asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any steps are being taken or contemplated by the Government on the subject of a Memorial recently addressed to him, and extensively signed by Shipowners throughout the United Kingdom, relating to the maintenance of Lighthouses out of National Funds, and their management by a Central Board?

The Memorial has been received, and is at present before the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statement is correct which appeared in the London morning journals of Saturday last, that—

"For playing 'St. Patrick's Day' on the parade ground at Aldershot early in the morning of St. Patrick's Day, fifteen drummers and fifers of the 1st battalion of the 15th Foot, were made prisoners and confined in the guard room. They played without let or hindrance or fear of confinement on past occasions;"

and, whether they or any others have been since further punished for the same transaction; and, if so, to further ask, whether the bands of the 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, and the 41st, the Welsh, do not usually play Welsh national airs on the morning of St. David's Day "without let or hindrance or fear of confinement," and in truth and fact did on the morning of St. David's Day in the present year and month, at Cork and Shorncliffe, play the "March of the Men of Harlech" and other Welsh airs, and neither drummers nor fifers were therefor "made prisoners and confined to the guardroom," and further punished; and, if so, to ask, why the playing of "St. Patrick's Day" by the drummers and fifers of the 1st battalion of the 15th Foot was visited with exceptional penalties?

, in reply, said, that in consequence of the hon. Member's Question relating to the punishment of certain drummers and fifers at Aldershot for playing national airs he had made inquiries into the matter, and he found that the Question did not very accurately represent the whole of the circumstances of the case. The drummers broke out of barracks a few minutes before midnight on the 16th instant, taking with them the drums and fifes, the property of Government, and for this military offence they were punished, and not for playing any particular airs. Two lance-corporals and one drummer had been remanded for trial by a regimental Court-martial, which had not been proceeded with, pending the reference of the matter to His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding. The remainder of the drummers had been sentenced to 28 days' confinement to barracks. The act was a grave breach of discipline, contrary to the Queen's Regulations, both as regards quitting barracks without permission and playing after tattoo. The officers commanding the 1st battalion 23rd and 41st Regiments had reported that the bands of their regiments never played Welsh airs on St. David's Day without permission, and did not do so on last St. David's Day without permission. The drummers of the 1st battalion 15th Foot had not played on former occasions without permission, and consequently had not been punished. But perhaps the hon. Member was not aware that the 15th Foot was not an Irish regiment, but belonged to the East Riding of Yorkshire.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the terms used in Lord Salisbury's Despatch of 24th February 1876, to the Governor General of India in Council, viz., that selected candidates for the Indian Civil Service are to be paid an annual allowance of £150 if they pass two years of their probation—

"At some University (to be approved beforehand by the Secretary of State) at which moral responsibility for the conduct of the students is undertaken, and rules of discipline are enforced,"

will exclude the Colleges of the London University, such as King's College, University College, and Owen's College, Manchester, and the Colleges and Universities of Ireland and Scotland, as these do not enforce collegiate residence, though they undertake intramural moral responsibility for the conduct of students, and enforce rules of discipline; and, if so, whether a practical monopoly is thus given to Oxford and Cambridge?

, in reply, said, it was certainly not the intention of the Secretary of State to give any practical monopoly to Oxford and Cambridge, provided the other Universities undertook moral responsibility for the conduct of students and enforced rules of discipline, nor did he think the words used conveyed any such wish. The Secretary of State desired to give those words a liberal interpretation. The scheme, however, would not come into operation until July, 1878.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government during the present Session to move for a Committee to consider the advisability of legislation on the office of coroner in Ireland, or to take any other step on the subject?

, in reply, said, he had last Session, in the debate on the Coroners Bill, expressed an opinion that it was advisable that an inquiry should take place, and he was rather surprised that no steps in reference to the subject had been taken this Session by any of those who had previously brought it before the House. The question was not one of great urgency, and the amount of other business already on his hands precluded him from moving in the matter—at any rate, at present.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will extend to the Medical Officers of the Army the right to exchange to the same extent as conceded to the other officers of the Army by the Act of last Session?

, in reply, said, that no right of exchange existed anywhere, because it was a matter of permission. But with respect to medical officers, every application for exchange was carefully considered and decided on its own merits; as a rule no application of a medical officer was refused; and he did not, therefore, propose to make any alteration on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any intention during the present Session of bringing in a Bill on the subject of Vivisection of Animals?

, in reply, said, that the Government did not in any way underrate either the importance of the evidence given before the Royal Commission, or the clear manner in which the Commission had gone into and reported upon the question. At present, however, he regretted to say he could not do more than give the hon. Member an assurance that the subject would receive the careful consideration of the Government. He could not state whether any immediate legislation would be proposed or not.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a complete Return of the proceeds of all moveable property obtained by the Indian Government from the ex-Chiefs of Kirwee has been furnished, in accordance with the Order of the House of Commons, dated the 23rd day of July 1874, by His Excellency the Viceroy of India; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government has taken any steps to ensure a prompt Return of the whole of the moneys belonging to those Princes which passed into the possession of the local authorities, as well as of all treasure found by the troops at Lucknow?

, in reply, said, that he had not yet received a complete Return. When the remainder of the Returns had been received, he would supply the hon. Member with the information they contained.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Milner, the Chairman of the Keighley Board of Guardians, who has been committed for ten days' hard labour for the non-payment of a fine of 10s. for the non-vaccination of a child; and whether it is his intention to make some alteration in the Law on this subject?

, in reply, said, his attention had not been called to the subject, except through the Question of the hon. Gentleman. No one regretted more than he did the necessity for prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts, especially when they were repeated a number of times. As, however, his hon. Friend quoted the case of a Chairman of a Board of Guardians, he might remark that it was the duty of a person filling such a position to see that the law was enforced, and not to set an example of disobedience to it. Moreover, the payment of the fine would at once release Mr. Milner from prison. It was not his intention to propose to the Government any alteration of the law; and, even if an alteration of the Vaccination Acts were proposed, Parliament would probably not consent to it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Reports were received in the years 1872, 1873, 1874, and 1875, from Her Majesty's Consuls in the Island of Reunion on the condition of Indian Coolies in that Island; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay a Copy of such Reports upon the Table of the House.

, in reply, said, that Reports had been received, and representations had been made to the Government of Madras; but the Government did not consider it desirable that these representations should be laid before the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government approve of the following "Regulation" lately issued by a British Minister:—

"Any British, subject who shall within the dominions of His Imperial Majesty the Mikado print or publish a newspaper in the the Japanese language, shall be deemed guilty of an offence, and upon conviction thereof before any British Consular or other Court, shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour."

The Regulation to which the hon. Baronet has alluded was issued by Her Majesty's Minister in Japan in consequence of representations that were made to him by the Japanese Government respecting the publication of newspapers in Japan and in the Japanese language by persons who were British subjects, and therefore, according to our Treaty with Japan, were not amenable to Japanese authority, but were amenable to the authority of the Consular Court. We have not yet received the full particulars, which we expect by the next mail; and, therefore, I am unable to say whether or not the British Minister's Regulation will be approved.

said, since the Bill had been introduced he had taken a very strong view on the question of the policy of the measure as a whole. The Bill, it was true, consisted only of a single clause, and that clause was one which gave Her Majesty power by Proclamation to add to her Royal titles; but the only interpretation which they had had of the clause was the information which had been presented to the House from time to time by the Prime Minister. Now, he wanted to call attention to the position which they occupied. It appeared from the statements of the Prime Minister that "Empress" would be used as little as possible in England, and only in connection with Indian affairs, so that the people would be free to withhold the new title in England. We had, however, already had, from a high municipal authority, an example of the use of the title; and what he feared was, that there would be two parties in this country—one using the term Empress and Imperial, and the other using Queen and Royal. Such a state of things would be inimical to the peace and tranquillity of Her Majesty's reign, and to the harmony which ought to exist in a country like this. They were by this Bill giving Her Majesty a title limited—and he objected to any title which was limited—to one portion of Her Majesty's dominions. Such a limit was a thing utterly unknown in the Constitution of this country. It seemed to him that such a limit was contrary to the dignity of the Crown, and anything which was adverse to the dignity of the Crown prevented that respect being paid to the Throne which he thought it was eminently entitled to; and further, anything which impaired the dignity and respect for the Crown damaged the Constitution as they at present enjoyed it. The title had been sanctioned, it was true, by a majority in that House, but it was opposed by an important minority, who declined to offer Her Majesty such a title, believing that it would place the Sovereign in such a position as no Sovereign had ever been placed in, and which was contrary to the dignity and honour of the Throne. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) said that in India the Queen was at the head of a despotic Government, and therefore the title of Empress would be a suitable one there. Thus it would go forth to the people of India that Her Majesty was going to assume over them a title which had been almost unanimously rejected by the people of England. As far as this country was concerned, that appeared to him to be almost an insult. ["No!" and "Yes!"] The people of this country said that they did not wish Her Majesty to take the title of Empress ["No!" and "Yes!"]—and they were telling the people of India that they would not have the title of Empress themselves, but it was good enough for India. All he had heard of the Princes of India induced him to think that they were men of great intellectual power, who studied their own position, and read with interest the debates in this House. Would they not appreciate the fact that the title which the people of England rejected was to be given to Her Majesty as a symbol of despotic power in India? The Native Princes were being treated in a manner which he feared they would one day resent; and such treatment was a poor return for the hospitality and loyalty they had shown to the Heir to the Throne in his recent visit. Whether, therefore, he looked at the matter as it regarded Her Majesty the Queen, or, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, as it regarded "the Princes and the nations of India," he would far rather this Bill had never been introduced, and would very much deprecate its being read a third time.

said, he did not know how many had petitioned in favour of the Bill, but he believed only 98 persons had petitioned against it. When the House considered that 9,000 persons petitioned for the release of the Tichborne claimant, and that 155,000 had petitioned for doing away with the political disabilities of women, they would be apt to conclude that the Petitioners against the Bill were very few indeed. The point, however, which he wished to raise was this—would any addition be made to the Royal Coat of Arms? It should be borne in mind that when the Elector of Hanover became King of this country, the arms of Hanover were quartered on the Royal Standard, and when Her Majesty married the Prince Consort, his arms were also quartered on the Royal Standard, and were adopted by the Royal children. This was a matter which should not be lost sight of.

wished to make an explanation. He did not intend to convey to the House that he believed that the majority of the people of England were against this Bill. What he said was that the majority of the people of England declined to accept the title of Empress as applied to the Queen of England.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. Neville Grenville) had spoken of the small number of persons who had petitioned against the Bill, but he had omitted to state how many had petitioned in its favour, and he (Mr. Anderson) doubted very much whether there had been one single Petition so presented. He thought that on this, the last stage of the Bill, they ought not to allow so very obnoxious, offensive, and objectionable a measure to leave this House without giving it a parting kick; and he hoped that when it went to "another place" it might receive such a reception as would put an end to it altogether. The explanations given by the Prime Minister the other night were explanations which satisfied the House that they ought to have been made long ago; but they were not otherwise satisfactory. Nobody ever for a moment imagined that Her Majesty's Government would be so insane as to recommend Her Majesty to adopt the title of Empress in England, or to recommend her to make the Royal Princes and Princesses "Imperial." Nobody ever imagined that the Queen would of herself, under cover of this Bill, assume such titles. What was dreaded was that in spite of the Government, and in spite of the Queen, these offensive titles would in time come into the country and into use. What was dreaded was that all the toadies, snobs, and sycophants of the country would begin to use the title—and, most of all, municipal sycophancy was dreaded. Something had occurred since he last spoke on the question that afforded even greater reason for such a dread. He had been told, on authority which he could not doubt, that a Gentleman occupying the high position of a Member of this House, and the high position of Lord Mayor of the City of London, had actually, in dispensing his civic hospitalities, so trespassed on his guests as to endeavour to thrust down their throats this offensive title. The hon. Gentleman to whom he referred was now in his place, and he could contradict the statement if it were incorrect. He (Mr. Anderson) spoke from information he had received, and he regretted extremely that any Member of this House should have done such a thing; and he especially regretted that the Lord Mayor of London should have set such a pernicious example to all the other municipalities of the country. When they had such an example set by the Lord Mayor of London, what might they not expect from municipal toadyism in other parts of the country? But he would pass from this point, and ask what about the feeling of the people of India? They had been told that this was to be a very agreeable thing to the people of India; that it was done in their interest, and because they would like it. But they had now heard from India. He had read extracts from some of the Indian Native newspapers, and it turned out that the people of India, in place of looking upon this as a message of peace and goodwill in return for the hospitable reception they had given to the Prince of Wales, looked upon it with very great disfavour indeed. If that were so, he believed the people of England would dislike it still more, because, instead of the compliment intended, it would tend to stamp Indian institutions and Indian rule as permanently despotic. We ought, instead of carrying such, a title to India, to give the people the hope that they might in time arrive at representative institutions like our own—we ought to give them a share in our own Royal title, and not create for them and try to reserve for their separate use a despotic title which they disliked, and we disliked also. He feared that in the future we should very much regret what was now being done in the matter.

