asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can state the number of unions and parishes in England and Wales in which out-door relief to able-bodied persons is not prohibited by order of the Local Government Board; the number of the unions and parishes in which able-bodied male persons, if relieved out of the workhouse, are not obliged to be set to work by the guardians; and the number of able-bodied persons who received out-door relief in England and Wales in the last year, for which Returns have been made up?

:There are 116 unions and parishes in England and Wales in which out-door relief is not prohibited by an order of the Local Government Board, and in these cases out-door relief is administered in accordance with the regulations in the Out-door Relief Regulation Order of December, 1852. There is no instance in which able-bodied male paupers, if relieved out of the workhouse, are not obliged to be set to work by the Guardians; but both the General Order prohibiting out-door relief and the Relief Regulation Order contain provisions to meet exceptional cases. The actual number of able-bodied persons who received out-door relief during any year cannot be given; but a census of paupers is taken on the 1st of January and the 1st of July in each year, and the mean number of able-bodied paupers, including men and women and children under 16, in 1875, was 268,436, showing a decrease of 143,574 as compared with 1871. The mean number of adult outdoor able-bodied paupers in 1875 was 89,918, as against 147,760 in 1871.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of this House a Copy of the Correspondence between the Lord Mayor, the Governor of New gate, and the Chief Clerk of the Justice Room of the Mansion House, relating to the diet of three prisoners, Henry Hervé, Gabriel Hervé, and Nicolas Clause, fifteen times remanded and unconvicted of any crime?

If the hon. Member moves for the Papers, I shall have no objection to lay them on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Railway Companies who have decided to carry explosives have submitted to the Board of Trade the bye-laws for regulating the traffic, as provided for by section 35 of the Explosive Substances Act; and, if so, whether it is his intention to insist that those Companies who do carry any explosives shall give equal facilities to all the explosives to which the Act refers, seeing that the refusal of most of the leading Railway Companies to carry some of the duly licensed blasting agents is inflicting an unnecessary injury upon the manufacturers of those explosives which the Railway Companies decline to carry, and upon the mining industries of the country, whose prosperity is largely dependent on the supply of suitable blasting agents; whether his attention has been called to the danger to which the travelling public are subjected by the surreptitious conveyance of explosives in passenger trains, in consequence of the obstacles now placed in the way of a properly regulated traffic by the leading Railway Companies; and, whether it is intended to give facilities for sea-going sailing vessels and steamers loaded or partially loaded with explosives passing through the Caledonian and Crinan Canals; and whether Government are prepared to grant equal facilities to all duly licensed explosives passing through those Canals?

in reply, said, the railway companies had submitted the bye-laws referred to by the hon. Member, but they were not considered sufficient, and they had accordingly been returned for amendment. He was informed that they were now being re-drawn by the Railway Clearing House, on behalf of the railway companies generally, in the sense indicated by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade had no power to insist on the carriage of all explosives, as the law left it to the railway companies to decide what explosives they would convey, provided they gave the same facilities to all parties alike. No complaints had been made to the Board of Trade, but complaints had been made to the Home Office, but they were entirely of a general character, and no specific complaint had been made against any individual or railway company. If a specific complaint were made, he should think it right to put the law in force both against the individual and against the company, if it could be shown that they knew that explosives were carried surreptitiously on their railway. The Board of Trade had no more power in the case of canals than they had in the case of railways to insist on the carriage of all explosives, but they would consider any suggestions on the subject, and a uniform code of bye-laws both for canals and railways was under their consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following case reported in the "Brierly Hill Advertiser" of February 20th 1875, from which it appears that John Radford, landlord of the "Queen's Head" public-house, Quarry Bank, was charged with having on Sunday afternoon opened his house at prohibited hours. The police constable found fourteen men in the club room upstairs drinking ale. It was stated that they were all members of a club, and had just returned after carrying thebody of a deceased member to the churchyard, and were having refreshment, and that the house was closed to every one else. The magistrate, Mr. Spooner, said if the men had come three miles from where they had slept the previous night they were entitled to refreshments, but not otherwise. They belonged to the neighbourhood, and the defendant was fined £5 and costs, but the licence was not to be endorsed. And, whether it is in contemplation to recommend an alteration in the Law in this respect?

I am not aware that it is a part of my duty to read all the country newspapers of the 20th of February last. Still less is it my duty to remember all the paragraphs which appeared in the newspapers of that date. But, assuming that the paragraph referred to in the Question did appear, and that the facts referred to were true, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any alteration of the law in that respect.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, when, in answer to a question asking what precedents there are for the absence of the Sovereign during the Session of Parliament, he referred to one and called it "the last," he meant to imply that there are others previous; if, in the only one referred to, that of 1872, it is not the fact that the Sovereign sailed from the country on Sunday the 24th of March, while Parliament adjourned for the Easter Recess on Tuesday the 26th, meeting again on Thursday the 4th of April, while the Sovereign returned on Sunday the 7th of April, the absence being thus, practically, only for the Easter Recess; and, if he has no precedent more exactly similar in circumstances to the present, or if in actual fact there are no others?

Her Majesty has been twice absent from her dominions during the Session of Parliament, and this during a reign of nearly 40 years. No interference with public business has ever been occasioned in consequence of that absence, and it is discharged with the same promptitude and precision as when Her Majesty is in the United Kingdom. Irrespective of the telegraph, a messenger arrives at Her Majesty's Continental residence every day, and she is always attended by a Secretary of State.

Does the right Gentleman mean that there are two precedents for the Queen's present absence from England during the Session of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman says that Her Majesty has been twice away. Is this one of the two occasions, or were both those occasions previous to the present?

In that case Her Majesty would have been absent three times.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the condition of Hammersmith Bridge, having regard to the number of persons on it during the training of the University crews, and on the day of the boat race; and, whether he intends to take any steps in the matter?

The attention of the Secretary of State has been for several years called to the condition of Hammersmith Bridge. There is no doubt that this bridge was built a long time ago, and, although it was perfectly fitted for ordinary traffic, it is not fit for the extraordinary traffic it is called upon to bear during the day of the boat race. I thought it better, therefore, to ask the Board of Trade to send down one of their officers on a visit of inspection; and in justification of any action which the Hammersmith Bridge Company may take, I think the best thing I can do is to read the conclusions of his Report. Captain Tyler says—

"I am of opinion that the Hammersmith Bridge cannot be employed in connection with the approaching University boat race without the serious risk of loss of life to many thousands of people who would, if the bridge were not closed, crowd upon it endeavouring to witness the race, and again, after the race, would pass over it in dense masses returning from the race, and over whom the police authorities would be quite unable to exercise any control. I am fully aware of, and have seriously considered, the inconvenience that would be caused by the closing of the bridge, and I am, I regret to say, compelled to come to the inevitable conclusion that public safety demands that such inconvenience must be incurred, and that the bridge must be closed absolutely on that day."

