asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can undertake to lay before the House, at the beginning of next Session, a Return which will show, approximately—1, the number of registered British Ships which are not surveyed and classed either by Lloyd's or by some other registry of like character; 2, how many of these un-classed ships, being yachts, fishing boats, river steamers, &c. do not fall within the category of sea-going merchantmen; 3, how many of the residue of unclassed sea-going merchantmen are already under survey by the Board of Trade as passenger steamers or otherwise?

, in reply, said, that he would have been very glad to give the information required by the hon. Gentleman if it were possible, but he found it was not. He would see during the Recess what could be done. He could give the number of British ships which were not surveyed or classed at Lloyd's; but the hon. Gentleman must know that many were registered in Canada and other Colonies, of which he could obtain no information. He might, however, say, generally, that he should direct his attention to the whole subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Regulations under the Regimental Exchanges Act have been prepared; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?

, in reply, said, that the Warrant and Regulations had been prepared and had been approved by him. They awaited the sanction of Her Majesty, after which they would be published in the General Orders, and would receive every possible publicity. If the noble Lord would move for them, there would be no objection to laying them upon the Table.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Highways in the next Session of Parliament?

, in reply, said, he hoped he should be able to make a proposition to the House on the subject, but could not give any pledge. If the constituents of the hon. and learned Gentleman were particularly interested, their case would be considered on its merits if the hon. and learned Gentleman would communicate with him (Mr. Sclater-Booth) during the Recess.

said, that there would be 28 vacancies for medical officers in the Army to be filled up at the next examination. If, however, there should not be that number of candidates the number of appointments would be reduced in order that there might be a competitive examination.

said, he had to propose the insertion of clauses in the Bill which had been suggested in Committee, and which seemed to have met with general acceptance. They were clauses relating to loading and deck lines taken from the first Government measure, which, unhappily, had to be withdrawn; but, although they had been placed on the Paper only within 48 hours, a number of Amendments already accumulated around them, and, indeed, the tendency to become smothered with Amendments seemed to be inseparable from any measure on the subject. The first of the three clauses which he had to lay before the House provided that every British ship registered after the 1st of January, 1876, should be conspicuously marked with lines of not less than 12 inches in length and one inch in breadth painted longitudinally on each side, so as to show the position of every deck above water. This clause was not to apply to ships employed in the coasting trade, or in fishing, or to yachts. There were in the 2nd clause provisions with regard to the marking of a load line, a statement of the position of which would be required from the owner of every British ship before entering his ship outward on any voyage, showing the distance in feet and inches between the load line and the deck next above it, while he would also be bound to enter a copy of the statement in the articles of agreement with the crew and in the official logbook. There were, he might add, certain Amendments which he proposed to make in the clauses as they stood on the Paper. In compliance with the wish of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), he had altered the date at which the Bill was to come into operation to November, 1875, instead of January, 1876. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following clause:—

said, that although an Amendment stood on the Paper in his name, which was substantially a new clause dealing with the whole question of load line, he was actuated by no spirit of hostility to the proposals of the Government, and could, he thought, dispose of his Amendment in a very words. He had listened with most respectful attention to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the other evening, in regard to load line, and with every word of the right hon. Gentleman he (Mr. Mac Iver) heartily and entirely concurred. In expressing that concurrence, he believed he expressed the views of those who had the best facilities for becoming practically acquainted with the subject, and who had given these questions serious attention. The way to prevent overloading was to compel the shipowner to declare plainly and distinctly what he intended to do, and to indicate such intended load line upon the ship in such manner as to afford reliable and visible evidence in regard to the actual facts. He asked, however, if the Board of Trade clauses under discussion carried out this view? He (Mr. Mac Iver) ventured to say they did not; but that they would permit the alteration of a load line with too great facility, and in such manner as to confuse and destroy—so far as ordinary witnesses were concerned—all readily available evidence in regard to depth of loading. This might suit some people; but it would not suit those shipowners who meant right by this question, and he had received letters and telegrams on the subject, with an extract from only one of which he would trouble the House. It was from a shipowner of high standing, and was as follows:—

"Such a load line would be worse than a sham. If the owner of a steamer, after marking his maximum load line, were to be at liberty to alter that mark at pleasure in any foreign port, such an arrangement would merely give full swing to his cupidity, under a sort of quasi-legal sanction."