, with reference to the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) that he doubted whether any one had petitioned in favour of this Bill, said, that he (Mr. Mills) had himself presented a Petition from his constituents, in which they prayed that the Bill might be passed, as the title of "Empress" was the most suitable to be given to Her Majesty in connection with her Indian Empire. In that opinion, which was the opinion of those who brought forward the Bill and of the very large majority who supported it, he entirely concurred; because the title of Empress best conveyed to the Natives and Princes of India that Her Majesty was Sovereign of Sovereigns, and that the idea should be ever present to their minds that their great Sovereign was in England Queen.

I beg leave to doubt whether my hon. Friend who has just sat down has mended the matter. He likes to proclaim through his mouth to the people of India that sovereignty is now for the first time by law to be definitely assumed over India. I do not wish to share his responsibility; and, notwithstanding the high character that he bears, I trust that those whom his words may reach in India willnot re- gard Mm as an empowered and authenticated organ of the British Legislature and nation. I agree very much with the substance of what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), but I shall not use his decisive language. But I wish to say a few words before the third reading of the Bill is passed. I cannot bring myself to doubt that it will be read a third time without a division; but we do not regard the measure as settled—in fact, I think it a duty not to regard the matter as settled—until it has finally obtained the assent of both branches of the Legislature. I know very well that in the House of Lords Her Majesty's Government are not less happy than in this House in the adherence and support of a very compact majority; but it is simply as a matter of duty, and not as expressing what I think a very probable alternative, that I have used the langauge that we ought not, until the last moment, to regard this matter as settled. I wish just to point out what I think we have gained in the discussions on this Bill and what I think we have failed to gain. The discussions have been remarkable in this respect, as well as in other respects—that information has been communicated to us in a very progressive manner by Her Majesty's Government. Almost every stage of the Bill has presented the sentiments of Members in a new character, and therefore I think it desirable to review briefly what I take to be its exact position at the present moment. I am not going to make any charge, or to offer, what is the dullest of all things, a defence against any charge. I think the charge of using the machinery of Party against this Bill has been unnecessarily and unjustly made. I make no charge against Her Majesty's Government for using the machinery of Party in favour of the Bill. When measures of this kind are introduced by the Government it is absolutely necessary, if they think that their public duty requires them to persevere with their proposal—it is absolutely necessary for them to use the machinery of Party in favour of it. But with respect to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, I must say that it appears to me that there are none of the evidences or indications which would warrant a charge of that nature. When the Bill was originally introduced it was not opposed with the evidence of concurrence and combination on our part. Only a single Member—at any rate who had ever borne office on this side—my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe)—expressed what at the time many felt, and he was most anxious to put all his statement, not in the form of definitive opposition to the Bill, but simply in the shape of questions and in the expression of misgiving. Now, Sir, when we come to the important division on the Bill, I think I may say that, as far as information has reached me, every man who voted in the minority on that occasion did so under strong and conscientious convictions. I mean convictions of his own. I do not mean to say that other votes were not conscientious; but I think it would be difficult for any one to assert the same of all in the majority by which the Motion of my noble Friend was defeated. [Mr. D. ONslow: No, no.] Does the hon. Member object to what I have said?

The right hon. Gentleman said that all the conscientiousness was on his side of the House, and that we did not vote on this side conscientiously, intimating that we were not sincere.