I have communicated that Report to the Bridge Committee, and they have, I understand, undertaken, because the whole responsibility rests upon them, and not upon the Secretary of State, to close the bridge in consequence of that Report; and I have told them that I will place at their disposal such a force of police as would enable them to carry that decision into effect; and I hope the public will aid the bridge authorities and the police in taking a step which is actually necessary for the preservation of life, and that due precautions will be taken, not only on the day of the boat race, but on the days of the practising of the crews, when the crowds are almost equally great.

said, that the part of the clause called in question was not really open to the criticism of the noble Lord. The principle was by no means new or inconsistent with the law. On the contrary, it was consonant with the spirit of the law and of all recent enactments on the subject. It was a provision not only necessary, but in every way advisable. The case was simply this—if it was proved that a ship was sent to sea in a state dangerous to human life, a crime had been made out; and the strong presumption must be that those who were cognizant of, and responsible for, the state of the ship, and who only could know of it, were guilty of that crime. The crime was proved; there was presumptive and strong evidence against the owner, but this portion of the clause enabled, the owner—primâ facie evidence having gone against him—to show lawful excuse and so exempt himself from the penalty of the law. Instead of the defendant being allowed to adduce circumstances in his own behalf of which he alone could be cognizant, the noble Lord said the prosecution ought to be called upon in the first place to prove a negative—namely, that the defendant had no excuse, and next to test exhaustively circumstances of which no one else but the defendant could be cognizant; in other words, that the prosecution was to do that which was absolutely impossible. It seemed to him (Sir Charles Adderley), on the ground of common sense, that when a man had acted so negligently as to send a ship to sea in such a state as to endanger life, a primâ facie case had been made out against him which it was for him to exculpate himself from, if possible. He admitted that the general principle of the law was that a prosecutor must prove every fact that would make out his charge, and also that it presumed every man's innocence till the contrary was proved. Another general principle had, however, ruled for the last 30 or 40 years—namely, that the burden of proving lawful excuse, where a primâ facie case was made out, lay upon the defendant. There were 50 or 60 recent Acts in which this principle had been adopted, as the noble Lord would find if he referred to Taylor on Evidence, so that there was no straining of the law in this instance to catch the shipowner, but a following of the latest approved principles. What was the language of the Factory Act of 1844? It was infinitely stronger than the language of this clause. When a breach of the Act was found to be committed, the Act said—

"The occupier of the factory shall be deemed in the first instance to have committed the offence."

In this case there was only recognized the presumption against the shipowner. But the Act went on to say—

"If he shall prove that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of the Act, he shall be exempted from the penalties otherwise incurred."

In the Explosive Substances Act of last year it was enacted that the occupier should be liable to great penalties, but might discharge himself by showing that he applied all proper means and issued proper orders against the infringement of the Act. The noble Lord said there was no such principle in the Merchant Shipping Acts. The language of the Act of 1867 was that

"the penalty shall attach to the owner or master in fault, unless he shall prove that non-compliance was not caused through any inattention or neglect on his part,"

which was precisely on all fours with the provision now under discussion. Indeed, the actual provisions of the previous Act were re-enacted in the Act of last year. When, therefore, Mr. Justice Brett made the speech from the Bench which had been referred to, he must say it appeared strange that a Judge should have gone so far out of his proper function to criticize pending legislation apparently not aware that he had administered the law accordingly for five years past. In several of these Acts there was the further principle introduced, which had always been recognized by the Common Law, that where the subject of allegation lay peculiarly within the knowledge of one of the parties, he must state it, even although without it the presumption of law was in his favour. It would, therefore, be a retrogression in law if the Committee were to adopt the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord was adverse to putting the defendant in the witness-box to allow him to give evidence in his own behalf, and although there had been less precedent for that than there was for the other proposal, the practice was growing. It seemed a great hardship to a defendant, who alone might know all the facts and be able to clear himself, to shut his mouth; and the only thing to be said for it was, that if he had the power to give evidence and did not avail himself of it, that fact might raise a presumption against his innocence, for it might be assumed that if a man was innocent, he would wish for the opportunity of proving it. The law officer of the Board of Trade had told him that in every prosecution of a shipowner, under the Acts from 1871 down to the present time, the defendants had eagerly availed themselves of this right, and if they were innocent they always would do so. Why should a great shipowners' association, who would never come in conflict with the law themselves, raise this abstract, and, as it proved, erroneous point of constitutional theory against a practical benefit desired by small shipowners, who did come into conflict with the law and who had availed themselves largely of this right, the principle of the law being that which the Legislature had followed so many years and the practical operation of the law having involved no injustice and never having been objected to? Let it be considered for a moment what the practical effect of the clause would be. The kind of excuse a shipowner would have to prove in these cases would generally be that he had employed good shipwrights; that the ship had been overhauled before going to sea; and that he took such means as an honest and careful shipowner would take in sending a ship to sea to protect the lives of the crew—all facts which would be within his knowledge and could not be within the knowledge of the prosecutor. If the Amendment were carried, there must be a conviction, without the defendant having an opportunity of exculpating himself; and this disabling of a defendant to give evidence on his own behalf would be the maintenance of the relic of old law which disqualified a man as a witness where he had any interest in the result. The Bill would only do for the shipowners what had been done for the seamen, by affording them facilities to prove the unseaworthiness of a ship as an answer to the charge of desertion. It was precisely on the same principle that the shipowner was now offered the means of exculpating himself when a primâ facie case was made out against him. The clause was not at all open to the criticisms of the noble Lord, who, he trusted, would on reflection see that it carried out right principles more than the Amendment.