said, he did not wish to examine the Government's clauses hypercritically; but it was his duty to point out that they differed materially from his own, which the Government had substantially accepted. The Government had not given sufficient consideration to the difference between the density of fresh water and that of salt water, and this difference was estimated at about 2½ per cent; and this was rather a serious margin, considering the competition there was between British and foreign shipowners, and among British shipowners themselves. The clause and his own both provided for a disc; the clause proposed a larger disc than he did; but this clause omitted the scale of feet and inches which would enable surveyors and managers to make allowance for the difference between fresh water and salt water, and in the absence of which there would be continual disputes between master, seamen, and surveyors. In his Bill the power of changing load lines was carefully guarded; it was necessary it should be, because the load line formed the basis of agreement between the merchants, the insurers, and all the parties interested; and the omission of the provision would render it necessary that the articles of agreement should lapse if the load line were changed. In his clause the mark could not be altered during a voyage, nor during the existence of articles, and in that way full protection was afforded to seamen. His scheme was devised in the interest of the seamen rather than in that of the shipowner. The Government had omitted that clause in his Bill which provided that the seaman's liability to fine or forfeiture should lapse if the load line were altered, and this would have been a great safeguard. As the Government had accepted his proposals so partially, he could not be responsible if they did not work satisfactorily.

, whose name was on the back of the Bill of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), objected to the facility which the Government's clauses afforded for the changing of the load line without the sanction or even the knowledge of the seamen, and said that the Government, by the way in which they had resisted proposals relating to load lines, deck cargoes, and grain cargoes, and by the way in which they had emasculated the provisions they had accepted, seemed determined to sail as close to the wind as they could.

said, there was no doubt that the scale of feet and inches proposed by the hon. Member for Hull would afford a ready means of making a comparison between a salt water and a fresh water load line. It was rather strange that the House should present the spectacle of shipowners pleading for greater protection to seamen than the Government seemed willing to give. Surely this could be nothing more than an oversight? He hoped the Government would make such additions to the clause as would give seamen the protection they desired. He could not sit down without thanking the President of the Board of Trade for the courteous manner in which he had endeavoured to meet their wishes in reference to a load line.

thought that he should be able to meet the views of the hon. Member for Hull.

begged to thank the President of the Board of Trade for his concessions on the subject of the load line.

was of opinion that there ought to be two fixed load lines—one for immersion in salt water and the other for fresh water. The weight of a cargo in a ship sailing in each made a very perceptible difference. As a matter of fact, however, seamen did not like vessels being marked in this way.

said, that unless care was taken in making these arrangements foreigners would obtain such an advantage over us that we should gradually lose the shipping trade of the country. He should like to know why coasting vessels were to be exempt from this clause, and why they should not be required to have a load line? Half the losses and disasters occurred in the coasting trade.

said, the load line would be part and parcel of the contract between the owner and his seamen. The next clause, however, said that if the owner or his agent wished to alter the maximum load line, they might do so. It would be in the power of an agent in a foreign port, therefore, to contract his owner, so to speak, out of the Bill.

regretted that the clause had not been proposed in Committee, and he thought that as it had only just now been introduced the whole responsibility of it should be thrown upon the Government. He would therefore advise his hon. Friend the Member for Hull not to endeavour to amend it. He further thought, however, that the point as to an agent abroad altering the load line should be considered by the Board of Trade.

said, the measure was only of one year's duration, and the House would see by experience how it worked. He could not see why vessels plying between Newcastle and the Thames should not have a load line, as well as vessels plying from London and Hull to Hamburg, seeing that the voyage was quite as dangerous.

said, that if hon. Members would consult the Register they would find that the losses in the coasting trade were exceedingly small as compared with the foreign and colonial trade. Clause, as amended, agreed to, and aided to the Bill.

, in moving the next clause, said, the object of sub-section 7 was to enable the shipowner when his ship started from a foreign port to alter the load line. The season, the cargo, and the circumstances of the voyage were very often entirely different when the ship left a foreign port on her homeward voyage. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the following clause:—

thought the Amendment was a very practical one.

objected entirely to the load line being altered during the voyage, because this would destroy the value of the load line altogether. Great pressure would often be put upon a captain abroad to alter the load line. A captain ought not to be exposed to this pressure.

recommended that the power to the owner's agent abroad to alter the load line should be altogether omitted from the clause, because he did not think that a captain when abroad should be allowed to alter the load line. The provision as to the owner or his agent altering the load line abroad was negatived.