I did not say that. I said expressly that I did not say their votes were not conscientious. But the conclusion I wished to draw was this—that the votes of the minority, in my opinion, expressed a conviction on the merits of the proposal; but I doubted very much—and I still doubt—whether any Minister will say he believes all the votes of the majority in like manner expressed a conscientious conviction on the merits of the question. ["Oh!"] I am surprised, and I am quite sure that those who express displeasure are persons very little used to debate in this House, and can only very recently have given their attention to these matters. Convictions, of course, are always conscientious. Every conviction is conscientious; but many a Gentleman supports a measure without a positive conviction in favour of that measure on its merits, though he has a conscientious belief that, upon the whole, he best discharges his public duty by supporting it. I have not a doubt that all those who gave their votes in support of this measure had convictions as conscientious as those which we gave in the minority; but my point is that the votes of the minority, as far as I know and believe, were given in opposition to the merits of the measure. The votes of the majority, I believe, were given with equal conscientiousness, but were given partly only in approval of the measure, though, in the circumstances in which it was introduced by the Government, and from the feeling which is entertained towards the beloved Sovereign who sits on the Throne of these Realms, they felt that they did their duty by supporting it. I am extremely anxious to be understood on this point. I should be ashamed of myself, and should think myself blame able, if for a moment it could be supposed that I presumed to deny that those who voted in the majority did so as conscientiously as those who voted in the minority. But my meaning was wider and directed to a different purpose. If it were only the spirit of Party which dictated opposition to this measure, how was it that the remarkable change in the Press was noticed the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The spirit of Party just now is not particularly alive to the action of the Press; and especially of the Metropolitan Press. My right hon. Friend noticed that state of things, and said it was due to unreasoning panic, which was justly distinguishable from the mere action of Party. I am quite sure this could not fail to be observed by those who considered the Division List. They could not fail to have noticed that some of the weightiest, some of the most experienced, some of the most impartial, some of the most respected Members of the Party opposite entirely declined to give their votes in favour of the second reading of the Bill. They were entitled, if they pleased, to take that course, but we are also entitled to point to it as exhibiting on their part a proof that the opposition to this measure was not a Party opposition. But I pass from that subject. I wish to show—and I hope I do show to the satisfaction of reasonable minds—that such a change had better not be introduced, inasmuch as it has no effect excepting that of embittering controversy, and inasmuch as there is not only no positive evidence to support it, but there is positive evidence to refute it. With respect to the measure itself, I apprehend that we have gained in the discussion, at any rate in point of knowledge, upon two points. In the first place, we understand from Her Majesty's Government that it is their intention that this title shall be, as far as possible, only employed as a local title. There are very great disadvantages in such a use of any title belonging to Her Majesty. At the same time, as far as that goes, it is a gain, and I am very glad to consider it as placed on the record. We have also gained a most explicit declaration that the India mentioned in this Bill is, not only in the view of Her Majesty's Government, but is also in the view of the law, according to the opinion of their Law Officers, the same India, and no other India, than that which was mentioned in the Act of 1858, and that therefore, whatever my hon. Friend who spoke just now may say, there is no new assumption of rights intended or contemplated by this Bill, but that the relations which have subsisted between this country and India up to the present time remain unchanged, the alteration that takes place being simply and solely a change of name. In these respects I think we have gained something, although I will not say that it has removed the substantial objections to the Bill. With deep regret, and in no spirit of Party, but from conviction, which I cannot avoid, I feel obliged to come to the conclusion that it has not, and on these three grounds. First, I think we run a serious risk as regards our colonies. I should have been opposed to any step for imposing on the colonies the slightest change, even nominally, in their relations with the Crown; but I think if it so happened that public opinion in the colonies, the movements of which it is difficult for us to anticipate, should show a tendency to complain that when a particular portion of Her Majesty's dominions, not hitherto noticed in her title, was selected for the honour of that distinction, the colonies were overlooked, I should, I confess, not know what answer to make, and I think any Government, and this House, would be to blame if it left open this ground of complaint. In the second place, although it is not the intention of the Government to make use of this title excepting as a local title. I think the more we reflect the more we shall see that, independently of individual feelings—or what I may call the redundancy of the loyalty of individuals—it will be found extremely difficult to circumscribe the title. I doubt very much whether it could be circumscribed by anything short of a provision of this nature—that it never should be used except by the Local Government of India. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government felt himself obliged to point out to the House that he did not mean that the application of the title would be absolutely local. I give him credit for the intention, and I wish particularly that he had taken note of the intention that it should be made local as far as it might be; but he pointed to a particular occasion—namely, the conclusion of some great diplomatic instrument having no distinct connection with India—in which usage would require the enumeration of all the titles of the Crown; and, of course, that is not a local use of the title. In the same way, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) raised another objection—he asked when an appeal from any of our Indian subjects came to the Queen in Council, is the use of the title Empress to be excluded from all relation to that appeal? I know not how that may be; but it would be a singularity and an anomaly in law and procedure if the subject of an Empire, applying to an Empress in due course of law for justice under the usual forms, should be precluded from addressing her by that title under which in her local relations she is known. Then my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) raised another point in reference to the Sign Manual. The question has been raised whether for Indian purposes we shall have the old form "Victoria Regina," or whether it shall not be "Victoria Regina et Imperatrix." To have two Signs Manual used by one and the same Sovereign would be an innovation touching the Crown in the immediate exercise of its Constitutional functions, and one which we ought to be especially anxious to avoid, because it is in matters which lie near the centre and heart of the Constitution. These are points which have arisen casually in debate, and what I am afraid of is that a great number of such points will arise. In practice and in the administration of Government it will be found from time to time one matter and another will come forward for discussion. I believe that Her Majesty's regiments generally carry the Royal cipher on their colours. Is that cipher to be borne as it has been uniformly borne heretofore—namely, as consisting of two letters "V. R."—or is it to be altered to "V. R. I.," or any other form? If it is to be altered, that clearly would be a very important alteration in the midst of England, or within the limits of the United Kingdom. If it is not to be altered then we are landed in another unfortunate anomaly, because whilst in India the Queen will be legally not Queen, but Empress, upon the colours of her troops she will be displayed to the people of this country not under that legal title, because the letters will remain "V. R." It is not possible that the declaration of any Ministry, or that the language of any Proclamation, however prudent—and I do not doubt that there will be much consideration of the terms of the Proclamation on this subject—it is not possible to erect an effective and permanent barrier against the intrusion of the new title into this country. I hope the endeavour may be successful—I even am sanguine in the belief that for a time it will be so; but I cannot say I think, even with what we have obtained, and with all it is in the power of the Government to give us, we have any security that will be permanent and complete. Then comes the remaining point—namely, the limitation of the title to India. I have endeavoured to measure the exact force and significance of the declaration of the Government on the point; but notwithstanding that limitation, I cannot but feel that we are doing an act which is thoroughly unwise, and against the commonest prudence. However sanguine we may be with regard to the permanency of our relations with India, however strong we may feel ourselves to be in the possession of paramount power, and likewise in a much better defence, and in our firm intention and ardent desire to do our duty by the people of that country, whatever may be the foundations and sources of our hope—to introduce a novelty of this kind, which may be thought by the jealous mind to touch relations of the utmost delicacy which have been formed during the time we have been building up this gigantic fabric, and which on every occasion we have studiously avoided the temptation to define, is, I cannot but feel, an act of the class which we call "a tempting of Providence." It is all very well to say we can see no danger in it; I subscribe to it; a sound and healthy mind need not, and ought not, to see any danger in it; but the proceedings of Governments and Legislatures are not to be regulated by the idle belief that the minds of all persons, or of all communities, are at all times sound and healthy, and their judgments always wise and discriminating. In the proceedings of Government you must allow much for the weakness, much for the fluctuation of the public mind, and not a little for the designs and intrigues of evil-minded men; and if you do not guard against these designs and intrigues, though you may not share with these evil-minded men the guilt which they bear, you will share the responsibility for what ensues. I think we have had lessons enough, especially in that portion of the world, of the effects that may be produced by acts wholly unimportant, wholly inadequate, to have impressed upon our minds the propriety of caution and circumspection; to have created in us a strong determination to be limited in all our proceedings towards India by what was obviously and necessarily prudent; to run no unnecessary risks; to create no unnecessary doubts or misgivings or speculations. In what I have been saying, I have proceeded on the assumption, which I do not absolutely admit, that the title of Empress is to be adhered to. That is what I must assume as the probable conclusion of this discussion; but when I say the probable conclusion, I will not assume it as certain; I will cling as strongly as I can to the hope that a wiser course will be adopted, and more reasonable counsels prevail. I trust that in what I have said I have succeeded in removing the misapprehension as to the equal conscientiousness of all hon. Gentlemen in this House. I have made no reproach to anyone. The subject lies too deep to be settled by reproaches. There is plenty of temptation in the course of this debate to review the subject point by point, and to make what is called a Party speech upon it. I deprecate the course. I wish to reduce my whole views of the case to the limits and terms of the utmost so- briety. I do not prophesy that evils are certain to arise from the adoption of this measure—I hope they will not arise. What I perceive is that we are making room for them; and that if they do not arise, it will not be owing to our prudence and judgment, but to the beneficent influence of a Higher Power that we trust watches over the destinies of this country. I was greatly struck in the course of such reading as I have had of the comments of the newspapers, by a remark, I think in The Spectator newspaper, in which the writer stated that in his judgment a very large portion of the case lay in the distinction between the words Emperor and Empress. The more I reflect on that observation the more heartily do I enter into the spirit of it. I feel, and feel deeply, with reference to the Sovereign on the Throne, that this proposal loses, by the fact of its having been made under a Queen, a very large proportion of what might seem invidious in our eyes. I believe that such is the feeling of this country towards one who for nearly 40 years has exhibited upon the Throne such a model of personal and domestic life, who has manifested so high and loyal a sense of every engagement which the possession of her high station involves, and who has been the source of so many wise and beneficial influences to the people, that there is hardly any request that could be made in the name of the Sovereign which the minds and the hearts of the Members of this House, and of the people of this country would not, with one impetuous impulse, as it were, rush to gratify. But we are not dealing with the Queen alone; we are dealing with future Sovereigns; and I must say I think it is a perfectly just observation that the very change of gender, trifling as it may appear, offers to our view a difference that was almost vital, certainly of a very weighty character in relation to this proposal. I doubt very much whether if, instead of having Her Majesty upon the Throne, we had upon the Throne a King—and one of the best Kings that ever adorned the Throne—there would ever have been found a Minister either rash enough or bold enough, I will not say which, to lay such a Bill before Parliament, or bring such a proposal before the country.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has offered us—I use the word not in an offensive, but in a classical sense—an apology for the management of the Opposition during the preceding debates on this Bill; and though I am very willing to accept from the right hon. Gentleman his assurance that he did not claim a monopoly of conviction for his friends, I am bound to say that, whether it is from an unhappy dulness of my own, or my inability to meet the unrivalled powers of casuistry possessed by the right hon. Gentleman, I am still at a loss to know, if he did not impute to us a want of conviction, what he really did mean. However, I accept the assurance he gave; though I must say we were under the faint impression of his having made an accusation which I do not remember to have heard made before in Parliament with so general an application. With respect to the regrets of the right hon. Gentleman and the arguments he offered to prove that no Party spirit had been introduced into this discussion—that it had not been introduced by those with whom he associates in political life—I always feel that we must not be very severe and critical censors of all the impulses which sway a popular Assembly. Party influences have a sort of atmospheric character when we assemble in large numbers in this House. The recollection of those with whom we habitually act, and the remembrance of the friends with whom we have served in many a struggle, do necessarily influence Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I was not aware, I confess, that in the conduct of the debates on this Bill there had been a total absence of Party feeling. I was totally unaware till the right hon. Gentleman addressed us this evening that it was this side of the House which was distinguished particularly by ebullitions of that kind. It is true I had the honour of introducing the Bill; but I did so in my Ministerial capacity, and certainly not as the Leader of a political Party in Parliament; and as the Bill proceeded, when I saw the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) take the reins in his hands, after several attacks had been made of a guerilla-like nature, I did not disapprove his doing so, but I was under the impression that he was performing his public duty as the Leader of a Party; and therefore the right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that he has succeeded in instilling into the country the idea that Party feeling is confined to this side of the House, or that all those with whom he acts in public life—including, I suppose, the noble Marquess—are perfectly free from any imputation of that character. Then the right hon. Gentleman says it is very satisfactory to him to have had this opportunity of vindicating in the House, in the face of the country, his own conduct and convictions, and to take a survey of the conduct of this Bill from the beginning. He says that the information given by the Government has been of a progressive character. When I introduced the Bill I certainly did not inform the House what the title was which it was intended Her Majesty should be advised to assume; but I was perfectly frank as to the causes which deterred me from stating it. The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing in my reason; but I spoke, of course, on the highest authority on this subject of the Royal Prerogative, and I cannot pretend to put my opinions before those of some of my Colleagues, and one especially, whose great learning and reputation are acknowledged on both sides of the House. I gave the reason why, under that advice, and with a due sense of responsibility, I did not then give the Royal title. I venture to say, as I have every reason to say from the authorities whom I consulted, that a question of Prerogative was at that moment concerned in the matter, and that until I had the permission of the Queen that could not be done. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion flouted, as he has done since, all idea of Prerogative. Prerogative, he says, has been extinct, or virtually so. [Mr. Gladstone: No.] Well, I give the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He said that Statute and Prerogative could not co-exist. [Mr. Gladstone: Hear, hear.] The right hon. Gentleman cheers that statement—he who carried one of his most important measures by statute and prerogative combined. Beginning by statute, and when the statutory power failed him, having accomplished his purpose to some extent by statute, he ran to the Throne and fetched the Royal Warrant to complete his work. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman says we gained by these prolonged debates another important point. We have ascertained, it seems, that if the Queen, by her Proclama- tion, accepts this title, that will make no change in the relations between the Throne and the Princes and Natives of India. Not an institution will be altered; not a manner, not a custom, not a law, will be affected; and this great result is the consequence of our discussions! Now, is there any human being alive who believes that because a person takes a name, that can change the laws and customs of a country? Who ever supposed for a moment because our Sovereign is to be called Empress instead of Queen of India that the laws of property, the social and religious institutions of the country, the powers of Princes and the prerogatives of feudatories, are all to be affected by merely assuming a name? If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the many speeches he has made and the activity he has shown upon this subject, I can only say that he is more easily satisfied than I have observed him to be under any other circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are three great points in these discussions which have been satisfactorily brought forward. One relates to the colonies. Now, after our discussion the other night on this subject, it is unnecessary for us any further to discuss it. [Mr. Gladstone: Might I say unsatisfactory?] The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, said that he was satisfied that these points had been brought under discussion. But I have no doubt that he thought the result was unsatisfactory. Of course, according to the views which the right hon. Gentleman holds on the subject of the colonies, and which he expressed the other night, he was right in speaking of it as unsatisfactory. Our views are different; but I will not pursue that subject. I thought that upon the second point the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied—namely, that it had from the first been announced that the assumption of the title of Empress was to be limited to India, and was, therefore, to be a local title. But the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this was developed in debate in an unsatisfactory manner. Then he says that the third point is the great difficulty of the Queen in Council. I must say that I do not see the slightest difficulty in that. The right hon. Gentleman in his argument proceeded upon a fallacious assumption—namely, that the Queen in Council sitting at Westminster is in fact presiding over a Court of Appeal from India. It is a Court of Appeal; but a Court of Appeal, not only for India, but for every part of Her Majesty's dominions. It is, therefore, in fact, an appeal to the Queen's Majesty in Council, and, whether the appeal comes from India or from Australia, the title does not change, and I imagine that there is not the slightest difficulty which can arise on that point. As to the Sign Manual, since the right hon. Gentleman spoke I have had the opportunity of conferring with those who are extremely learned in the law on that point. The result is, I imagine, that that also is one of the shadowy difficulties which will disappear in course of time. The truth is the Sign Manual of the Sovereign is simply "Victoria." Custom has added the word "Rex," or "Regina," indicated by the letter "R," and it may be convenient that in India the Queen's Sign Manual may be "Victoria Regina et Imperatrix," or it may not be. But the Sign Manual will remain as it is. I have consulted the most learned men who ever wrote on the subject, and there can be very little doubt that the Sign Manual of the Queen will be "Victoria Regina" in England, and "Victoria Regina et Imperatrix" in India. What difficulty is there in that? Are these the circumstances that are to bring about the doleful and dismal results which the right hon. Gentleman has depicted to the House? We must remember that India does not cease to be a dependency of the Crown because the Queen is called Empress there. The relations are not changed. The hon. Gentleman who opened this debate (Mr. Pease) made some statements which rather surprised me. He stated that the vast majority of the people objected to this title as unconstitutional, and as lowering the dignity of Her Majesty. He added that using the name of Empress was inimical to the peace of the country. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is justified in making such sweeping charges without some shadow of proof. I will not mention, as I have before done, the evidence that the title of Empress was an old title in this country, and held in much reverence and honour. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), when he last addressed the House, spoke of my reference to Spenser. I think it was a fair reference. He was one of our greatest writers in our greatest age, and he used that name in an honoured sense. But I was interested in observing that in Camden's Britannia—in the first English translation from the original Latin—it is described as "the true and Royal history of the famous Empress Elizabeth, Queen of England." So, at any rate, Camden, as well as Spenser, may be quoted as authority on that point. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) says that there is no instance of Sovereigns of this country bearing a title that they did not use in the country. How would that apply to the time when our Sovereigns were Kings of Hanover? They never used the title of King of Hanover in this country, and that is exactly the same thing. It only shows what monstrous conclusions are drawn at random when hon. Gentlemen have no solid arguments to offer. The hon. Member said that the title of Empress had been rejected by this country. Well, I say, in reply, that some proof ought to be given of such an assertion. If there had been innumerable Petitions on the subject I could have understood it. I, for one, do not depreciate the importance of the character of Petition; because, however artificial may be the organization by which they are procured, they still in a certain sense represent public feeling. But there have been no Petitions presented to this House. Have there been any public meetings? This measure has been before the House for four or five weeks, and have there, I repeat, been any public meetings? I remember asking one of the most sagacious men who ever sat in this House—Mr. Walter—father of one of our Colleagues now in the House of Commons, and a gentleman who had great knowledge of the Press and of public opinion—I asked him—"How do you ascertain what is public opinion?" He said—"Well, the way I ascertain public opinion is this. Petitions may be got up and meetings may be got up, or the country may feel a great deal without expressing its opinion either by Petitions or public meetings; but there is an infallible test, and that is the post. They way I always know what is the real feeling of the country is by the letter-bag." And it must be borne in mind that Mr. Walter had at that time the conduct of one of the most powerful journals of the country—those journals which it is now the fashion to quote in the House of Commons—it never was done when I first entered it. He said—"I receive a hundred letters a-day—and more when there is anything stirring in the country—and I thus understand and find out what is public opinion from the post-bag. It is that which tells me what the feeling of the country is, and I know it before Petitions or public meetings. They follow it." Well, I think a Minister of State has as many letters as the editor of a newspaper. I have sometimes 100 letters a-day, and have had a great many lately. Generally speaking two-thirds of these refer to the business before Parliament. They sometimes contain very crude, but sometimes very critical and useful hints. The other third consists of what may be called "crazy correspondence." Now, I have a letter which I received the day before yesterday, which I will really venture to read to the House, because it has a moral. It shows that while we have been discussing with all this learning and argument, and with an entire absence of Party feeling, and while we have been listening to the Quixotic denunciations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, the people out-of-doors are astonished at our being ignorant of what they thought was well known to everybody. My correspondent is a young lady. She is only 12 years of age, so there is nothing compromising to her dignity or my own. Her father was in the House of Commons the other day listening to our debates—I do not, of course, mention her name, but it is an extremely pretty one. They live a few miles away from London. The young lady asked her father what the debate was about, and he told her the House of Commons was discussing the question whether the Queen of England should be called Empress or Queen. "What silly men they must be," said she; "I have known that for three years. "And how did you know it?" she was asked. "Why," she said, "it's in my geography book." Upon which she brought the book into her father, who sent it to me by post. Now, this is not a book to be despised, for it is in its 89th edition. I am informed by the most perfect authority on the subject—namely, the publishers them- selves, that there are at this moment at least 250,000 copies of it in circulation, educating young people and others. On examining this book what do I find? There is a chapter on India—I will not read it all, but merely give a quotation. "Hindostan," it says, "is in general a flat country," and so on. And here I beg the House to remember that I am reading from the edition of 1873, which I need not say has not been printed for the occasion. At Paragraph 6 I read, "British India is under the dominion of Great Britain. Her Majesty Queen Victoria bears there the title of Empress of India." This was known even in 1873 to this young lady, and probably many people knew it many years ago. To say, therefore, that the people of England have rejected this title as something strange, is as if we had brought on something terrible like the Dragon of Wantley, which everybody must run from. If you read her letter you would be still more pleased. Well, I have here another letter written only yesterday. It is an excellent letter, in handwriting, style, and everything. I will not give the writer's name; but he will probably commend himself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, when I state that he is a Nonconformist minister. He says—

"May I hope that you will not think it an improper trespass on your time if I call attention to the fact that while the Royal Titles Bill is so keenly discussed by statesmen, the question at issue was settled years ago by what a large party of the English-speaking people have received with unhesitating confidence as a competent authority, Whitaker's Almanack."