said, the criticism of Mr. Justice Brett was directed against the Act of last Session, not against the Bill before the House, and, without saying anything as to the propriety or otherwise of such criticisms from a Judge on the Bench, he held that the opinion of a Judge on such a matter as the present was of more weight than the opinion of many Members of that House. The Judges saw the practical working of the law, and were able to give a calm and unbiassed judgment upon it, which was not always the case on the part of the House when a Bill was in its passage through it. He was glad that the Amendment came from the other side of the House, because it could not be said that those who agreed with the proposal were by so doing actuated by party motives. It was all very well to talk of what had been done by the Factory Acts; but there was no analogy between the provisions of those Acts and what was proposed by the Bill. He concurred in the objection of the noble Lord to making a person accused on a criminal charge a witness in his own cause. He suggested that the difficulty would be got rid of, if the clause were altered so as to read that every person who, without using reasonable means to avoid sending a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state, or who, under circumstances that were not reasonable and justifiable, did send a ship to sea in that condition, should be guilty of a misdemeanour. A shipowner who sent a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition so as to endanger life ought unquestionably to be punished, but he protested against making him a witness in his own case. If it was intended as a privilege, as had been said, then why confine it to the shipowner? Why not extend it to all persons charged with a criminal offence? And was the House prepared to do this? If it was not a privilege then it was a disadvantage, and why should a shipowner be placed at a disadvantage which no other person on a criminal charge was? It was a serious innovation on the principles which had hitherto guided our criminal jurisprudence, and of a most mischievous tendency. The present case, moreover, was one which found no justification in any special necessity arising out of the nature of the case. On the contrary, there was not a charge that could be brought against a shipowner under the clause about which in nine instances out of ten he could himself give the slightest account. All he could say was he employed a shipwright and his clerks and agents, and they would have to be called to give evidence in his behalf. In fact, this was precisely the class of case about which the accused himself would probably know nothing, and as to which everything that was to exculpate him would be known to others, and not to him. He trusted that the Government would weigh the matter further before they adopted this clause in its entirety.

said, they were all agreed that some such clause as this was necessary, and they were also anxious that the clause should be so framed in relation to its primary object—the preservation of human life—that it should not throw any hardship upon those who were not likely to come within the operation of the clause. The first portion of the clause had been generally accepted by those who had taken part in the discussion. It fixed upon the shipowner the duty of sending his ship to sea in a seaworthy condition; but as a shipowner, however careful, must sometimes fail in carrying out that duty, was he not placed by means of the second part of the clause in a much better position than he would otherwise occupy, for he was thereby enabled to give evidence to show that he had done all he could to fulfil the duty imposed on him. It was said that the prosecution would be bound to negative the answer of the defendant; but there was no proposition in our law to such an effect. Again, it was urged that the clause would introduce an innovation in our legislation; but he could show many instances, and in relation to a cognate matter, principally under the Merchant Shipping Act, where the burden of proof was thrown on the accused, and where the accuser was bound to answer the excuse made. In the year 1854 an Act was passed in reference to foreign sailors brought to this country in any ship, and who, being left here, became chargeable upon the rates or were liable to be convicted as disorderly persons—there the owner of the ship was liable to a certain penalty, unless he could show that the persons so left in this country remained without his assent. An amended Act of the same year cast upon a shipowner or master the burden of proof in the case of an accusation against him of discharging a seaman or apprentice without a certificate. An Act of the following year relating to emigrants enacted that if any question arose as to whether a ship was exempt from the provisions of the Act, the burden of proof should lie upon the party claiming the benefit of the exemption. Another Act threw upon the owner or master of a ship the onus of proving that non-compliance with its provisions as to medical stores, lime juice, and so on, required to be provided, did not arise from neglect or wilful default. The instances might, in fact, be multiplied of cases in which various penalties were provided, some of them cases of misdemeanour, where it lay upon the party accused to excuse himself. But then objection was taken to the provision as to the person accused being examined as a witness. That was a very broad question, one as to which great difference of opinion existed, and his present view was rather against than in favour of it. This, however, he could not but see—that if the provision were struck out of the present Bill, the class of shipowner they all desired to aid—namely, the careful shipowner, would be the person to suffer. Why should they not give him every assistance to prove his innocence? The clause did not say that he must be put into the box, but that he might put himself into the box, and the person who was conscious of having done his duty would be the first to say—"Here are my manager, agent, surveyor, and clerks; examine them; examine me also, and I can show that I used all reasonable means to send my ship to sea in a seaworthy condition." A similar provision was inserted in the Mines Act, enabling owners and managers to give evidence; and during the progress of the Licensing Act of 1872 the Recorder of London, whose absence from the House was now so much regretted, proposed that both the licensed victualler and his wife should be called as witnesses. Those who were supporting the Amendment were placing the careful shipowner in the greatest peril by keeping the mouth of the man closed who could best show—having the knowledge in his own breast—that the charge against him could not be sustained. He hoped the Committee would not alter the clause in the manner proposed.

explained that, although he supported the Amendment, he had not opposed the clause. His criticism had been directed against that part of it which would make the accused a witness.

said, one of the well-known principles of the English criminal law was to throw the burden of proof upon the defendant, when the special means of knowledge were in the breast of the accused. He would tell the noble Lord that that was one of the commonest principles of the criminal law of England. This principle was explained in Taylor on Evidence. The proposal to call the shipowner into the box was much less defensible on the ground of precedent; but how could he, in the majority of cases, prove that he used reasonable means of precaution unless by tendering his own evidence?

said, one of the provisions of the Bill now before the Committee was that the responsibility of proof of the seaworthiness of the ship should be thrown on the shipowner, and the shipowners were propared to accept that, and to give all reasonable proof in their power in the matter; but the Amendment of the noble Lord would relieve the shipowner from a responsibility he was willing to accept.