moved the following clause:—

moved to leave out Clause 3, and insert the following clause:—

suggested certain verbal alterations which would then render the Amendment unnecessary.

was afraid the House would be much disappointed with the effect of Clause 3 in preventing the loss of life at sea in grain-laden British ships. From information he had obtained to-day, he found that of 48 grain-laden ships in British ports of call yesterday morning only 14 were British. No other European States regulated the loading of its ships by law, neither did America, and he was afraid that by this legislation we should be giving a tremendous impetus to foreign trade without in any way securing the lives of the seamen.

observed, that the very important and interesting figures laid before the House by the noble Lord would be treasured up for use in another Session in the event of the House being then told that this legislation had driven British ships out of the grain-carrying trade.

moved the insertion of the following clause:—

thought the seamen ought to have the same right of action in respect of unseaworthiness as the owner of the merchandize.

was of opinion that the relations between the shipowner and the seaman ought not to be dealt with in this piecemeal manner.

hoped the Government would not embark on this subject at present.

believed the insertion of the clause would add very much to the satisfaction with which the Bill was received by the seafaring community.

thought the feeling of the House generally was in favour of the clause, and, as it was copied from his own original Bill, the Government, of course, regarded it as a fit and proper provision. The effect of it would simply be to bring seamen within Lord Campbell's Act. In a recent case it had been decided that the shipowner was not bound, in relation to the seaman, to keep the ship seaworthy, though he was under a statutory obligation to provide him with medicine. This was an unsatisfactory state of things. He thanked the hon. Member for moving the clause, and hoped it would be agreed to.

was understood to remark that it might be impossible at sea to keep the vessel quite seaworthy.

pointed out that all the clause required in that case was reasonable efforts.

moved an Amendment on Clause 1, with the view of limiting the number of additional surveyors to be appointed by the Board of Trade to three. He wanted to see the general working of the Act placed in competent hands, and objected to an indefinite number of new surveyors of unknown qualifications with absolute powers. He thought additional powers were less necessary than that the Board of Trade should be enabled judiciously to exercise the powers they had; and that this could best be done by strengthening the Department in London. A few first-class surveyors could readily be obtained who might efficiently relieve the Permanent Secretaries of the Board of Trade from some of their present duties in regard to the detention of ships under the Act of 1873; but he did not believe that the right class of person to be entrusted with absolute powers was obtainable for every principal seaport in the Kingdom at a moment's notice, and upon a mere yearly engagement. There would, in any case, be many applications for the new Surveyorships, but this—if any large number of appointments were contemplated—would but increase the difficulty of selection.

hoped that the Government would be extremely careful as to the persons whom they appointed to exercise those large and arbitrary powers, and suggested that from six to eight first-class men would probably be sufficient for that purpose.

recommended that the matter should be left to the responsibility of the Government.

thought three was obviously too small a number, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

proposed to amend Clause 3 by adding the words "such grain, corn, rice, paddy, pulse, seeds, and nuts."

moved to add the words, "This clause shall not apply to any grain ship previous to the 1st of October, 1875."

moved that the section should not apply to vessels of less than 200 tons register.

thought this Amendment would weaken the clause, and that it would be a positive invitation to people to sail vessels of loss than 200 tons register.

considered the Amendment a very reasonable one. In small ships the grain would be divided into small bulks.

thought that small river vessels under 100 tons should be exempt.

opposed the Amendment. He felt certain that if it were carried a greal deal of grain would be carried in very small vessels.

thought it would not be desirable, without consideration, to introduce any limitation in the clause. At the same time, the matter might be considered between the present time and the third reading.

moved, in Clause 4, page 3, at end, to add—

"8. Every person who is guilty of any offence which is by this section declared to be a misdemeanor shall be liable either to punishment on indictment or to a penalty of one thousand pounds, to be recovered by the Board of Trade by action in any court of competent jurisdiction, which court may mitigate the same at their discretion; and where a penalty is adjudged under the provisions of this section to be paid by any managing owner of a ship, as defined by sub-section five, the owners of the ship shall become jointly and severally liable for the same as sureties for such managing owner, but in such case the owners shall not be liable to any other proceedings under this section in respect of the same matter."

strongly objected to the Amendment, remarking that under the existing state of the law a person who knowingly sent, or attempted to send, a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition was liable to be prosecuted for a misdemeanour. But the Amendment sought to turn a prosecution for misdemeanour into a simple matter of suing for a fine, for which all the co-owners of a ship were to be liable, though they might be wholly innocent.

