loss; but he wished to point out that that was no protection at all, and that by substituting any such provisions for the responsibility of the shipowners, they would take the responsibility off the only parties who really could save life and property at sea. In the present excited state of the public mind they could not calmly discuss those questions, and he regretted that the Government should have withdrawn their former Bill on that subject. He thought they had now, by their present Bill—although he could not speak positively until he had seen it in print—probably taken another step in the direction which had been found very effectual. At that period of the Session, and with the present excitement out-of-doors, it would be very undesirable to attempt to deal with all those complicated questions in a hurried and imperfect manner.

contended that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had struck the right key in his remarks. In eight weeks of 1873 no less than 30-odd grain-laden steamers were reported sunk or missing, and all had been built within five or six years. Why did that immense fleet go to the bottom? The underwriters said that the expenditure of £50 upon each of those vessels for the purchase of sacks would, in all probability, have saved two-thirds of those vessels. He wished to know when the Government would take the second reading of their Bill; whether it would be put down as the first Order of the Day; and, whether they would give any facilities for discussing the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby side by side with it?

I merely rise, Sir, to express a hope that the House will allow the Bill to be brought in, which cannot be done if this discussion be proceeded with at this hour. I would suggest that, considering the time of the year, the second reading should be fixed for Friday morning, and I hope that the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning. [Mr. MUNDELLA: The first Order?] The first Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield will find, on studying the Parliamentary forms of our Constitution, that every legitimate means will be offered for obtaining what he wishes without my interfering to assist him.