In that work for 1861 he says Her Most Gracious Majesty is thus described—"Alexandrina Victoria, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, and of the Colonies and Dependencies thereof, Empress of India, Defender of the Faith." "The title of Empress of India," the writer added, "seems to have been accepted by the common sense of the nation as a simple statement of fact." Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich says that this title has been rejected by the country. Well, now, I hope this Bill may pass without a Division. It passed its recond reading without a division, and if it passes its third reading in the same manner, perhaps what has occurred in the interval may be forgotten. I have had the honour of introducing this Bill, and I have impressed on the House to the utmost of my power that I at least felt it was most important it should pass. I have said—and I do not speak without authority or reason—that there were grave political reasons why this Bill should pass; and I should have been glad had some of the discussion which had arisen upon it been avoided. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich taunted me the other day, when I talked of the revolution that had occurred in India, by adducing the changes that had occurred in the colonies, and the changes in the relationship between the Sovereign and those settlements. But while we have been pondering and legislating on these matters there have been greater changes going on in the very heart of Asia than even the conquest of India itself, or the foundation of all our colonies. There is a country of vast extent, which has been known hitherto only by its having sent forth hordes to conquer the world. That country has at last been vanquished, and the frontiers of Russia—I will not say a rival Power, but the frontiers of Russia—are only a few days march from those of Her Majesty's dominions in India. I venture to speak on this subject with some frankness, because I am not of that school who view the advances of Russia in Asia with those deep misgivings that some do. I think that Asia is large enough for the destinies of both Russia and England. But whatever may be my confidence in the destiny of England, I know that Empires are only maintained by vigilance, by firmness, by courage, by understanding the temper of the times in which we live, and by watching those significant indications that may easily be observed. The population of India is not the population it was when we carried the Bill of 1858. There has been a great change in the habits of the people. That which the Press could not do, that which our influence had failed in doing, the introduction of railroads has done, and the people of India move about in a manner which never could have been anticipated, and are influenced by ideas and knowledge which before never reached or touched them. What was the gossip of bazaars is now the conversation of villages. You think they are ignorant of what is going on in Central Asia. You think they are unaware that Tartary, that great conquering Power of former times, is now at last conquered. No; not only do they know what has occurred, not only are they well acquainted with the Power which has accomplished this great change, but they know well the title of the Great Prince who has brought about so wonderful a revolution. I have listened with surprise, night after night, to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House translating the title of Empress into all sorts of languages, and indicating to us what name would at last be adopted. The nations and populations that can pronounce the word Emperor, and that habitually use it, will not be slow to accept the title of Empress. That is the word which will be adopted by the nations and populations of India, and in announcing, as Her Majesty will do, by her Proclamation, that she adopts that title, confidence will be given to her Empire in that part of the world, and it will be spoken in language which cannot be mistaken that the Parliament of England have resolved to uphold the Empire of India.

said, he had not had an opportunity of taking any part in the discussion during the previous stages of the Bill. He knew it was unusual for a Member to attempt to continue a discussion after the Prime Minister had made his reply; but, as he felt strongly on the question, and as he was not accustomed to trouble the House often with observations, perhaps they would kindly accord him their attention for a few minutes. The speech they had just listened to from the Prime Minister was in some parts solemn, and in some parts frivolous. His remark as to the receipt of private letters, giving an indication of popular feeling, was, to say the least, somewhat unfortunate. He (Mr. Cowen) had some practical knowledge of the Press of this country, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever number of letters he had received with respect to this Bill, there were daily newspapers published in England whose editors were throwing into the waste-basket from 20 to 40 communications per day respecting this question, and four-fifths of them were in opposition to the Bill. He was surprised that the Prime Minister should again attempt to draw an argument from such a poor precedent as that of Spenser's Faery Queen. Perhaps this was the first time that the most fanciful poem of one of our most fanciful poets should be made a serious argument for a grave Constitutional change. But if Spenser was to be quoted as an authority for the use of the word "Empress" in England, it was only right for them to recollect that the author of the Faery Queen was a courtier of Queen Elizabeth. He was not only a servant of Her Majesty, but he received from her both pension and property. He spoke from recollection; but he believed he was correct when he said that the confiscated estate of a rebel Irish Earl—Kilcolmac—in the county of Cork, was given by Queen Elizabeth to Spenser, and it was when residing upon that estate that the Faery Queen was written. To put the matter mildly, Elizabeth had what the phrenologists call the bump of love of approbation largely developed. Whatever other merits she had, her best friends admitted that she was a trifle vain. It was not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that a courtier and a pensioner should feel anxious to acknowledge the bountiful gifts of his Royal mistress by addressing her in a style a little inflated, but, at the same time, acceptable to the Royal ear. A much greater man than Spenser, and a very much greater poet, had been guilty of a like literary offence, and had travestied English history, to please the prejudices and whims of the ambitious daughter of Henry VIII. If Shakespeare could in this way try to win the favour of his Queen, a weak and courtly man like Spenser surely might do it. But the action of either, or both poets, certainly ought not to be used in a serious argument for effecting political changes. The right hon. Gentleman was fond of precedents. It was his love of them that led him to drag Spenser into his arguments for this Bill. He (Mr. Cowen) would give him a precedent, that he was surprised had been overlooked, and which was far more to the purpose. There was a King of England once who called himself Emperor. Edgar, the Saxon King, commonly called the "peaceful," because he maintained peace within his dominions, took upon himself the double title of "Basileus Imperator," or King and Emperor of Britain. This was more than 900 years ago. Edgar wished to declare himself independent of the Holy Roman Empire, and of the suzerainty of Henry the Fowler, who then occupied the Germanic Throne. To show his independence, Edgar assumed the titles he had indicated. If the Queen of England wished to adopt this new title, he submitted that the precedent of Edgar was far more to the point than that of an Elizabethan poet. He did not think, however, that the country was inclined to follow either precedent. He was free to confess that the alteration the Prime Minister had made in the Bill during its progress through the House, had modified, but had not removed, the popular hostility to it. All the opposition centred in the word Empress. This objection might amount to very little, it might amount to a great deal. No doubt the Prime Minister thought that this additional title would augment the prestige and add to the power of the Queen; but every one had not the same passion for pageantry, or the same fondness for ceremonial, that was possessed by the Premier. Other hon. Gentlemen, no doubt, thought that the change was chiefly of a personal and family character. In their speeches and conversations they did not hesitate to confess that the reason whythey supported the Bill was because they believed it would be acceptable to Her Majesty and the members of the Royal Family generally. If no other effect was to be produced than simply to please the Queen, the vote upon the Bill would be unanimous. He believed the question at issue concerned the nation infinitely more than it did the Court or the Government. Future generations were more interested in the question than the present. It was not so much the direct or immediate results that they were afraid of, as it was the indirect and ultimate consequences. The Government under which they lived was a strictly Constitutional one. What the Ministers wished them to do was to engraft upon their Constitutional forms the name and style of a military, autocratic, irresponsible, and arbitrary power. In changing the name, he feared they might change the character of the Government. Phrases had a curious habit of transmuting themselves into facts. The liberties they enjoyed had been too dearly bought, the privileges they rejoiced in had been too stoutly fought for, to be surrendered even in appearance. They could not be too jealous of regal and despotic encroachments upon popular power and influence. He knew these fears were not entertained by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, and he believed sincerely, if they were entertained, the Gentlemen there would as resolutely defend every form of English liberty as he would. They could not overlook the fact that, although a majority was in favour of this change, full two-fifths of the Members of the House of Commons were opposed to it, and took the same view as he was enforcing. The Government and their supporters might not—he believed did not—contemplate such consequences as he had described; but they must excuse him, and others like him, who dreaded such results, if they offered the proposal their resolute opposition. He was afraid, if they effected the suggested change, that they would be taking the first step, but a substantial step, towards abolishing the time-honoured and historic title of Queen of England, and supplanting it by the tawdry, common-place, and vulgar designation of Empress. What were the facts? There were 32,000,000 of people in the United Kingdom, and something like 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 in the colonies. In India there were 200,000,000. If this change was made, one-fifth of Her Majesty's subjects would address her as Queen, and four-fifths as Empress. The communication between this country and India was large, and was yearly increasing. Hindoos were coming in larger numbers to England, and Englishmen were going in larger numbers to the East. When the Hindoos were at home, their ruler would be an Empress; when they were in England she would be their Queen. When Englishmen were at home their ruler would be a Queen; and when they were in India she would be an Empress. He asked hon. Gentlemen whether they seriously thought they could preserve this dual designation? They might carefully observe it on all State occasions; they might use it in all Royal Proclamations; and they might embody it in a thousand Acts of Parliament, but popular usage—which in matters of language was despotic—would abandon one title and retain the other. The title abandoned would be that which was conventionally considered the inferior, and the one retained would be that which was conventionally considered the superior. Charles V. was Emperor of Germany, King of Spain, and Lord of the Netherlands, but who ever heard of him by any other name than that of Emperor Charles V? The Duke of Buccleuch sat, and voted in the other House of the Legislature, as the Earl of Doncaster; and the Duke of Argyll sat and voted as Baron Sundridge. Their Ducal titles were Scotch; but who ever heard of them spoken of otherwise than as the Duke of Buccleuch and the Duke of Argyll? Lord Palmerston was an Irish Peer, but history only knew him by his local title. It was impossible to localize or limit a title; and when the Government talked of doing that with the title of Empress of India, they were seeking to accomplish an impossibility. The Prime Minister had told them that the title of Empress was not superior to that of Queen. If it was not higher, it was lower; if it was not lower, it was equal. The right hon. Gentleman would not surely have the Queen to adopt an inferior title, and there would be no wisdom in encumbering her style with another, and merely equal prefix. The Prime Minister had also told them that the mode of address of Her Majesty would not be altered. That it was "Her Majesty the Queen" now, and that it would be the same in future. He had assured them further that the Queen's numerous children and grandchildren would not be able to attach the word Imperial as well as Royal Highness to their names. This might be correct; but there was one Royal personage, he who stood nearest the Throne, who would be affected by the change. He bore a title that recalled some of the most touching and memorable incidents in English history. Recent bearers of the title had not sustained the character for chivalry and courage that distinguished some of its original possessors. Still, the title was pre-eminently a British one. It was woven into the web and warp of our national life, and no man, whatever his politics or his Party, would like to see it abandoned, and the meaningless designation with which a deposed French usurper tricked out his son adopted in its place. It was for purely Indian reasons that this change was said to be desired. No one attempted to say that the people of this country wished it. All the arguments and reasons of the Go- vernment were drawn from Indian sources. But the House had no information that the change was wished for, even asked for, by India. The Prime Minister had refused to supply them with any official intelligence upon the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, said that articles had appeared in Indian newspapers advocating the change. He (Mr. Cowen) knew something of the Indian Press, and he confessed he had never seen any such articles, though he had seen, and they had all seen, a large number of articles in the English Press against the change. The right hon. Gentleman knew the value of evidence as well as any man, and he felt sorry when he saw him compelled to rely upon such flimsy material as he had addressed to the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also read to them a Petition from some landowners in the province of Oude, asking that the Queen should take a new title. Hon. Gentlemen near him who took part in the discussion on the Irish Coercion Bill last Session would appreciate the force of the remark, when he said that Oude stood towards the rest of India in much the same position as the county of West-meath stood towards the rest of Ireland. He asked the Government whether it was likely they would consent to change the title, or alter the duties of the meanest official in the household of the Viceroy of Ireland, upon the requisition of a few landowners from a county which was accused—he did not say rightly—of being the last resting-place of Ribbonism in the Sister Isle? If they would not effect this change in a small country, and limited population, like Ireland, surely upon such a requisition from the Westmeath of India they ought not to effect a change in which so many millions of persons were interested. They had heard a good deal of India during these discussions. He did not set himself up as an Indian authority; but he believed he would not be contradicted when he said that the men who had lived the longest there, who had devoted their whole lives to studying that wonderful land, were the most unwilling to hazard any opinion as to the thought of the Indian people. Men might live in India, and become acquainted with its geography, its rivers and mountains, with its natural history, the produce of its soil, and its climate; but hitherto the thought of the Hindoo people had been to Europeans a sealed book. Lord Salisbury, speaking in the House of Lords a few days ago, declared that the greatest difficulty the English had to deal with in India was their ignorance of the real mind and thought of the people. The Hindoos were the inheritors of a peculiar, a wonderful, and an illustrious civilization. They were proud of it, and they looked upon Englishmen as powerful parvenus whom circumstances compelled them to submit to, but whom, in their secret hearts, they despised. The Hindoos, too, were a conquered people. They had all the feelings and the natural characteristics of conquered races. They were suspicious and distrustful of their conquerors; the passions and the prejudices of the people were only intensified in the Princes of that interesting land. He believed he spoke the deliberate opinion of every man familiar with the Government of India, when he said that whenever an Indian Prince contemplated a conspiracy against the English Government, or was engaged in a plot against our rule, he was always studiously courteous and conciliatory, polite and deferential, to English residents and English officials. He would not presume to offer an opinion on the question, because, as he had said, they had no evidence; but as far as they were able to form an opinion, he thought he could venture to declare that the Indian people were, as a body—and a large number of their Princes—supremely indifferent as to any title the Queen might take. Other Princes, perhaps, some of them the most powerful and best informed, if they held an opinion at all on the subject, he supposed it would be one of opposition, because they would see, or think they saw, in the change of title, some increase of power by England, and some further decrease of their own authority. He did not wish to weary the House; but if they would permit him he would like to say a few words in answer to the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) a few nights ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that the word "Emperor" had reference to Empire, and was not derived from the Latin word Imperator. He (Mr. Cowen) entirely dissented from that view. Imperator was the name given, in the first instance, by Roman soldiers on the eve of victory to their successful generals. The man who had led the Roman legions to triumph was on the field of battle proclaimed by his soldiers an Imperator. This title at first was used after the proper name, as "Vespasian Imperator," for example. Many Roman generals were repeatedly proclaimed Imperators. Augustus, according to Tacitus, was more than 20 times made Imperator. In the latter days of the Roman power a new meaning was attached to the word. It was then used by the rulers of Rome, much in the same way as it was in modern times. But Rome was then decrepit and declining. She was emasculated by excessive wealth, and weakened by excessive territory. He did not wish to institute an unpleasant parallel; but he could not resist some comparison between this country now and Rome when she first adopted the title of Emperor. England had now a plethora of wealth. She had dominions in every quarter of the globe, and she was following the Roman expedient of taking a pretentious title for its ruler. He hoped that this change did not indicate the commencement of the downward career of the power of Britain, as like circumstances and changes marked the fall of Rome. The title of King was of purely Saxon origin. It was the name given by free peoples to their chief magistrates. The Monarchy of England rested, it was true, on hereditary descent; but, at the same time, it was partly elective. The Parliament of England gave the Crown of these realms to the descendants of Sophia of Hanover, under specified restrictions and strongly guarded limitations. Ours was emphatically a limited Monarchy, and the people shared with the Monarch the rule of the nation. To fasten on to the Constitution a military and autocratic figurehead might not be contrary to the letter of the Act of Settlement; but it was certainly contrary to its spirit. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had told them that this was a question of sentiment. Heat once, and frankly, admitted that it was. Half of human life was made up of sentiment. Existence would be a dull, dreary, drudgery, unless it was illuminated by some ray of hope, and enlivened by some gleam of generous emotion. Men were much more easily moved by their feelings and sympathies, than their convictions. They were much more earnestly roused to action by their passions and prejudices than by their interests. The men who were not conscious of this, and did not know that people were guided more by principle than selfishness in their mode of life, had only half learnt the art and the work of statesmanship. One remark further he wished, with the permission of the House, to make. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told them that the Throne of this country depended for its support on the spirit of the people. He quite agreed with that opinion. The Monarchy did not rest on soldiers' bayonets or policemen's batons. It did not even depend on law; but on the good sense and right feeling of the people. While they recognized that fact, however, it was only right for them to recollect also that there was no fanatical belief in the abstract principles of Monarchy in this country. The doctrine of divine right was killed on the scaffold with King Charles, and went out with the Commonwealth. The people of the country supported the Monarchy because they knew, from experience, that they enjoyed, under its rule, as large an amount of well-ordered liberty as any other people in the world. The country, under its guidance, had been prosperous, and the people comparatively contented and happy. But if there was any attempt to establish a species of socialistic Empire, to drag into our Constitution the forms and principles of Imperialism, hon. Gentlemen opposite would soon find that the superstition of Royalty had no real hold on the people of this land.