maintained that the Amendment would render the law far more effectual by enabling the Judges to apportion the punishment to the offence.

said, it appeared to him that there was very great force in the objection of the hon. Member for Hull to the Amendment. It was undesirable to make the owners sureties for the managing owner when, in truth, they might not be in the least to blame. He suggested the omission of the latter part of the proposed clause.

was willing to accept the suggestion of the Solicitor General.

confessed that he saw no great objection to the Amendment. He had been a managing shipowner for many years, and he had always understood that if he did anything wrong, his co-owners were liable as well as himself.

strongly objected to Clause 4, and said that it would be of no earthly use, and without any result other than annoyance to shipowners, by compelling the registration of so-called managing owners. The clause, he maintained, would fail precisely as Clause 11 of the Act of 1871 had failed, and from precisely similar reasons. He deprecated this concession to the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), and held that the clause was mere wastepaper legislation. It read stringently, but meant nothing; nor could it, he (Mr. Mac Ivor) thought, be made to mean anything unless additions were made to it such as would cause it to mean a great deal more than was reasonable. Nothing would ever be proved under the clause as it stood. There was nothing to compel the so-called managing owner to actually manage the ship, nor was there any endeavour to reach those persons who owned vessels under the provisions of the Limited Liability Act. If the directors of limited liability companies were compelled to register some of their number as managing owners, and if it were assumed that the registered managing owner must in every case possess personal knowledge in regard to questions of seaworthiness, the clause might then come to mean something. If a Proviso were added to the effect that the foundering of a vessel was in itself proof of unseaworthiness as against the managing owner, the clause would then come to mean something very real indeed; but in such case it would have a meaning that would be altogether unreasonable. He (Mr. Mac Iver), however, saw no alternative between this and no meaning at all; and, in its present form, the clause had no meaning at all. He therefore strongly objected to it, and would hope to call attention to the remarks that he had then made when the same subject came up again for discussion next Session

said, that the latter part of the proposed Amendment introduced a totally new principle into the law of England—namely, that of making a man criminally liable for an offence committed by his partner with which he had nothing whatever to do. A penalty implied an offence, and no man ought to be punished for an offence of which he was not himself guilty. He hoped the Committee would reject a proposal embodying a principle which was unknown to the English law and he believed to any other law.

observed, that though there was a great deal to be said in favour of the present proposal, yet, considering the many questions of importance which it involved, he thought it should not be introduced into a Bill of a temporary character at the period of the Session at which they had arrived. The matter must come up for consideration when the permanent measure to which they looked forward was dealt with.

moved, at end of Clause 4, to add—

"Provided, That the repeal enacted by this section shall not affect any punishment incurred or to he incurred in respect of any offence against the enactment hereby repealed, or any legal proceeding in respect of any such punishment, and any such legal proceeding may be carried on as if this Act had not passed."

moved to insert after Clause 9 the following Clause:—

also moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—

said, that the object of the Bill seemed to be to enable limited owners to charge their estates and to put them under stringent regulations for doing so. He thought the Amendments should have been placed on the Paper earlier.

thought that the hon. Baronet had misconceived the object of the Bill.

expressed his regret that the Amendments had not been placed on the Paper sooner. The fault was his, and he was exceedingly sorry for it, but the delay arose from his being deeply engaged with other public business. This provision was for the protection of the incoming tenant, but it was also partially for the benefit of the outgoing tenant.

moved the following Clauses:—

(Exclusion of compensation for consumption of cake, &c. in certain cases)

"C. The tenant shall not he entitled to compensation in respect of an improvement of the third class, consisting in the consumption of cake or other feeding stuff, where under the custom of the country or an agreement he is entitled to and claims payment from the landlord or incoming tenant in respect of the additional value given by that consumption to the manure left on the holding at the determination of the tenancy."

moved the following clause:—

thought this was a very valuable clause.

thought the effect of the clause would be to put a premium upon bad farming.

considered that no bad results would follow from the adoption of the clause. It merely carried out what was already the custom in Kent, and answered well there; but he thought they were trying to do by this Bill that which was impossible—namely, provide for all the varying circumstances of different soils and principles of farming.

approved the principle of the clause in an agricultural point of view; but as it would operate in many eases as an interference with custom, he thought it should not be introduced without full discussion, and many Members interested in the question were not present.