on rising to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Lord Eslington) said, there were other than legal considerations involved. It was peculiarly a practical question, and the legal references that had been made by hon. Members did not appear to him to be in point. The case of a shipowner was different entirely from those instances which had been given. Let a shipowner be ever so careful, there might at any time be a disaster, and as the evidence of guilt might disappear, so might the evidence of innocence. Shipping disasters were different from other disasters. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley) had spoken of this clause—and he had no doubt he meant what he said—as if it was for the benefit of the shipowner; but if this were so, how was it that shipowners from one end of the Kingdom to the other objected to it? He (Mr. Mac Iver) represented a shipbuilding and ship owning constituency, about which no Member in the House could say that, either on its part or on his own part, there was a shadow of reasonable ground for supposing that it was their desire to screen any persons guilty of sending to sea unseaworthy vessels. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) seemed to him to argue against his own case. The proposed criminal legislation with regard to merchant shipping had no terrors to men who wilfully neglected to send ships to sea in a seaworthy state; but it had its terrors to the honest traders who were anxious to do their best both with regard to the safety of the men employed by them and also by their shipping property. The supposition of many Members in that House, no doubt, was that good ships were perfection. Gentlemen anxious and earnest in the direction of saving life at sea would say, if a man knew of a defect in hull or machinery why did he not take it out? The reply was this—that there was not one of the leading companies, whose shipping management was most prudent, that possessed a ship which was in every little detail absolutely and perfectly sound. Supposed defects were not always real ones, and even real defects were not always important. The difference between prudent and careless shipping management was that the prudent man who understood his business would closely watch matters and attend to anything requiring attention if he was not frightened, from making personal inquiry by such legislation as that proposed; whilst the careless man would find individual safety in personal ignorance, and leave the safety of his vessel purely to chance. The House was not to suppose that it was always easily discoverable when a ship had a defect. If a shipowner had every little defect put right he would soon find himself in the Bankruptcy Court. He was sure that what he had said would be borne out by every reasonable and thinking man in that House, and that the clause in its present form was a crying injustice. The shipowner who knew nothing, and took care not to know, was safe—not so the honest man who did his best. He should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to this, because he contrasted the larger shipowner against the smaller ones, and was also inclined to taunt the Liverpool Shipowners Association and other societies with regard to the meeting they held in London. The President of the Board of Trade had boasted too much about his feelings in relation to the "costermongers of the sea." He (Mr. Mac Iver) had had to do with more vessels carrying coal than any other Member of that House; unless, indeed, he happened to be some large colliery proprietor. This class of vessels used to come three or four times a week to the firm he was with from South Wales with coal, and they went safe. But he did know there was scarcely a sound one amongst them, in the sense of being absolutely without blemish of any kind. Yet the whole of them were reasonably safe for the work they had to do. And yet if any unfortunate man were to lose one there might be placed against him a long list of defects which seemed like reality, which perhaps amounted to nothing, yet for which he might be liable to severe punishment. He wished to urge upon the House that the views held at the different seaports were deserving of attention. They were sure of a calm and impartial consideration in the hands of Gentlemen who could have no other desire than to save human life; but to legislate without giving due consideration to those views would cripple the maritime trade of the country.

said, he should be obliged to vote against the Amendment of his noble Friend if it were pressed to a division. As the clause stood it would not be very easy to get a conviction; but it would be impossible to do so if the proposed alteration were adopted.

as a practical shipowner, strongly objected to the clause. He believed this attempt to make ship- owners careful by throwing the responsibility upon them would not have the effect intended. The proper course to adopt was to prevent unseaworthy ships from going to sea, instead of throwing the responsibility on the owners. In the latter case, if ships were allowed to sail and were wrecked, the Government would turn round upon the owner and punish him after lives had been lost.

supported the Amendment. The question really before the Committee was, not the liability of the shipowner, because that was secured by the clause; the question was whether the shipowner should be put into the witness-box. If the words were to stand in the Bill as now proposed no shipowner could be expected to escape conviction, unless he were put into the box. The precedents from 1844 downwards did not warrant the insertion of the clause as it stood, and he trusted that the Committee would agree to the Amendment of the noble Lord.

could not support the Amendment, but he felt indebted to the noble Lord for having brought the matter before the attention of the Committee, because it could not be concealed from them that there was an uncomfortable feeling among a large class of people that they were about to make a great alteration in the criminal law. The chief objection which had been made to the clause was, that it proposed to enact that a man should be considered guilty unless he proved himself to be innocent; but that was not the case, for the clause provided that certain conduct should amount to an offence punishable by law, and that it should be competent to the person charged to put a different complexion on the act and be entitled to become a witness in his own defence. The clause did not, in his opinion, introduce a novelty into our law, for, without relying on recent precedents, the principle had long existed in the English law.

said, that if the Amendments were accepted they would render the clause nugatory. The great desire of the Government was to meet a crying and terrible evil, and it was essential for them to make the clause for that purpose a stringent and vigourous one. No one could object to that being done, provided the clause of the Government worked no injustice to anybody and was not unconstitutional. As to the principle of the clause, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watkin Williams) that it was not novel. There were many offences known to our law in which the proof of certain facts was sufficient to raise a primâ facie presumption of guilt, removing the onus of proof from the prosecution and casting it upon the accused. Here, if a man sent to sea a vessel which afterwards was abundantly proved to be unseaworthy, it was his duty to know, if anybody in the world knew, what the facts were, and there was no hardship in calling upon him, by his own or other evidence, to rebut the presumption of guilt. There were many cases, and this was one of them, where a strong presumption arose against the accused. That presumption threw the onus on the accused of proving that he had showed due diligence; and if they allowed that presumption to be rebutted, it was reasonable that he should be allowed to give evidence in his own behalf. No doubt he might be cross-examined; but, with a Judge to protect him, it was not likely that any innocent man would suffer. It was not necessary that he should present himself in the witness-box; all that he required to prove might be proved aliunde. No one had a higher opinion of Mr. Justice Brett than he had; but when he said that this enactment made him shudder, they should remember that novelty sometimes made a Judge shudder. It was not long ago that the whole of Westminster Hall had been convulsed at the idea of a man in a civil case being heard as a witness in his own cause. This matter was not novel; there were a number of precedents from Acts of Parliament which cast the onus of proof upon the accused. The Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 distinctly provided that where a man, under certain circumstances, sent an armed ship to sea, it was to be presumed that the ship was to be used for military and naval purposes unless he himself proved the contrary. The Explosive Substances Act of 1875 contained a similar provision. In the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1870 precisely the same provision was contained. A Motion was made to strike out "knowingly," which was supported by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), who now talked so loudly about this clause being unconstitutional. He thought in this case the onus was fairly and properly thrown on the accused of showing that he had used all reasonable means and exerted every possible diligence to avoid sending a ship to sea that was unseaworthy. Instead of being unjust to the accused, it was highly favourable to him to allow him to give evidence.

admitted that the Attorney General had quoted quite correctly the precedents for calling on the accused to prove his innocence; but in the cases cited what the accused had to prove was more or less specific. He had yet to learn that British laws required the accused to do so in a matter so indefinite and so elastic as "reasonable means" and "seaworthy state."