I desire to tender to the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) my thanks for the manner in which they have vindicated the best traditions of the Party that is hereditary among them, and for having vindicated the duty and the functions of a Constitutional Opposition, for having so used their power and their eloquence in debate as to have extracted from Her Majesty's Ministers the information due to this House for the purpose of enabling it fully and properly to discuss this Bill. I lamented, from the first, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government should have been so reticent in communicating information, and I deprecate his frequent appeals to the spirit of Party. Are we not to have two Parties in this House? Is not a legitimate Opposition identified with some of our proudest traditions? Has not an Opposition thus conducted habitually rendered the most exemplary services to the country; and on the present occasion the Opposition have rightfully claimed that the House should be put in possession of information, essential to its properly dealing with a question of the deepest importance, as touching the Crown of this Kingdom? They have resisted what appeared to be an attempt to prevent discussion by appeals to the Prerogative. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government referred to the use made of the Royal Prerogative by the late Prime Minister on the Army Bill. I remember his opposition to that proceeding. I remember my own denunciation of it, and my vote in condemnation of it; and it was with pain I recently observed on the question now before the House that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of appearing to continue the reprobation he then expressed against that stretch of the Prerogative, seemed disposed to use the Prerogative to the supercession of Parliament in this matter of altering the title of the Crown, as though he was tempted to repeat or imitate the offence he had formerly condemned. During the course of these debates, the right hon. Gentleman has referred over and over again to grave political considerations, which, he said, actuated himself and the Government he leads, but he never explained the substance of those considerations. How could the right hon. Gentleman expect an Assembly such as this, largely composed of new Members, and including Gentlemen who can address the House with such power as the hon. Member (Mr. Cowen) who has just resumed his seat has displayed, would be satisfied with the mere assertion that grave political considerations were involved in the question, while the nature of these considerations was left unexplained? Sir, I rejoice that this question has been fully discussed. The House and the country are greatly indebted to those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have shown so much ability in securing this discussion. It is now clearly understood that there is no intention that the present Imperial character of the Crown of the United Kingdom shall be at all infringed or impaired by the assumption of this local title of Empress or Emperor of India, and that Parliament is not asked to derogate from its own share in the Imperial power attaching to that title. If this new title is to be assumed, these discussions were necessary in order to reconcile the people of this country to the change of the title to the Crown, the emblem of their nationality and power. They would not have been content that the House of Commons has treated this measure as the measure of the Minister, not as its own. Without such a conviction, I believe that grave suspicions would be awakened in the public mind with regard to the ulterior and disguised objects which the measure would have been supposed to involve—that a distrust would be engendered that might not be limited to this country, but would probably have extended to India. I hope, also, that an answer has been given to those designing persons who would have us believe that the Parliament of England, the representative of a race which an ambitious ecclesiastic described as Imperial, has not been and will not prove itself unworthy of its traditions or the accomplice of that ecclesiastic who—and the declaration has become historical—declared it to be the function and the duty of the Church of Rome to break the will of and to subjugate the English nation, whose will, he acknowledged, has ruled the world as the will of old Rome once did. If Her Majesty now assumes the title of Empress of India, it is to be assumed, I trust, merely as the local reflection of the Imperial quality of the Crown, which in this country is identified with free institutions, which is known to be the guardian of our freedom, and which is Imperial only in the sense of asserting its own absolute independence, in the asserting its independence of all or any power, other than that of the Almighty, in asserting its exemption from subordination to any human authority. That is the sense in which the Crown of this United Kingdom has been, and is, Imperial. Imperial now and here, and never, I trust, to be in any other sense Imperial in India. For I should consider it a misfortune that anything should go forth that might appear to purport a separation of this Imperial character and qua- lity of the Crown, and that this separation and difference should seem to take place with respect to India, the only portion of the dominions of the British Crown in which the form of government is despotic. I believe that the discussions which have taken place in this House will enlighten, have already enlightened the public mind on the subject; although I should have been glad if Her Majesty would be content with the title of "Sovereign of India." [Cheers.] Yes, Sovereign of India. That is the term which would best express the supremacy of Her Majesty, because the term, in its second sense, implies excellence, and is thus peculiarly appropriate to Her Majesty. I rejoice that the House of Commons has vindicated its right to full information and debate before it would consent to pass this important measure.

said, he could not but express his surprise at the speech delivered by the Prime Minister, especially the concluding portion of it, and his astonishment how a responsible Minister could have delivered such a speech. Seldom had so rash and dangerous a speech been delivered. He would not, after the eloquent remarks which had just been made by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) say a single word with regard to the deep and unalterable dislike of the people of this country to the title of "Empress;" but he would ask the Prime Minister what were the reasons which had induced him to propose that the people of India should enjoy a title different from that which was enjoyed by the people of England? If the title of Queen were respected, honoured, and revered in this country, and if the Government wished to bind the people of India to England by closer ties of attachment and affection, why should they not enjoy the same title for their Ruler as was regarded in this country with so much reverence? He thought it impossible to condemn too strongly the want of caution on the part of the Prime Minister in introducing into that discussion the possibility of India being attacked by Russia. Even if there were such a danger hanging over our Indian dominions, such a matter ought not to have been mentioned by the Prime Minister in that casual and off-hand way. It was not in such a manner that the right hon. Gentleman should have defended this new-born title of "Empress of India." But it was said the government of India was different from that of England, and that was a point on which he wished to make an earnest, he might say a solemn, protest. One hon. Member had said the people of England enjoyed Parliamentary and free institutions, but our Government of India was despotic. At a time when education was constantly increasing, and the people were taking more and more interest in the Government, and aspiring to a greater share in the management of their affairs, was it well to remind them that we governed them by a despotic Power? But he (Mr. Fawcett) denied the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement. Although the people of India were not governed by Parliament directly, they were governed by Parliament indirectly. The House of Commons could agree to an Address for the dismissal of the Governor General of India, the Secretary of State, or any other official who acted unjustly to the people of India, and to a certain extent the people of India enjoyed the same protection of free institutions as were enjoyed by the people of this country. The Prime Minister had stated that this Bill would give satisfaction to the people of India; but, without presuming to be the interpreter of their opinions and wishes, he might say that for every particle of evidence to show that the people of India desired that Her Majesty should assume the title of Empress, he could bring ten times the amount of evidence to show that they wished that the same Queen who ruled over us should rule over them upon the same principles and with the same appellation. In conclusion, he again protested against the incaution, the recklessness which had been exhibited by the Prime Minister in introducing into this debate considerations which seemed to him to show that he had fears for the permanence of our rule in India. He thanked the House for giving him the opportunity of briefly stating his views upon this question, and if a Division were called for he would support them by his vote.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown has conducted the debates on this measure upon the principle which the theologians term the doctrine of development. The right hon. Gentleman has been unable to induce himself to state the whole of his case at once or to lay before the House as a whole all the arguments he intended to rely on. Every speech that he has addressed to us has contained some variation, some addition, and some alteration of that which he had previously uttered. He has fed us by instalments—and it is only within the last half-hour that we have heard for the first time an argument to which he evidently attaches the greatest possible weight. Sir, such conduct as that is unworthy of the greatness of this occasion. It is unworthy of the position of the right hon. Gentleman to treat a question of this kind as if he were pulling out the slides of a magic lantern, instead of developing a great policy for a great nation. We had a right to expect that all the reasons and arguments fit to be produced at all to Parliament should have been produced in the first instance, and that we should not be played with in this manner, having argument after argument produced, until at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman springs on us something entirely new and unexpected. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has given us arguments of a kind that I little thought to hear in the course of this debate. Whatever may be said of the speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich, no one can deny that it was worthy of the occasion in the tone of solemnity and the sense of responsibility with which it was addressed to the House. We felt we were hearing a great statesman worthily and to the best of his ability treating a great question; whether we agree or disagree with him, the House must be proud of possessing men who treat a matter in that way. The same may be said of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). That hon. Gentleman evidently spoke from deep conviction; he spoke with eloquence and he spoke with force, because he spoke what he really felt, and all that he really felt. He was not doling out to us bit by bit, and by little bits, the convictions he thought it necessary to express. The hon. Gentleman spoke like an honest Englishman, not only with frankness and fairness, and carried the House with him; and I hope we shall often hear his voice raised with similar manliness and similar effect. But when one turns from my hon. Friend to the First Minister of the Crown, what do we hear? We have the lispings of the nursery voice—

"My brother Jack was nine in May, And I was eight on New Year's Day."

That is the language of the First Minister of the Crown upon this momentous occasion; and when he has exhausted that source of frivolity, he must go even to a deeper depth of unworthiness. The next thing, then, to which we are treated is the blunder of an almanack as a reason why the title of the Ruler of 250,000,000 of people should be changed. And as though that were not sufficient to lower and degrade this subject and to make us think as meanly of it as he does himself, the right hon. Gentleman, not content with referring to the blunders of an almanack, puts before us as a further argument the blunders in children's school books. It certainly does not much matter to the right hon. Gentleman what sort of arguments he makes use of, because the result of the division on this question will remain unaffected by them. But the right hon. Gentleman owed it to the House, to himself, and to his own Party on this last occasion when this measure will be before us to supply us with some sort of reason for passing it, instead of mocking us with such miserable frivolity and drivelling. I now turn to a rather more serious subject. The right hon. Gentleman has got another reason which he has kept concealed during the whole of the debates on this question, and has not thought fit to produce till this, the last moment when it is obviously impossible that it could receive that discussion, and I may say that castigation, which I am sure the House would have given it earlier. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says that the Emperor of Russia is pushing into Central Asia, and says, with ridiculous exaggeration, that he is getting close to our territories in India; and he further says that because the Emperor of Russia is so near to us, and because the Natives of India know that we are in so dangerous and so critical a situation, we, who have ruled India for 100 years, are in a panic of terror to alter the name of Queen to that of Empress, in order that our Sovereign may be placed on terms of equality with the Emperor of Russia. ["No."] That is the language we hear. I gave, most unintentionally, great offence to the House the other night by suggesting that the time might come when we may lose India. I regret what I then said; but, at the same time, I said what was only relevant to the case and was expressing my own conviction. It is my conviction that it is possible that we may at some time lose India. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not wish to force that conviction upon the House, though I believe I am justified in entertaining it. But look at the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He does not say anything about our losing India, but he tells us that our position in India is so critical, is so threatened, on our northern frontier by the overwhelming power of the Emperor of Russia, that we must actually take the extraordinary step of altering the title of the Sovereign in order to place ourselves upon an equality with Russia. Is that language calculated to insure our hold upon India? I hope the Natives of that country will read all the debates that have been held on this subject, and then they will not mind what the right hon. Gentleman says. But, taken alone, what effect must the language of the right hon. Gentleman necessarily have upon the minds of the Natives of India? It must make the Natives believe that we foresee some tremendous danger, of which they do not as yet know anything, and to create such a feeling in that country is probably to do the greatest dis-service that can be done to the permanence of our Government in India. I am very sorry to have troubled the House onthis occasion; but I could not allow such a statement as that made by the right hon. Gentleman to pass without making my earnest protest against it. I most bitterly regret that the right hon. Gentleman reserved such an argument as that to this moment, when the House is not able to criticize it and by a large and preponderating number of protests to do away with the effect of this last and most mischievous development of a series of so-called arguments with which the House of Commons has been mocked and tantalized during the whole course of these debates.