thought that the fold-yard manure ought to follow the same fate as the chemical manure upon an estate. He was sorry the clause had not been accepted, though the whole of the Bill was purely permissive and would not be brought into operation.

thought that the latter part of the clause—providing that the tenant should be paid for the value of manure in his yard, whilst for manure on the land he would only be paid according to the value which the referees might find to have been already added to the land—would be an inducement to bad farming, as a tenant would be tempted to keep the manure in the farmyard in order to be paid for it.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) should have opposed the clause on the ground of the absence of Members interested in the question, for ample notice had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire upon this subject.

said, it was a matter of common practice in various counties to pay the outgoing tenant for the farmyard manures, and he had done that himself.

moved the following clause:—

(If tenant commit waste, or improperly cultivate, the judge of the county court may direct landlord to enter on the farm.)

"If, after notice to quit has been given, complaint be made and proved to the satisfaction of the judge of the county court that a tenant is committing waste or is neglecting the proper cultivation of the farm, the judge may direct the landlord to enter upon the farm in such manner as may he necessary to prevent such waste, or to carry on the cultivation of the farm; and the expense of such entry and of such cultivation by the landlord may be recovered as rent in arrear, or may be computed as compensation due to the landlord by the referees or the umpire."

objected to the clause as being extremely unfair to the tenant. The landlord's rights were sufficiently protected by Clause 15, and a litigious landlord would, under the proposed clause, be constantly harassing his tenants.

supported the clause on the ground that without it the tenant might—if leaving his farm in an ill-humour with his landlord—do an enormous damage to the land for which the landlord could exact no compensation.

suggested that such an extreme contingency as that alluded to was already provided for in Clause 15. He regarded the clause proposed as being unworkable.

said, that the Government could not assent to the clause, because they did not think that it could be worked.

thought the clause would be unfair to the tenant and worrying to the landlord, and he should therefore oppose it.

moved the following clause:—

hoped that the clause would not be agreed to, because it would change the whole law as to the service of notices to quit.

did not see why the service of notices to quit should be altered.

observed, that many important notices were now served through the post, and no inconvenience had arisen from this.

also thought that this mode of service worked very well.

said, he had heard no sufficient reason for rejecting the clause.

moved the following Clause:—

thought the clause a valuable one, and accepted it.

agreed with the new clause so far as regarded machinery, but he objected to the words "other fixtures," because their legal acceptance was very indefinite.

protested against such an alteration of the law of the land. There ought to be some definition of the word "fixtures."

was of opinion that if the clause was restricted to machinery, it would go a very little way towards removing the inequality which existed between the farmer and the trader.

thought it desirable that there should be some restriction as to the place where any machinery should be fixed, otherwise it might be erected just before the landlord's windows.

was in favour of the clause, because it was recommended by the Report of the Committee of 1848, but he felt the force of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley).

then moved to omit the 4th proviso to the effect that the tenant, if required, should give security to the landlord for making good any damage to any building occasioned by the removal of any fixture.

moved in Clause 4, page 2, line 8, after "tenancy," to insert, as a new paragraph—

"'Absolute owner' means the owner or person capable of disposing, by appointment or otherwise, of the fee simple or whole interest of or in freehold, copyhold, or leasehold land, although his interest is encumbered or charged to any extent."

moved, in page 3, line 24, to leave out—

"But so that where the landlord was not, at the time of the consent given to the execution of the improvement, absolute owner of the holding for his own benefit."

said, that the effect of the Amendment would be to restrict the extent to which a tenant could go in the way of improvements of the first class. A check which was necessary on limited owners was not required in the case of absolute ownrs.

did not see that at the stage which they had now reached they required this letting value at all. As far as could be understood it had been introduced for the protection of the remainderman; but the remainderman had no interest in the amount of compensation. As an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex, he begged to move the omission of the words limiting the amount of compensation to the addition made to the letting value.

observed, that the noble Lord had said that the remainderman had no interest in the amount of compensation, but only on the amount of charge. The amount of charge must depend on the amount of compensation. He thought the proper course would be to dispose of the original Amendment first.

was of opinion that the Committee would thereby be placed in a false position.

hoped the Committee would see its way to adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory).

hoped, under all the circumstances, that the Committee would not pass this clause.

trusted that the Amendment suggested by his noble Friend would be accepted.