remarked that the Coal Mines Regulation Act had been cited as one throwing on the owner the onus of proving that he had done certain things for the protection of life; but there was this difference between the present case and that of the mine owner. In the case of the shipowner, he was guilty of a misdemeanour; but in the case of the coalowner he was only guilty of an offence against the Act, the penalty for which was a fine, or, if an aggravated case, imprisonment. To such a provision he had no doubt the shipowners would consent.

said, the fallacy underlying the arguments of those who opposed the clause was that they argued as if the well-known assumption in criminal matters applied to this clause—namely, that if a prisoner declined to state where he obtained stolen property, or if he declined to give any account of matters on which he was accused, that the assumption of his guilt was greatly increased. But that assumption only applied to acts done by the persons charged; whereas in almost every case, under this clause, the acts referred to were in reference to things done by persons other than the shipowner—namely, shipwrights, &c, and consequently as they could, and would, be called, no assumption of guilt ever could arise against the shipowner. Shipowners could know little of the details of the management of repairs; it would be considered a matter of slight importance, therefore, whether they were called as witnesses or not, and, therefore, they could suffer no injury from the clause. If he thought shipowners would suffer, he would not support it.

who had the next Amendment on the Paper, said, he should withdraw it, as the division just taken disposed of it. He wished, however, to correct a misapprehension which seemed to prevail with regard to his Amendment of last Monday. Many hon. Members supposed he wanted a survey of every ship prior to every voyage; whereas all he wanted was a survey of unclassed ships like that of Lloyd's, and that the certificates should last good as long as those given by Lloyd's and other registries. This narrowed the surveys very considerably. He found that the misapprehension to which he had referred prevailed somewhat extensively in that House and amongst the public, and it had been put forward in one of the most influential newspapers in London.

said, that very often a ship was damaged at sea by stress of weather, and, becoming unseaworthy, put in where she could not be repaired, and it was necessary to take her to sea again to get to a port where the repairs could be effected.

thought in such a case the unseaworthiness did not come within the meaning of the clause.

expressed an opinion that this Amendment had already been discussed and disposed of upon the proposition of the noble Lord (Lord Eslington). It seemed to him that if they threw upon the accused the onus of proving that he had used all reasonable means of making a ship seaworthy they must in justice allow him to be a witness. Perhaps in the majority of cases he might be able to prove that he had used such means without himself giving any evidence; but cases might arise where the excuse to be offered would entirely depend upon the ship owner's own knowledge. Precedents for allowing a man charged with misdemeanour to be a witness in his own behalf would be found in the Customs Act and the Sale of Food and Drugs Act.

said, he hoped the discussion would not be altogether confined to Members of the legal profession, but that those who were more directly interested in the question would lay their views with respect to it before the Committee. For his own part, his experience as a magistrate led him to the conclusion that the Committee ought to be careful how it meddled with the rule that no man should be called upon to criminate himself. He deprecated any interference, if it could possibly be avoided, with the usual rules for the administration of justice, and he did not think the shipowners had done anything which warranted their being placed in a different position from other people. He regarded this as an attempt to introduce the French system of cross-examining prisoners.

said, he thought that as the Committee had, by a most conclusive expression of its opinion, determined to throw the onus of proof on the owner, the state of affairs had materially changed. He objected to throw the onus of proof on the owner, and he objected equally to put him into the witness-box to prove his own innocence. But the two propositions appeared to him to go together, and as the former had been rejected, it would be hard to deprive the owner of the power of giving evidence on his own behalf.

said, the President of the Board of Trade had complained to-night that the richer shipowners were anxious to remove this clause, and thereby damage the smaller shipowners, who were always desirous to give evidence. He supported the Amendment, however, on the very ground that this power of giving evidence would be very detrimental indeed to the poorer shipowner, who, being uneducated, would be liable to be confused by cross-examination, and might be placed in the painful position of criminating himself unintentionally. But he objected still more strongly to this provision on the ground that it would tempt men to the commission of perjury. The clause was unjust. No shipowner in the House desired to escape responsibility; but he appealed to the Government to re-consider this clause before the Report.

said, his argument was that the large shipowners, who never came into contact with the law, opposed the clause on the theoretical ground that it would be injurious to the small shipowners, who were more likely to be the subject of prosecutions; whereas in every case of a prosecution that had hitherto taken place the accused had been most anxious to be examined.

remarked that the power of giving evidence had been taken advantage of in every prosecution under the Act of 1871 and last year, and as there was no evidence of injustice having been done he thought this clause might be safely accepted.

said, the clause practically involved the whole question of a man being compelled to criminate himself. If a man did not avail himself of the clause, that would be regarded by the jury as tantamount to an admission of his guilt. That was a most dangerous principle to introduce, and he, therefore, should support the Amendment.

objected strongly to the proposal that an accused person should be practically compelled to tender himself as a witness. A bold, hard-headed, unscrupulous witness would probably baffle counsel, while a timid, nervous, but innocent man might be tortured into contradictions which would tell against him, and even the Judge would be bound in the course of his duty to test his credibility. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) shrank from extending this principle to all criminal cases. Why, then, apply it to this case?

said, it was only fair that before a shipowner went into the box and was, perhaps, badgered into criminating himself, some evidence should be given in proof of the offence. What was meant by "seaworthiness?" Could anybody define it?

said, there could be no doubt that this great change in the constitutional law of the country had been introduced by the Government in the belief that it would give fair play to prisoners accused under the Act of sending unseaworthy ships to sea; but, as far as he could collect, there had been very little argument to support it. Instead of being a benefit and an advantage to the shipowner that he should be enabled to be a witness in his own defence, nothing could be more prejudicial. He could conceive no case in which a man would not be able to prove by independent witnesses that he had taken reasonable care to send his ship to sea in a proper condition; but if he declined to give evidence himself he would be accused by the prosecuting counsel of being afraid to tender himself for cross-examination. By departing from the great constitutional principle of the law in these cases they would set a precedent very apt to be followed, for it was astonishing how these things crept on bit by bit; and in the end they would come to that abominable system of examining every wretched creature accused of a crime, and convicting him out of his own mouth. He believed that the clause, instead of giving the shipowners a fair chance, would be only giving them a rope to hang themselves, and therefore he would have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