seconded the Motion.

said, the House would recollect that, in the Bill of last year, considerable attention was directed to the question of discipline. The discipline clauses were much modified, and he regretted the present Bill of the Government did not deal with the important question now raised. Now that labourers generally were freed from imprisonment for breach of contract of service, he did not see why seamen should be kept under any exceptional law. He concurred in the opinion that it was necessary to maintain discipline when once a seaman was on board ship; and in the case in which a vessel put into port, and he there deserted, the question which arose was one which, in his opinion, required careful consideration. Where, however, the ship had not left its port of departure, he could not see in what respect the contract of service of a seaman differed from any other contract of service. There were, he might add, only two clauses in the Bill which affected the seaman in any degree—one by which it was sought to compel the shipowner to induce him to undergo a medical examination before he went into a vessel, the other which gave the Board of Trade power to contribute towards the maintenance of training ships. Now, he could not help thinking that the Government would do wisely to omit those two clauses from the present Bill. The latter was almost nugatory, because the Mercantile Marine Fund, out of which the contributions were to come, furnished last year absolutely no surplus income at all, while the average surplus during the past four or five years was not more than about £2,000 per annum. He would in those circumstances suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that it would be well if he were not prepared to adopt the course recommended by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that he should omit the subject of the discipline of our seamen altogether from the Bill and confine it to the question of ships and their material, leaving the equally important question of rendering our seamen as seaworthy as possible to be dealt with next year. He doubted, he might add, whether it would, on the whole, be wise for the State to undertake, on a large scale, the training of boys for the Merchant Service, for a scheme of the kind, although there was no doubt a good deal to be said in its favour, was beset with considerable difficulties. For his own part, he concurred in the justice of the proposition laid down by the Government—that it was the duty of the shipowners themselves to bear the charge of training boys for the Merchant Service, but he had not as yet seen any great anxiety manifested by them to be taxed for the purpose.

considered that the question which had been submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham would require some investigation by the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Gourley) had always held the opinion that the law operated harshly in obliging a magistrate before whom a seaman was brought, for, it might be, unintentionally quitting his ship, to send him to prison without giving him the option of inflicting a fine. He should like to see it, therefore, in that respect, assimilated more to the Master and Servant Act which was passed last Session. The Motion before the House was an abstract one and difficult to deal with, and if the hon. and learned Member for Chatham received some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he would deal with the matter in an equitable spirit, he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.

said, he thought it was something like a fatality attending a Bill the object of which was to prevent the loss of life at sea, that suggestions should, time after time, be made which would tend greatly to increase that loss. They could not draw any comparison between a seaman and a labourer on land, and legislation for sea-going and shore-going business must be entirely different. The good men in the service wanted legislation which would deal with the black sheep and malefactors, who were the cause of discredit to the Mercantile Marine and of great loss to their employers. He believed that if Parliament assented to such a Resolution as that now submitted they would entirely put a stop to the possibility of carrying on successfully the business of the Mercantile Marine.

regretted that the Government had not dealt with all questions relating to the discipline and training of seamen in a separate measure. He supported the Resolution because he was of opinion that sailors ought not to be exceptionally treated, but should be dealt with precisely in the same way as working men on shore. It was true that sailors were regarded as exceptional creatures and treated as children who were incapable of taking care of themselves; but he believed this arose from the vicious system connected with the Mercantile Marine, especially in reference to crimps at the seaport towns. As a large employer of labour he protested against the principle of levying rates and taxes for the purpose of enforcing civil contracts.

said, he was partly answerable for the particular clause in the Labour Acts of last Session to which reference had been made in the present discussion, because it was passed in the amended form in which he proposed it to the House. He had contended last year, and always should contend, for equal laws for all our countrymen, and against any exceptional laws for the protection of any particular interest. He was, however, bound to admit that exceptional laws were required in certain cases—as, for example, to maintain discipline in the Army and Navy; and he was willing to consider any well devised suggestion which had for its object the maintenance of discipline on board mercantile vessels as well as on board Her Majesty's ships. The existing law, however, differed in principle from such enactments as these; and, in his opinion, it was neither creditable nor necessary. He could not sanction the principle that a man should be arrested and imprisoned merely for a breach of contract, or until it could be shown that a public injury would otherwise ensue. This was the exception in the Labour Law passed last Session. The case of the gas stokers was provided for not to protect the gas companies, but to protect the public, and prevent large towns from being left in darkness. It might be a terrible thing if a number of emigrants were to find themselves in a port where, at the last moment, when expecting to sail, all the seamen had deserted the ship, because they knew that there was no law to touch them. With regard to the Resolution before the House, he concurred in its principle, and therefore would support it, but he thought that it would require some modification in its terms, which he thought were too wide, before it could be embodied in an Act of Parliament.

said, that thoughthis Resolution was plausible on the face of it, still anyone who read it with the exceptions which the hon. and learned Member had introduced into it, must be convinced that service at sea and service on shore were entirely different, and could not properly be subjected to the same regulations. The exceptions were, endangering life and damaging the ship. Who was to tell what might endanger life? A ship might be at anchor in fine weather now and might go ashore by-and-by, and all become wreck and ruin. If we were to analyze these things, we must come to the conclusion that in cases where serious danger was involved we must apply a different punishment. If the laws were changed, and danger to the ship or loss of life were to ensue because the sailors had abandoned the vessel, the question was, whether the sailors would not have to be indicted for manslaughter, as railway servants were sometimes indicted. Believing the Resolution would have a mischievous effect, he hoped the House would not adopt it.

said, a discontented crew was not worth having; and if before the ship left port the men showed any signs of discontent he would rather discharge them and get a fresh crew. With regard to drunken and abandoned characters, one half of these men were not seamen, but mere loafers, who came on deck, got a month's advance, and then were seen no more. He agreed with the Resolution, so far as it went, but there was a danger of men leaving a ship, even in Greenwich Reach or in the Downs, and he held that an exceptional enactment was required to compel such men to remain on board and do their duty.

cited the existing Act, the 239th section of which, he said, provided for the very cases put forward by the hon. Member who had just sat down and other Gentlemen, by rendering the offenders liable to prosecution for misdemeanour. If that was the case, this Motion was redeemed from the charge of being specious and plausible. With regard to the discipline clauses, the history of their enactment was somewhat singular. We did very well without them until about the middle of last century, when complaints were made that seamen were not keeping their contracts, and an Act was passed for their regulation. That Act was passed, notwithstanding the opposition of the mariners, who prayed to be heard against it. The punishment for breach of contract first enacted was 30 days' imprisonment, and at that it remained until 7 & 8 Viet., when it was increased to 12 weeks, which in 1854 was reduced to 10 weeks, at which it now remained. He asserted that that punishment was preposterous in amount, and that its effect on the Maritime Service of the country was most injurious. In great numbers of cases men made engagements to serve on board a ship they had never seen; and then, when they got sight of her and did not like her appearance, and did not wish to serve, they were forced on board just because they had signed articles. Such legislation he declared to be most objectionable and pernicious. If they gave up the practice of making advances they would get rid of a great deal of this unsatisfactory state of affairs and many other accompanying evils. He believed the passing of the Resolution before the House was necessary for the removal of the difficulty which at present existed, and thought a case ought to be made out to induce the House to reject it.

said, he wished to point out to the House a few considerations on which he was prepared to contend that they should pause before they assented to the relaxation of discipline which would result from the adoption of the principles contained in the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst). By the legislation which took place on the relations between master and servant last year the agreement entered into between a workman and an employer was made a matter of civil contract. But if a workman made a civil contract of this description, and the master could prove damage in consequence of its non-fulfilment, the latter might require him to make compensation, and in default of payment of such compensation the workman might be sent to prison. But if an owner of a ship sustained damage by reason of breach of contract by one of his seamen, and called upon the man to make him compensation, it happened in the great majority of instances that the man had no means of making compensation. He knew the case of as fine a ship as was probably in the Merchant Service which was about to set out a few days ago from the London Docks, but which, owing to the state of the tide, turned round again, when everyone of the engineers and firemen on board walked ashore and left her. Suppose, he asked, the owner of that vessel had contracted under heavy penalties to carry the mails, and that in consequence of the desertion of his men he was unable to perform the contract, how could he obtain compensation for the loss which he would incur? That he regarded as a very serious aspect of the question, and he hoped the House would pause before it sanctioned legislation which, in such circumstances, would take away from the owner all the control he could have over his men. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham would not deem it necessary, at least on the present occasion, to press his Resolution to a division.

observed, that it was over nine years since imprisonment for a breach of a workman's contract with his employer had been abolished. At that time all sorts of evils were predicted as the result of that step, but those predictions had all been falsified; and so well satisfied was the House with what it did in 1867 that last year they were engaged in confirming and extending the same principle. A seaman under the present law might be arrested without warrant, and imprisoned for 10 weeks for desertion, and forfeit his earnings; but why should the sailor be treated differently from the rest of the working men of the country? It seemed to him that the arguments which had been so well urged by the Secretary for the Home Department and others in favour of the Employers' and Workmen Bill last Session applied to the case of the seamen with equal, if not with superior force, because a seaman was less able than an ordinary working man on land to protect himself, inasmuch as he could not enter into those combinations which, like the trades unions, wielded a great power. Indeed, the seaman was debarred from exercising any kind of direct political influence; and if he possessed that power he would not be placed in the invidious, and unjust position which he now occupied. The grievance complained of was not a sentimental one, for it came home to the seamen in their own persons and in those of their families; and it had been stated to him on good, authority that a short time since two seamen had actually been sent to prison with hard labour for two months, although they had never quitted their ship, where their presence had been passed over unnoticed, simply because they, being tired after having worked during the whole night, had gone to their berths and were not observed at the time. He could very well understand the remark of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) that there was not so much difficulty in getting men as in getting good men; when, in addition to the dangers, the privations, and the hardships inseparable from his calling, there were kept in the background the policeman and the gaol to enforce service at sea. He trusted that some assurance would be given by the Treasury Bench that something would be done to remove the present harsh, arbitrary, and unjust provisions that existed in the laws so far as seamen were concerned; but if none were given, he hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham would divide the House upon his Motion.