, as author of the clause, defended it, and left it in the hands of the Government, who had adopted it.

said, he could not consent to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington).

said, the same principle ought to be employed between the landlord and tenant as between the real owner and the remainderman.

said, that subject had discussed three times before, and a compromise had been come to in regard to it, which ought not to be disturbed. He hoped the noble Marquess would not press his Amendment.

hoped the House would adopt the view of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Jackson), who placed the question so clearly before them.

then withdrew his Amendment, remarking that the Bill, as it stood, was very favourable for members of his profession.

said, he proposed to take rather an unusual course, but he thought the clause should be properly divided into two. He therefore proposed that the clause Clause 7 should end at line 30, after the word "holding."

moved in page 4, line 11, to leave out "ascertaining," and insert "the ascertainment of."

desired to know why it was proposed to restore the word "ascertainment" which was struck out in Committee, and which it was admitted by the Prime Minister was not good English.

said, that with the word "ascertaining" the clause did not read grammatically. They had consulted high literary authorities, and they found that the word "ascertainment" was a perfectly good English word.

moved the omission of the word "custom," which he said was vague, and would lead to a great deal of cross swearing.

assented to the Amendment.

proposed to leave out the words "or permits waste or commits" in order that a tenant should not be placed in a false position in case he should convert pasture into arable or vice versâ.

could not accept the Amendment.

moved to leave out—

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

proposed to leave out, in line 3, the words "or at will," and insert "where there is a written agreement."

could not accept the Amendment.

explained his reasons for opposing the second reading of this Bill the other evening, and, while he did not admire the lines upon which the Legislature proceeded, yet he quite sympathized with the difficulties of the case. He should have preferred this Bill being withdrawn altogether, and the particular alterations now proposed introduced by themselves. Again, instead of the Bill being made applicable to certain cases only, it should have been on a broad scale.

said, the late period of the Session prevented him following out the idea of the ton. Member. He, the other evening, indicated the course the Government were prepared to take on the question. He proposed to ask the House to read the Bill a second time, upon the distinct understanding that the first clause should be omitted, so as to render it a measure simply extending the powers now possessed by the Secretary of State for the remission of penalties in criminal cases to a similar remission of penalties in civil cases. That would operate as a wholesome restraint upon vexatious actions under the old law, while, on the other hand, it would not introduce that entire relaxation which would undoubtedly follow upon the repeal of that law itself. He therefore hoped that the House would now assent to the second reading of the measure.

observed, that the Act was passed for an entirely different purpose from that to which it had been applied, and it was merely by accident, as it were, that it was made to bear on the case of the Aquarium. The state of things which it was intended to meet having passed away, what should have been done was simply to repeal it, and had the Government determined to do so, it would have been supported by the general feeling of the country. The truth was that they coquetted with the question, and they gave encouragement to a small body of Sabbatarains by showing that they were afraid to go a step further than they proposed to go. This Bill, however, was permissive legislation in its worst form, because it was not dependent on the will of the people, but upon the will of the Government. He thought that whatever laws the people were called upon to obey, they should be able to find them in the Statute Book if they did not form part of the Common Law. The fact was, the whole state of Sunday legislation was getting into inextricable confusion. In the case of Sunday trading, a Permissive Act had been passed, making the execution of the law dependent on the will of the chief police authority of the district, or of two magistrates. This confusion was doing a great deal of harm; for opinion was much divided on the subject, and the question of civil and religious liberty became an important point in its consideration for the time being. As nobody was compelled to go to the Aquarium on a Sunday, to prevent anyone's going there on that day who desired to do so was a piece of gross tyranny which ought not to be permitted by the Legislature. He supposed the Bill was only intended as a temporary measure; but if the Government did not determine to repeal that Act next year, he should make a Motion to that effect.

said, that if a majority of the country were found to be in favour of the views of the hon. Member for Leicester, he should be ready to bow to that decision; but at present he was bound to recognize that the great preponderance of public opinion was the other way. He protested against a question of that importance being so dealt with at the end of the Session.