called the attention of the Committee to the position in which they stood with regard to this question. They had already agreed that the attempt to send an unseaworthy ship to sea was to be treated as a misdemeanour. They had further agreed that it should not be necessary, in the first instance, to prove that the owner of a ship had not taken reasonable and proper means of preventing his ship from going to sea in that state. It had to be proved that the offence was complete—that the ship was unseaworthy—that the managing owner had been responsible for sending her, or attempting to send her, to sea; and in all these proceedings the line of the present system of jurisprudence would be strictly followed, because the whole burden of proof would rest on those who prosecuted. In passing, he might remark that there need be no fear of malicious prosecution, since none of the prosecutions could be undertaken except with the previous sanction of the Board of Trade. The point the Committee had to decide was—were they to throw the burden of proof that there had not been reasonable care upon the prosecution or upon the shipowner? Already they had decided, by a large majority, that if the prosecution could prove that the ship was sent to sea in an unseaworthy state under circumstances which induced the Board of Trade to direct the prosecution, the burden of proof that proper care had been taken should rest upon the shipowner. In considering the Amendment the Committee must start from that point. Anybody could see that allowing a man who had been proved primâ facie guilty of this offence to give evidence on his own behalf was an advantage, and not a disadvantage. But to that the answer was given that they would put him in a disagreeable position—for that if he did not go into the box, it would be presumed that he had some reason for keeping himself out of it, while, in fact, he would only absent himself because he might prove all that was necessary by other witnesses than himself. In a large number of cases it would be wholly unnecessary for the shipowner to tender himself as a witness; but there might be cases in which it would be very inconvenient, and per- haps impossible for him to call these witnesses. The shipwright whom he had employed to build the ship might be dead, or far away in some other part of the world; and in such cases it would be a great disadvantage to the shipowner not to be allowed to give evidence himself. He thought that by refusing this right to the shipowner they would do an injustice in 20 cases for the one case in which an honest but nervous man would be saved from the inconvenience and embarrassment of a cross-examination.

said, he had voted with the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland against throwing the responsibility on the shipowner of proving his innocence; but the House having decided that the onus should be thrown on him, he thought it most important that the accused should be allowed to go into the witness-box and state his own case. It had been said that an innocent defendant might be put into the box and subjected to such a cross-examination as would lead him to fall into a trap laid by counsel, but he did not believe any such thing could occur. The shipowner might in some cases be held liable, not only for the acts of which he was cognizant, but to a certain extent for the acts of his authorized agents in foreign ports. A ship might sustain serious damage, and repairs more or less satisfactory might be done in a foreign port. The ship sailed from that port for England and was lost. All the instructions which the owner had given to his captain on which he had acted were probably lost in the ship. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that the shipowner should be able to tell his own tale, and he should vote for the retention of the words in the clause.

supported the clause. He had often heard the allegation made that when the mouth of a party charged with an offence was closed it was most unjust to consign him to imprisonment or death for want of a sufficient explanation. In his opinion, when a party was proceeded against either in a civil or criminal case, he ought to be allowed to explain the nature of the transaction. There was no likelihood that any prosecution would be instituted without an official inquiry, and he thought this was emphatically a provision which would be of great advantage to the public.

supported the clause with, no misgiving, except as to the propriety of making such an important change in the law in a Bill of this kind, instead of by a Bill relating to legal procedure generally. The corresponding changes which had been made in admitting the evidence of interested persons in certain cases had resulted in unqualified benefit and all prophecies of evil consequences had been falsified.

said, there were two proposals before the Committee—one by which it was submitted that the Government should relieve the shipowner from his responsibility, and become the prosecutor; and the other to throw the whole responsibility upon the shipowner of proving that he had done all that was reasonable and just to make his ship seaworthy, and that he was innocent of the accusation brought against him to the contrary. A large majority of the House had decided in favour of holding the shipowner responsible, and the ship owner, if the present Amendment were agreed to, would be placed in a most disadvantageous position. For his (Mr. Samuda's) part he should vote for the clause as it stood at that moment.

thought it would be unfair in a special case of this kind that the mouth of the shipowner should be closed, especially when they considered that the evidence was permissive and not compulsory. He should vote against the Amendment.

took a different view of the point under consideration, because when a man declined to avail himself of means of exculpation that were open to him, his conduct was nearly equivalent to a confession.

rose to Order. The next Amendment on the Paper was virtually the same as one which had already been proposed by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) and decided by the Committee. Last year it was thrown in their teeth that they defeated the Bill by making a large number of Amendments; but he now protested against their time being wasted in dealing with a Resolution similar to one already fully discussed.

said, the object of his Amendment was to have a compulsory survey of ships held without Government supervision.

said, the Amendment appeared to him to differ in one or two points from the one moved on the previous night when the Bill was in Committee by the hon. Member for Derby. This Amendment limited its operation to vessels over 100 tons. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby had no such limit. There were also other points of difference.

then moved, in page 1, line 22, after "witness," insert—

"From and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, every British ship exceeding one hundred tons register shall be provided with a certificate of classification from one of the undermentioned Associations, namely, Lloyds'Registry of British and Foreign Shipping, the Liverpool Underwriters' Registry, the Bureau Veritas, or such other association or associations as the Board of Trade may from time to time sanction for the purpose; or a certificate of survey from a surveyor or surveyors appointed by the Local Marine Board of the district, such surveyors to be taken from a list approved of by the Board of Trade from time to time. Such certificate shall state the fitness of the vessel for the trade in which she is employed, and the period for which such certificate is granted; Provided always, That this shall not apply to vessels having passenger or other certificates from the Board of Trade, or to any vessel or vessels which the Board of Trade may from time to time exempt."

The hon. Gentleman said, the security of life and property at sea was greater than it had been at any former period, but there were doubtless a comparatively few unseaworthy ships in our Mercantile Marine, and to prevent them from going to sea periodical surveys were required. The great argument against the compulsory survey of unclassed vessels was that it would drive what was called the low-class trades into the hands of foreigners; but the reply to that was that ships that were not entitled to a certificate of seaworthiness ought not to be afloat. He believed that the majority of the small shipowners of the country were in favour of the Amendment, and he had excluded vessels under 100 tons register, because they were, as a rule, engaged in river and coasting trade.

hoped that the Committee would not entertain the Amendment, which was in substance the same as that proposed by the hon. Member for Derby on Monday night. Another reason for not receiving it was that it had nothing to do with the clause in which it was proposed to be inserted. If agreed to it would inaugurate an entirely new class of local surveyors under the auspices of the Local Marine Boards.