said, he thought he had reason to complain. Last year he was blamed for occupying time in discussing discipline clauses before he came to the points upon which the House seemed to be most interested, and required should be dealt with first. Now that he had postponed the discipline clauses, the complaint was that he should have dealt with them first. Hit high or hit low, it appeared he could not please some hon. Members. It was much to be regretted, in his opinion, that discussion of the Bill in Committee should have been postponed by the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham, especially seeing that the hon. Member who had just spoken had a Bill on the subject. He believed the House was in earnest in wishing to deal with a measure providing for the greater security of life at sea, and he would remind hon. Members that, when in Committee, they would have every opportunity of expressing their opinions on every subject connected with the Bill. He very much concurred in the principle of the Motion before the House, but not in its details. The law was clear, that the relation between the shipowner and the crew was that between an employerand his workmen, and arose out of contract. No doubt a breach of contract, being a civil wrong, ought to be dealt with, as a general rule, by a civil remedy. But the law had thought it necessary to make exceptions—both on shore and at sea, and gas stokers might be dealt with criminally for breach of contract, and breach of contract in service at sea under certain circumstances was also by many statutes treated criminally, owing to the nature of the service. If a crew were to be drowned owing to the desertion of some of them, would the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) say that it was not a proper case for criminal proceedings? The Commission on the Labour Laws saw that the peculiarity of the sea service was such that it must be exceptionally dealt with, and they were specially excepted in the Master and Servant Act. Service ashore and service afloat could not be treated alike, nor could they treat the offences of seamen wherever they were in the same way, whether committed on shore, or in a home or foreign port, or on the high seas. The exception to the civil remedy arose obviously from the necessity of discipline to prevent danger to life and property on board ship, and the exceptions admitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman would swallow up the propositions laid down in the Amendment. Where, under the varying circumstances of sea-service, would the hon. and learned Member draw the line, and say that the offences of seamen involved no danger to life? It had been said that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member would do good, because it would indirectly have the effect of destroying the advance note; but surely that was not the way to deal with a mischief of that sort, which had already been discussed by Parliament on its own merits. In dealing with the question before the House, it should be remembered that seamen were peculiarly protected by law—there was no class of workmen so nursed by the law, and who had so many advantages given them. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to say that the seamen were willing to forego these advantages, in order that they might be placed in all things on the same level as other workmen? The hon. and learned Member said nothing in his Resolution on that subject. It was a one-sided Resolution. With regard to their engagements, the summary mode of reco- vering their wages, the many provisions for their food, medicine, lodging, their care during sickness, they were specially protected by law. The hon. Member (Mr. Burt) said they might be forced on board, and when their agreement was once signed they were compelled to serve, whatever the state of the ship might be. The hon. Member could not be aware of the state of the law. If a sailor when he went aboard found any symptom of unseaworthiness in the ship, the Government, on his complaint, was bound to make inquiry at their own cost, whether his complaint were true or otherwise. For his part, he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), who had frequently stated in his place that the chief cause affecting the safety of ships was want of discipline. It was a well-known fact that ships were often obliged to go to sea with an imperfect crew, in consequence of the men deserting just when the vessels were going to start. That was a prolific source of danger; but hon. Members seemed to think nothing of that, and it was proposed to leave such matters to civil actions for breach of contract. The Report of the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships said that although many lives were lost through unseaworthy ships, yet there were many more lost by unseaworthy crews. Indeed, it was too often the case that the want of discipline at the commencement of the voyage was the cause of casualties. He (Sir Charles Adderley) would not recede from the principle he advocated last year. He believed the subject of discipline was one which required consideration. The general purport of the clauses in the Bill of last year was to give the sailor, convicted of the offences now under consideration, an alternative of fine and forfeiture of wages instead of imprisonment; and to limit the powers given to the shipowners, as to arrest without warrant, so that they should not go beyond what the circumstances of the case rendered necessary. These, however, were subjects rather to be dealt with by consolidation of the existing laws than by casual additions to them on this or that point, and he was perfectly ready, with the earliest time and opportunity, to deal with them. In conclusion, he appealed to those Members who had urged the Government to deal with the general question not to countenance the intervention, before they came to the discussion of the Government measure, of another subject which could not be included in that Bill.

said, the right hon. Gentleman hardly did justice to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought forward this Resolution, because it expressly excluded cases "involving danger to life or injury to the ship." He (Mr. Mundella) believed the existence of unseaworthy seamen was in a great measure due to the present state of the law. It was argued that if the law were altered shipowners would suffer immense losses; but, as a matter of fact, first-class shipowners, as he understood, never required to exert their full powers. The Report of the Royal Commission showed that the great cause of the deterioration of seamen was the advance note, and until that were abolished there was no hope for the amelioration of their condition; and the keynote of the advance note was this power of summary arrest. If this power were abolished shipowners, instead of counting the number of men they put on board, would rather weigh their quality. The right hon. Gentleman talked of their being "nursed" by the State. It was high time that these men should not be kept in leading strings. The arguments now urged in reference to seamen were used last Session with regard to working men generally; but though terrible consequences were predicted as the result of the change in the law, no such consequences had followed. They would do the best service to the shipowners, the safety of the ships, and to the whole Mercantile Marine, by adopting this Resolution and setting the seaman free.

admitted that up to a certain point the seamen had a real grievance, but when they had once gone to sea the conditions were altogether changed, and the captain and officers ought then to have powers more than existed at the present moment. Indeed, the powers they had were being weakened every day; and proper discipline had been seriously lessened by what was done last Session, and by the Act of 1873. He particularly objected to those clauses by which a fourth of the crew could stop a ship and have her surveyed. The fact was, that such a survey was of the wrong description, and was conducted neither at the proper time nor under proper conditions.

said, that the discipline clauses of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman enacted with still greater rigour than previously existed the clauses giving facilities for the imprisonment of seamen. It had been said that seamen were treated in a different manner from other people, because of the great care which the State took of "Poor Jack." Was it taking great care of him to put him into prison upon every pretence? If a single sailor on board a ship with a crew of 30 or 40 was found smuggling, and ran away, the Custom House officers were entitled to take all the other men on board the ship, and also the stewardess, and put them in prison. He (Mr. Macgregor) sympathized with the Motion of the hon. and learned Member opposite; but, at the same time, he should like certain modifications introduced. He found great fault with the Board of Trade measure of last year, because it had a large number of clauses dealing with every other subject but the one the people wished for legislation upon—namely, the safety of life at sea. The time of the House had been frittered away without dealing with the matter which was of the greatest interest. He pointed out that the arbitrary powers which were so much objected to were not in force in Scotland, in which country it was necessary to obtain a warrant before a sailor could be imprisoned. He never felt the want of the arbitrary powers in force in England; but he did not want to find fault with shipowners of this country who used those powers, for they perhaps had to do with a worse lot of men. He trusted the President of the Board of Trade would give the hon. and learned Member for Chatham an assurance that if he did not now press his Resolution he would have an opportunity of proposing, by way of addition to the clauses of that Bill, provisions for carrying out the object he had in view. It was desirable that they should as speedily as possible get into Committee on a measure about which the country was so anxious.

expressed great pleasure in finding so many Members on both sides of the House urging that pains and penalties in connection with the laws of contract should be abolished, or, at least, that all classes of workmen should be put on an equal footing as regarded contracts of service. He could remember the time, some 30 years ago, when he stood almost single-handed outside of the House—in the House the very mention of the subject would have been laughed at—in maintaining that the gross inequality of the law ought to be swept away for the seamen as well as for every other class in the labouring community. If the President of the Board of Trade intended to take his stand on the principle of his last year's Bill on the question of the discipline of seamen, the House could have nothing to expect from him, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Chatham would go to a division.

said, he did not think it was necessary that the law should remain as stringent as it was now in regard to seamen, but, nevertheless, he did not see his way to voting for the Motion, because, if carried, it would negative the Motion for going into Committee, and delay the progress which they were so desirous of making.

said, he thought it was impossible to dispute the proposition contained in the Resolution—namely, that seamen ought not to be more severely treated for breaches of contracts of service than other men when they involved neither danger to life nor the safety of the ship. He would vote for the Resolution if a division were forced; but he would rather see it withdrawn. Both sides of the House were in its favour; but if a division took place it would be sure to be defeated, and a false impression might thereby be created. He would suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham should withdraw his present Motion and bring up clauses at a later stage of the Bill for giving effect to his principle, without now further delaying the progress of the measure of the Government.

said, he thought the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was a reasonable and sensible one. He did not know whether it might be possible in the course of the Committee on this Bill to discuss clauses of the character suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. There was nothing in the title or the character of the Bill to exclude the consideration of such clauses if the Committee should be disposed to entertain them hereafter. But the mere passing of a Resolution of this sort would be simply impeding the Bill and losing valuable time. The Government thought that in bringing forward this Bill they had adopted the most practical means of attaining objects which the House and the country had at heart. It was not proposed as a complete settlement of all the questions relating to Merchant Shipping. The wisest course for the House to adopt on this subject, he believed, was not to attempt to do too much at once.

recommended his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Resolution, and to consider the framing of some clause that would meet his object. It was to be hoped that criminal remedies would be applied only to those cases which the civil remedy was not sufficient to meet; and, if that were done, sailors and their employers would be adequately protected.

said, the President of the Board of Trade, in the beginning of his speech, spoke almost in a tone of petulance of the proposal of this Resolution as an obstruction to legislation. He (Mr. Sullivan) warned the Government against falling into the error of 1875, and treating as obstruction that which was giving them an indication of the deep-seated feeling of the country. He believed that if the power of imprisoning seamen were abolished, if labour on deck were brought in the eye of the law to the same level as labour on the floor of a manufactory or a workshop, and if the dishonest minority of shipowners were deprived of all personal interest in over-insuring their ships, a score of Amendments that might otherwise be placed on the Paper would be rendered unnecessary. Now, as to one of those points, there was already before the House a measure which would deal with it, and as to the other point the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) intended to deal with it. All he asked was an assurance from the Treasury Bench that clauses would be brought up by the President of the Board of Trade as had been suggested on that side of the House and acquiesced in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were five classes of persons, any one of whom might arrest a seaman without warrant for having deserted his ship—the commander, the mate, the shipowner, the consignee, and the ship contractor. To these he might add a sixth, "or any person specially authorized in writing by the owner, master, or consignee." Any of these might deprive the seaman of the protection of British law, and arrest him without warrant in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. Who were in the House to maintain this clause? Not the shipowners. That task was reserved for the President of the Board of Trade. [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: I was the only person who said that that clause ought to be struck out.] He (Mr. Sullivan) would observe that in the case of seamen imprisonment was the penalty resorted to, because it was alleged that the seamen were too poor to fear a pecuniary penalty. Then why not treat working men on land in the same manner? British seamen never deserted in British waters without valid reasons. He (Mr. Sullivan) hoped Her Majesty's Government would awake to the conception of the fact that this was one of the important subjects which required their immediate attention.

expressed his willingness to adopt the course suggested by the right hon. Member for Bradford, and approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore would withdraw his Resolution. He did not quite understand whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged the Government to bring forward clauses having the effect required; but, if the Government did not bring forward such clauses, he would.

rose to move his Resolution—

"That greater facilities and encouragement should be given to the engagement and training of apprentices by shipowners."