thought it quite absurd to suppose that in a place like Brighton the people should not have the opportunity of frequenting a place of amusement. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was amongst that class who were desirous of preventing anybody from being comfortable on a Sunday. He saw on all sides a class of people who endeavoured to interfere with the lower classes, or whatever they might choose to call them, in this country. He had the honour of being Recorder of that place where this dreadful affair arose. Nobody ever thought for one moment that there was any inconvenience caused to the most righteous people in this country from the fact that bodies of people went into that place of fishes, and to look at fishes. Heaven and earth! could it be said that looking at fishes on a Sunday was a wicked thing? How could anybody suppose that this country was to be regulated by a class of persons who entertained views of the most disagreeable nature, and that nobody was to be allowed to do what he liked? And if they had put themselves in that position that in the next world they would have to suffer, what consequence was it to his hon. Friend sitting opposite? It would not hurt him. He had always thought that there were a class of persons who called themselves extremely religious—more religious than anybody else—but he should like to know whether they took their religiousness out of the Bible or no. They had an opinion of their own; they worked away to make everybody uncomfortable; and they were the most disagreeable people in the world. The right way of proceeding would have been to repeal the old Act, and then everything would have gone on properly. He was sorry that had not been done; but, at the same time, the people would get something. It was now proposed that the Home Office should protect those persons who went to amuse themselves in the Aquarium, or the Botanical Gardens, or other places that were pleasant and agreeable on Sunday, and who did no harm to anybody, and he thought that in this respect the Government had acted very cleverly. He congratulated the Government on the course they had taken, and hoped they had now got rid of all the ridiculous rubbish he had heard in the House ever since he had been a Member of it, to prevent the great body of the working classes from enjoying themselves just as they pleased, so long as they did not interfere with the rest of the country.

did not pretend for a moment that this Bill could be looked upon as a settlement of the general question. That question, if brought under discussion, would inevitably raise a great deal of feeling on both sides throughout the country. Among the working classes, as well as in other sections of the community, there were, no doubt, many who believed that the Sunday ought to be strictly a day of rest. At the same time he, for one, did not wish to deprive people of the means of recreation on that day. It seemed to him that those who sought, as in the case of the Brighton Aquarium, to put in force the Act to which the present Bill referred, were really taking the strongest step possible to secure the repeal of that Act.

inquired whether the Bill might be taken as a temporary measure, because it gave immense power, not only in the remission of penalties in all actions in which they were recoverable, but even in political trials. He would suggest that, instead of the Crown having the power to remit the penalties, they should prevent the informers getting them. The money should go into the hands of the Crown instead of into the pockets of private informers.

moved that the Order for Committee be discharged in order that a proper schedule of the officers who would be entitled to benefit by the measure might be prepared before its reintroduction next Session.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the measure was to enable the Department of Science and Art to receive bequests of real property. That high-minded and liberal man, Sir Joseph Whitworth, had expressed a wish to add to the benefactions he had already given to the country. Sir Joseph Whitworth had endowed a scholarship of mechanical industry, to the amount of £3,000 a-year, in connection with the South Kensington Museum, and he now wished to increase that benefaction still further by making a larger endowment of a more permanent character, by bequeathing certain lands of great value to the Science and Art Department. He had expressed his own strong conviction that the maintenance by this country of her superiority in the mechanical arts depended upon her sons having the highest training in science as applied to these arts, and, for this purpose, he had communicated to Her Majesty's Government his wish to make hereafter this noble gift to the nation. It was impossible, however, to effect that object under the statute of Mortmain, and the Government thought they were only interpreting the wishes of the nation by enabling Sir Joseph Whitworth to carry out his admirable object through means of this Bill, which would confer on the Department powers similar to those already conferred on the British Museum. Sir Joseph Whitworth had enhanced still further the value of his gift by making it a condition that the bequest should be subject to the discretion of Parliament, so as to be altered if necessary to suit the varying circumstances of the time. He need hardly say that the Government had the greatest pleasure in doing all in their power to meet the wishes of this distinguished gentleman, and he felt sure that he was only expressing the sentiments of all the hon. Members of that House, when he said that, though this noble act could not add to the position which Sir Joseph Whitworth occupied most justly in the civilized world, it would establish a fresh claim to the affection and respect with which his name was regarded by his countrymen.

thought the measure required some discussion, and on account of the lateness of the hour moved the adjournment of the debate.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 24, to add at end of clause the following Proviso:—

"Provided, that when the aggregate amount of principal moneys due by any harbour authority to the Commissioners under The Harbours and Passing Tolls, &c. Act, 1861, exceeds one hundred thousand pounds, the rate of interest on such excess shall be three and a half per cent. or such higher rate, not exceeding five per cent., as may in the judgment of the Treasury be necessary to enable the loan to be made without loss to the Exchequer."

consented to the Amendment.