trusted the hon. Member would not press the Amendment to a division. The Committee had already given a decided opinion upon its principle, and he would point out that if Amendments of this kind were carried to a division it would take two or three years to get the Bill through Committee. The hon. Member (Mr. Jenkins) saw that the Committee was not disposed to go into the question again. He (Mr. Macgregor) would merely remark that in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby they had a suggestion to the effect that vessels of the Pacific and Oriental Company and the Cunard Steamship Company should be exempted from the compulsory survey; and why the other great companies—those who carried the Canadian mails and others—were not included he could not make out. He did not agree with the singling out of those companies for exemption, neither did he agree with the present Amendment, which would give the Bureau Veritas the power of assuming a certificate of classification as well as Lloyd's and the Liverpool Underwriters'Registry. They did not know much about the Bureau Veritas. The Committee had made a mistake, he thought, in not accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby.

said, it was desirable that legislation on this subject should not cease until provision was made for the survey of every sea-going vessel, and therefore in that respect this Bill was imperfect.

said, the number of ships belonging to the United Kingdom between 100 and 300 tons was 4,261, and at least half of these were already certified. It was most unreasonable to assert that it was impossible to have the remaining 2,000 vessels surveyed. He was afraid that the Bill, if passed in its present shape, would not get rid of the agitation which had been going on in the country against the Mercantile Marine, but would have a tendency to perpetuate it.

said, the Amendment was the same in principle as that of the hon. Member for Derby, which had been rejected. He objected to the Amendment, because it would establish a system of bureaucracy which would be injurious to the Mercantile Marine. It would ultimately substitute for the principle which the Government desired to establish—namely, that of the responsibility of shipowners—a system of Government inspection.

appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

thought the Amendment would be a great improvement to the Bill, but it was not germane to the clause, and if the hon. Member now withdrew his Amendment and introduced it at a proper time he should support it.

considered that the point involved in the Amendment could be better raised and discussed in another form.

said, that the Amendment and clause would require re-arranging before the Amendment was adopted.

expressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.

implored the Committee not hastily to reject the Amendment that night. Its object was to enable the shipowners to have their ships surveyed before they went to sea, so that if any accident happened they would have it placed on record that their vessels were in a seaworthy condition. If that were not adopted the result would be that every seaport would swarm with informers spying after ships, and the shipowners would be in a worse condition than if the hon. Member for Derby's (Mr. Plimsoll's) proposal of compulsory Government survey were established.

said, he was not satisfied that the issue was fairly raised on Monday night. The fact that four shipowners had risen without the slightest concert to ask the House to let their ships be surveyed at a proper time, and when it could be done without inconvenience, marked a stage in the debate which, ought not to have been ignored. In order to give the Government an opportunity of considering this significant aspect of question, he moved to report Progress.

appealed to the Committee whether the proposal of the hon. Member for Derby was a reasonable one. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Falmouth was not applicable to the clause before the Committee, and he would suggest that he should be permitted to withdraw it, reserving to himself the power to bring it forward at a future period.

said, if the Committee allowed the Amendment to be withdrawn he would withdraw his Motion.

said, that he thought there was good reason for a Motion to report Progress, seeing that in a previous division every Member representing a seaport except two had voted with the minority. Time should be given to Members to apprehend the significance of this fact. He would therefore move to report Progress. ["No, no!"] He would not persevere against the wish of the Committee.

said, the object of the clause was to give seamen the same redress and remedies which other workmen had. The relation of the shipowner and seamen was at common law the same as between other employers and employed, and this clause simply carried out that principle.

thought there was great force in the desire to leave out these words, as the retention of them would be inconsistent with the language of Clause one of the Bill.

supported the clause as it stood, and pointed out that the shipowner and the master were to use reasonable endeavours to keep the ship in a seaworthy condition, and if they did not do so they must be held responsible to the seamen.

said, that the master of the ship, according to the clause, would be liable to the master—in fact, he would have to sue himself. He thought it would be better to bring it up on report.

defended the clause, and contended that it had been properly drafted.

opposed the clause.

said, there was no question the captain of a ship had full power to pledge the credit of his owner, and he entirely agreed with the clause as far as the master's guarantee to the crew, but he took exception to it otherwise, and would persist in his Amendment to leave out the words, "the master or."

resisted the Amendment, contending that the agent of the shipowner should be liable abroad, equally as at home, for all acts committed on behalf of the owner.

said, he thought the owner ought not to be held responsible for the acts of an agent except he had been bonâ fide appointed, and remained directly acting under his authority.

supported the clause as it had been introduced by the Government.

said, he thought it was more important to hold the agent abroad responsible than the agent at home.

did not consider the words necessary, but would not object to their insertion.

expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would, before bringing up the Report, re-consider this clause, which threw a responsibility upon the captain or master which seemed quite inconsistent with the rest of the Bill.

said, his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill would look into the clause with the view of amending it to meet the objection of the hon. Member.

said, that the objection to the clause was that there ought to be no contract as to seaworthiness between the owner and the master, although it was quite right there should be between the shipowner and the sailor. If the captain found that the ship was not seaworthy, it was his duty not to go to sea, or, if at sea, to put back.

said, that if a master joined a ship at the last moment he would have no remedy, and the greatest injustice might ensue without the provisions of this clause.

rejoined that it was most undesirable that a master should join at the last moment, because it was his duty to see that everything was right before he went to sea.

pointed out that the clause would legalize a state of law which could not be maintained. It would place matters in a position like that of the guest who brought an action against his host because the chamber maid put him into damp sheets.

remarked that exceptional cases made bad law, and that it hardly ever happened that a captain was observed to go on board until the last moment.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look further into this clause.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Law in regard to the management and maintenance of Roads and Bridges in Scotland, said: The changes which have taken place in Scotland during the last 30 years, and especially the general introduction of railways, have so entirely altered the road traffic of the country that the old provisions for the maintenance of roads by tolls and statute labour have become in many districts quite unsuitable to existing circumstances. The turnpike roads have in many cases ceased to be the leading thorough fares, their place being taken by the parish roads affording access to railway stations, for the heavy traffic on which, the assessments now leviable are quite inadequate. So long ago as 1858 a Royal Commission was appointed by Lord Derby's Government for the purpose of investigating the whole system of the management and maintenance of the public roads in Scotland, with a view to securing "a more economical and equitable system than that which at present prevails." The Commissioners were Mr. Smythe, of Methven, Sir John M'Neill, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), and the late Sir Andrew Orr. In December, 1859, the Commissioners made an elaborate Report, the leading recommendations of which were (1) The existing turnpikes and statute labour trusts should be abolished, and all the public roads in the landward parts of each county—that is, exclusive of the burghs—should be managed by trustees, consisting of the Commissioners of Supply—i.e., all owners above £100 rental—and certain representatives of the general body of tenants or ratepayers; (2) In lieu of tolls and statute labour, the roads should be maintained by assessment on real rental, payable, as in the case of poor rates, one half by the owner, and the other half by the occupier, provision being made for special rating of quarries and public works, the carting from which is exceptionally extensive; (3) The debts affecting roads should be valued and allocated between burghs and counties, the assessment for payment of them and for new roads to be paid by owners only; (4) Roads within burghs should be maintained and managed by the burgh authorities having charge of the streets. The Commissioners, while expressing their own opinion in favour of the abolition of the toll system, add the following remarks:—