In doing so he quoted the Report of the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships in support of the opinion that the character of British seamen had deteriorated. It was important that shipowners should be encouraged to engage a larger number of apprentices. Unless a greater number of boys were trained for the Merchant Service there would be no improvement in the quality of our sailors, and no decrease in the number of foreign seamen employed in British ships. It might be urged that it was no part of the duty of the State to provide skilled labour in any branch of industry or commerce; but it should be borne in mind that this was not merely a commercial question. It was a great national question, as the Mercantile Marine must always, in time of war, be the principal Reserve from which men would be drawn to man the Royal Navy. At present our Navy consisted of 60,000 men and boys, with a Reserve of 17,000 men; but in the event of a great war, this number would be altogether inadequate. History repeated itself, and he would remind the House that in 1813 we had 147,000 men and boys in the Navy, and that at a time when the population of the country was not two-thirds of what it was now. What he would ask was the position of the country now compared with 30 years ago, so far as the training of boys was concerned? Previous to the repeal of the Navigation Laws in 1849 it was compulsory upon every shipowner to carry one apprentice to every 100 tons burden. In 1845 no fewer than 15,704 apprentices were enrolled; but in 1874 that number had decreased to 4,445. A great change had also taken place with reference to the employment of foreigners. In 1851 we had in our Navy 5,793 foreigners; but in 1873 we had no fewer than 19,840. To illustrate more distinctly the change that had taken place, he would take the case of 23 vessels whose size varied from 144 to 1,488 tons. They sailed from the various great ports of this country for India, America, China, the Mediterranean, and the Baltic. In 1849 these 23 vessels had 473 men in their crews, and in 1869 the crews were reduced to 372. He was not prepared to say how much that was owing to improved mechanical appliances or to under-manning. But they had specific information with regard to the composition of the crews of those two periods, and to that he wished to call particular attention. In 1849 these 23 vessels carried 81 apprentices, and in 1869 they carried only nine apprentices and six boys. In other words, in 1849 they carried 17 per cent of apprentices to the!whole crew; whereas in 1869 the proportion was only 4 per cent. So far as regards foreigners a change also had taken place. In 1849 these vessels carried 21 foreigners, which wasas near as might be 4 per cent of the crew. In 1869 they carried 53 foreigners, or something like 14 per cent. Another change that had taken place was, that while the number of able seamen had decreased, that of ordinary seamen had increased. We had, therefore, this unsatisfactory state of matters—that the number of boys and youths in training so as to become skilled seamen and prepared to fight the battles of their country had steadily diminished, while the number of foreigners, who, in the event of war, might turn against us had steadily increased. Now, he wished to call attention to what had been done to remedy this state of matters. In 1859 the Royal Commission on Manning the Navy recommended that we should have 12 training-vessels, each with 200boys on board. If they were to take the time of training as four years, they would only supply 600 trained youths per annum; but this suggestion was not carried out. Nevertheless, they had abundant information with regard to training-ships. If they left out the Conway and the Worcestershire, which were training-ships for officers, there were still 15 training-ships. Those ships trained boys at an average cost of £20 4s. 6d. per annum, and last year they supplied 1,194 boys, but of this number only two-thirds went to sea, the other third having deserted or taken to other occupations. The question he wished to bring before the House was, how could we best encourage shipowners to carry an additional number of apprentices, without in the slightest degree interfering with their perfect right to carry, or abstain from carrying, them as they might think proper? That could only be done by appealing to the interest of the shipowners. Various modes had been suggested, but that which he believed had found most favour was, that in proportion to the number of apprentices carried there should be some reduction in the light dues. He would suggest that for every vessel of less than 200 tons carrying one apprentice, and for every vessel of more than 200 tons carrying at least one apprentice for every 200 tons, there should be a deduction of 25 per cent from the light dues. He would endeavour to show what inducement this would be to the shipowner. The average income from light dues for the last five years had been £405,000 per annum. If they deducted the amount paid by foreign vessels—namely, 26½ per cent, or £105,000—they would find that there was contributed in light dues £300,000. They would also find that the total tonnage of other than river steamers was 5,708,000, or roundly, 6,000,000 tons. It, therefore, followed that the amount paid by the shipping of this country was about 1s. per ton per annum. Therefore, if they took a vessel of, say, 800 tons, on an average she would pay £40 per annum for light dues, and if they gave a deduction of 25 per cent that would be equal to £10. At present, on an average, one apprentice was carried to every 400 tons—such a vessel, therefore, at present carried two apprentices—but if carrying four, there would be an inducement of £10 for the two additional apprentices, or £5 for each apprentice. It might be naturally asked, how many shipowners would take advantage of this? It was extremely difficult to form any opinion on this point; but in the first place, steamers would not take advantage of it, or large vessels going long voyages, and for this reason, that they did not carry so many apprentices as a rule, and as the light dues were levied by a passing toll, their contributions were smaller than in the case of vessels making shorter voyages; and, therefore, his proposal would not probably offer a sufficient inducement to such vessels to increase their apprentices. He would assume that half the vessels of this country would take advantage of this deduction and have extra apprentices. If they did so, they would have 3,000,000 of their tonnage carrying, not 7,500 apprentices, but twice that number; and for that the shipowners would receive a bonus upon the light dues, which they paid—namely, £150,000, of 25 per cent, or £37,500 per annum. He did not wish to say one word against training ships, so long as they were used for reformatory and industrial-school purposes, because they were training boys, who otherwise would be left uncared for, to be useful men; and if they were not sent to training ships they would require to be sent to some other industrial school. The next point was whether the light dues could stand the proposed deduction. The average income from the light dues during the last five years was £405,000, and the ex- penditure had been considerably less than the income. The net average excess of revenue over expenditure during that period was £45,600. It, therefore, followed that even if they took the amount he suggested they had a considerable margin left. But, further, they had in the Mercantile Marine Fund a surplus—chiefly arising from light dues—amounting to upwards of £286,000. It seemed to have been forgotten, that while the country had been giving training vessels for the encouragement of children of less provident parents, they gave no encouragement, but really threw obstacles in the way of the children of respectable parents joining the Mercantile Marine. Under the Act of 1854, any person other than the shipping master engaging an apprentice to the owner of a ship was liable in a penalty of £20, and the shipowner so receiving a boy was also liable to a similar penalty. It appeared to him that this restriction was not only unnecessary, but most mischievous, and ought to be removed. There was another point to which he wished to allude. As the law now stood, a shipowner could not pay off an apprentice, however bad he might be. The Committee on Unseaworthy Ships reported on this question that there was a difficulty, and that it would be convenient that it should be removed. He would only add that if such a course as that which he had indicated was adopted, it would not add a single official to those we now had; while it would tend to increase the number of trained British sailors and to diminish the number of foreigners in our employ; and by making our Mercantile Marine more efficient, it would contribute to the safety and power of the Empire.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not suppose that he did not take a deep interest in this question if he did not at present answer his observations. The hon. Gentleman had three Notices of Amendment on the Paper, and as they embodied the one before the House, it was to be hoped he would not press this to a division. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman was a novel one. He proposed that English shipowners having apprentices should have a bonus paid out of the light dues. This would be to tax the whole commercial world for the benefit of a class, and it would also induce shipowners to dismiss their men and take boys, in order to get rid of the light dues.

observed, that the clause as proposed to be amended would stand thus—that every person who wilfully sent, or attempted to send, a ship to sea in such an unseaworthy state that life was likely to be endangered, should be guilty of a misdemeanour; and surely if it was "wilfully" done, the punishment should be a much more serious one than that of a misdemeanour under this Bill. The clause simply threw upon a person who sent an unseaworthy ship to sea, the burden of proving that he had used all reasonable means to ensure the ship being sent in a seaworthy state. He hoped the Committee would not sanction the addition to the clause.

expressed his great gratification that the Government had declined to accept this Amendment. If the word were inserted the clause would be entirely useless. He thought the House should be on its guard against the shipowners' Amendments which were being hawked about the Lobby. The proposal of the insertion of the word "wilfully" had been allotted to him at one time, but he refused to undertake it. He wished to speak with the greatest respect for the abilities of Mr. Justice Brett; but his opinion on a matter of this kind ought to have no greater weight than if delivered as a Member of the House of Commons. He thought the fact that a ship had been sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition should be primâ facie a ground of offence. The duty of a shipowner was to see that a ship was sent to sea in a seaworthy state, and if it could be shown that the ship was seaworthy when sent to sea the owner would be exonerated from all blame. The clause was exactly what was required.

said, he thought that the insertion of the word "wilfully" in the clause would be a very great mistake. He pointed out that if a shipowner sent a vessel to sea with the knowledge that she was unseaworthy, and the vessel and crew were lost, he rendered himself liable to a charge of murder.

protested against the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) in regard to the Amendments proposed by the Committee of Shipowners. This was a matter in which the shipowners were deeply interested, and it was not right to seek to prejudice the House against fair discussion of their Amendments. The clause was, in fact, opposed to the principles and the practice of the Common Law. The law presumed that every man was innocent, until he was proved to be guilty by a fair trial by a Judge and jury. In this case there would not even be the form of a trial, for the ship owner was assumed to be guilty until he proved his innocence. If a man did send knowingly an unseaworthy ship to sea it ought to be punished even more severely than a common misdemeanour. He thought the clause in the Act of last year, of which the present one was a copy, had been passed in haste, and he trusted that the House would see the propriety of amending it.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton was not very accurate in his recollection. The word which the shipowners had asked him to propose was not "wilfully," but "knowingly." The hon. and learned Gentleman had shown a warmth and prejudice which he hoped the House would not imitate.

was of opinion that the insertion of the word "wilfully" would altogether destroy the effect of the clause. The only person who could know whether the ship was in a proper state to be sent to sea was the shipowner, and if he neglected that duty he ought to be amenable for the consequences.

said, the only argument he had heard in favour of the introduction of the word "wilfully" was founded on the principle of the English law that the guilty intention must be proved before conviction. That was no doubt so in strictly criminal cases, but there were other offences which rested upon the absence of rectitude. If they inserted this word they might make the penalty as severe as they wished, and it would be only the safer for the shipowners, as the severer the penalty the more a jury would hesitate to convict.

contended that any owner who was so far culpably negligent as to wilfully send an unseaworthy ship to sea was a criminal, and ought to be punishedfor it. Shipowners must take their choice between one of two courses—either to submit to Government supervision or to take the control of the matter into their own hands, and abide the consequences. He, for one, was prepared to take the latter course, and, if criminal, to go to prison.

said, thee was not the slightest fear of the evils arising which the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment apprehended. The word "wilfully" was not necessary, and though the clause looked very savage it was practically a most harmless one.

reminded the Committee that a prosecution could not be instituted under the clause without the consent of the Board of Trade.

supported the Amendment. He declined to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), who was ready to take a brief from any side. He protested against the shipowners being subjected to the process of vivisection. This clause applied not only to the shipowner, but to every person who might be connected with sending an unseaworthy vessel to sea—so that the shipbroker, who knew nothing whatever about it, and even the master of the tug which was employed to tow such a vessel to sea, would come within the clause. If a man went home drunk it might be said he was likely to set his house on fire; but if he did they would not therefore indict him as a criminal. In the Mines Regulation Act they had inserted the word "wilfully." Why should it not be inserted in this Bill?

said, that there had been no instance of a shipowner being convicted for sending a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition before the Act of last year. It was satisfactory to know that at the present moment Mr. Justice Brett was engaged in a trial of that kind. He believed if the word "intentional" were retained the Act would be rendered nugatory.

said, that the shipowners did not deserve the taunts of the hon. and learned Member (Sir Henry James). They were few in number in that House, but they were honest men, who desired as strongly as any person that the lives of our seamen should be protected. The clause was opposed by all the respectable shipowners in the country. The opposition to the Amendment had been based on the mistake of believing that vessels were purposely lost, which, unless in the rarest instances, was not the case. The vast number of cases of the loss of ships occurred from causes with which this clause could not deal. In almost all those cases the evidence of guilt, if it existed, had disappeared, and in 99 cases out of 100 the evidence of innocence had also disappeared. The clause would only be a terror to the honest man.

said, if it were provided that no unseaworthy ship should be sent to sea all dispute as to whether it was done intentionally or not would be avoided. If shipowners complied with the necessary preliminaries, and did not send their vessels away until they had been inspected and pronounced seaworthy, they could not reasonably be held responsible for any casualty that might occur.

regretted that anything he had said should have given annoyance to the hon. Member (Mr. Mac Iver) or other shipowners. He had no such intention; but merely wished to say that the class affected by the proposed legislation were taking a view contrary to that held by many independent Members of that House.

, as a shipowner, wished to state that he had no intention of moving or supporting anything to evade the object of the Bill, which he believed to be the saving of human life. He thought the Amendment would be nugatory, and that the shipowners ought to accept the responsibility which it was sought to place upon them. Whether what was proposed by this clause was the spirit of the English law or not, he was sure that it ought to be the spirit of the law. If a man wilfully sent a ship to sea which was unseaworthy, and lives were lost in consequence, he was guilty of murder, and ought to be punished.

expressed a hope that, before reporting Progress, the Committee would decide upon the next Amendment, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll).

thought it too late to enter into the discussion of an Amendment that must necessarily occupy a considerable time.

said, he hoped Progress would be reported and that the Bill would not be taken again until Monday.

, on behalf of the hon. Member for Derby, who, he said, was too much fatigued to proceed further with the discussion of the subject that night, expressed a similar hope.

said, the Government were exceedingly anxious to proceed with the Bill on account of its great importance; but, at the same time, he was willing, under the circumstances, to agree to report Progress on the understanding that the Bill should be proceeded with as the First Order on Monday.

remarked that, although this Bill was a very short one, it was of a very important character, inasmuch as it re-opened the whole question both of the franchise and of registration; and he objected to the House being asked to read it a second time without a word of explanation having been given.

said, he explained the Bill on several occasions last year. Its object was simply to prevent persons who left their house for a little time and let it during their absence from being disfranchised for the year on account of such temporary non-occupation. Hon. Members opposite were under a misapprehension as to the true character of the Bill, and he felt it his duty to press its second reading that night.

said, that as this Bill, to a certain extent, opened up the whole question of representation, he thought they ought to be very careful how they handled such a subject, and as Her Majesty's Government had refused to give any explanation upon the subject, he begged to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

seconded the Motion.

said, he thought the House was getting into a rather false position in regard to that Bill. He was not present when its second reading was moved, but the Bill was introduced last Session, and passed through all its stages up to the third reading. It was affirmed by a considerable majority, and was supported by the Secretary of War on be half of the Government. It only failed to obtain a third reading owing to the difficulty which measures brought forward by private Members often had to encounter. It had now been re-introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch, and it appeared to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to be one of a very reasonable character, the object being the removal of a disqualification which applied to a certain number of persons who lost their votes by reason of letting their houses for a certain time. The Bill having been discussed last Session, it was not unreasonable to proceed with the discussion on the second reading at a quarter past 12 o'clock. He did not know how a measure of this sort was to be fairly discussed, if the tactics which had been adopted were to be pursued. It had been said that the Government ought to have expressed some views with regard to this Bill. They had done so on a former occasion, and saw no reason to change their opinion that it was a reasonable Bill. He hoped the House would not persevere in the determination not to discuss the measure; and that if it was found inconvenient to spend much more time over it to-night, they would allow the second reading to be taken, and discuss it in Committee.

thought the Bill would not do any good on that (the Liberal) side of the House. Nobody on that side understood it, and those who understood it on the other side had an object which could not be mistaken. He moved that the House do now adjourn.

considered the Bill to be perfectly equitable, and was sorry that hon. Members on his side of the House had taken the course they had pursued with regard to it.

believed that the Bill infringed the principle of the Reform Act of 1867. At any rate it was fragmentary, and a measure of this nature ought to be in the hands of the Government.

said, the Bill was intended to remedy an oversight of the Reform Act; and if the House would agree to the second reading, he would fix the Committee for a time which would allow of further discussion.

thought they ought to proceed at once with the discussion.

replied that it was unjust to accuse the supporters of the Bill of not having given full opportunity for discussing its provisions last year and during the present Session.

argued that this Bill did not violate any principle of the Reform Act.

said, it was not a favourable time for a man to make his "maiden speech." He had been in the House now 13 hours, and, feeling that it was unreasonable to proceed further with the Bill at that hour, he moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

seconded the Motion.

thought, under the circumstances, that it was advisable to adjourn the debate.