"Having thus pointed out the manner in which we conceive provision might be made for maintaining roads and bridges by means of a system of assessment, we are of opinion that, even although it should be deemed inexpedient at present to attempt any compulsory general measure for introducing such a system in all the counties of Scotland, power should nevertheless be conferred upon the Road Trustees of any county to abolish the present system of tolls and statute labour, and in lieu thereof to introduce a system of assessment. Care ought to be taken, however, that such a resolution should embody the deliberate opinion of the county, by being agreed to at a meeting specially called for the purpose, and after certain notices have been given, so as to insure the perfect publicity of the intended change, in order that all parties affected by it may have an opportunity of resisting its introduction if so advised.

"We are aware that a difference of opinion exists as to whether it would be expedient thus to allow one county to abandon the toll system without making the measure general, and applicable to the whole country. We are of opinion that such a permission ought to be given. Several counties are already in a condition to take advantage of a permissive Act, whereas in others no immediate change is desired. The anomaly of there being tolls in some counties, while none are found in others immediately adjoining, is one which already exists; and the few instances that will occur of persons paying tolls in one county and assessment in another, might be deemed exceptional, and not worthy of consideration. The more the traffic is found to be local, the smaller will be the number of such cases of hardship. The inhabitants of Argyllshire and Sutherland do not complain that they have to pay tolls in Dumbartonshire, Perthshire, or Inverness shire. Besides, if the change be really in itself a good one for any particular county in regard to the maintenance of its own roads, and with reference to its own traffic, the existence of tolls elsewhere should be matters of very little moment."

When the Royal Commissioners reported in 1859, there were no tolls in the counties of Argyll, Orkney, and Sutherland, the roads being maintained wholly by assessment. Since 1859 private Acts of Parliament have been obtained by which tolls have been abolished, and the maintenance of the roads provided for by assessment in the counties of Caithness (1860), Elgin and Nairn (1863), Peebles (1864), Kirkcudbright (1864), Zetland (1864), Aberdeen (1865), Banff (1866), Ross and Cromarty (1866), Selkirk (1867). In two other counties—namely, Haddington (in 1863) and Wigtown (in 1865)—private Acts have been obtained, under which tolls are to cease as soon as the debts affecting the turnpike roads are paid off or provided for, the whole cost of maintaining the roads being at once thrown upon assessment. By the private Acts obtained for Dumfriesshire in 1865, and Forfarshire in 1874, permissive power is given to abolish tolls and to provide for the maintenance of the roads affected by them by means of assessment. It is obvious from this statement as to the course taken by more than half of the counties of Scotland, in obtaining private Acts, that public opinion is not favourable to the toll system, but is in favour of the maintenance of roads by means of assessment. It is, however, to be remarked that the counties in which tolls have been abolished are not in the centre of Scotland. They are generally also of an agricultural or pastoral character. The counties which have not abolished tolls are chiefly in the centre of Scotland, and contain numerous towns and populous districts, with which it has been found difficult to deal by means of private Bill legislation. I think the time has come when a general measure should be introduced dealing with the whole country; but as in several of the last-mentioned counties peculiar circumstances have created a feeling of opposition to the substitution of assessment for tolls, I propose that, at all events for some years, the measure should not be compulsory. The Bill which I now ask leave to introduce has accordingly been framed upon that principle, effect being given in it to the greater part of the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners of 1859—with such modifications as the experience obtained under Private Bill legislation has suggested. The Royal Commissioners did not suggest any machinery for the adoption of a road Act, assuming it to be of a per missive character. By the Bill it is proposed that in the ordinary case the adoption of the Act shall rest with the Commissioners of Supply in those counties where tolls still exist, and with the Road Trustees acting under the local Acts, in those counties which have already abolished them. But in the former case it is proposed to give for the period of five years a right of veto to the Parliamentary electors of the county, to enable them, if so inclined, to postpone for that period a change which, to a certain extent, may involve, if not an addition to, at least a variation in the incidence of, their local burdens. I have been most anxious to devise some means for enabling the counties of Lanark, Renfrew, Mid-Lothian, and Ayr, which have hitherto been most opposed to the abolition of the toll system, to adopt the Act. The main cause of opposition in these counties has been the difficulty of settling by any general measure the principles which should regulate the allocation between county and burgh of debt affecting, and expense of maintaining, the roads in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other large towns. To enable these difficulties to be equitably solved, Section 7 proposes to make it competent to adopt the Act, subject to conditions contained in provisional agreements which counties and burghs are authorized to enter into in regard to the mode of meeting the expenditure on suburban roads, such agreements, however, not to have the effect of law until they shall have been approved of by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State after such inquiry as to him may seem proper. If such an agreement should not be made within three years after the passing of the Act, it is so important that an opportunity should be afforded for special provisions being made in regard to the suburban roads round large towns that it is further proposed by Sections 8 and 9 to give the Commissioners of Supply power to apply for a provisional order to be made by the Secretary of State, and to be confirmed by Parliament modifying the general provisions of the Act in regard to the expenditure upon such roads. The Bill as drawn limits the permissive character of the measure to five years, for which period, if necessary, all existing local Acts would be continued. After five years, unless Parliament should think that period too short, it is thought that the Act should take effect at once in all counties which have not obtained private Acts of their own. Keeping in view that in the course of five years almost every one of the existing turnpike Acts will have expired, the great majority of them being already dependent on the annual Continuance Act, and further, bearing in mind the anxious provisions which the Bill contains for the adjustment of local difficulties, I do not think it is too much to expect that in 1881, or rather before the end of the Session of 1882, the Act may come into general operation without just ground of complaint on the part of anyone.