asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to ask Parliament for further power with a view to the better regulation of trawl net or beam trawl fishing, as recommended in the recent Report of the Sea Fisheries Commissioners?

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to answer this Question, as all matters connected with sea fisheries belong to the administration of the Board of Trade. I have only recently received from the Home Office a copy of the Report of the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into certain questions connected with the sea fisheries. I am now giving my careful consideration to this Report, as well as to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1866 upon the Sea Fisheries; but, considering the Business already before Parliament, I cannot think, even supposing I find legislation to be desirable, that I could hope to make any progress this Session with a measure of this nature.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If there be any prospect of any portion of the Evidence on Proceedings of what is designated a "Scientific Commission" on Mining Accidents being published before the close of the entire sittings of that body; if not, whether such a course is in harmony with the ordinary proceedings of Commissions of a similar kind?

in reply, said, that this was a matter entirely in the hands of the Commissioners, and he had no power in the matter at all. He was informed by the Chairman of the Commission that the Commissioners did not see that any good purpose would be served by publishing any part of the evidence before the conclusion of their labours; and, in coming to that conclusion, they were not departing from the ordinary course.

gave Notice that, when the Vote for the payment of the expenses of the Commission came before the House in Committee, he should move that the sum of £1,700, set down for the purpose, should not be granted until their Report was published.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be the fact that Officers of the Staff in the recent wars in Zululand and Afghanistan have acted, or are acting, as paid correspondents to newspapers in the United Kingdom; is such employment undertaken with the approval of the General Commanding or of the authorities here or in India; if not, whether any Despatch or Memorandum, censuring or prohibiting such a practice, has been issued to the service here or in India by the Secretary of State for War, or H. R. H. Commanding in Chief; and, whether any formal repeal or cancelling of the Regulations of Correspondents in the Field "provisionally sanctioned," has been issued by the Secretary of State for War, or H. R. H. Commanding in Chief; and, if so, on what dates or dates have such Despatches or Memoranda been issued, and will he be kind enough to lay Copies upon the Table?

I have seen it stated that officers of the Staff have acted as correspondents of newspapers in Zululand; but I have no information on the subject. With reference to their having so acted in Afghanistan, that, I believe, was stated in a despatch of General Roberts; but, as I explained in answer to a Question which had been put, the Queen's Regulations are drawn up at home, and have no force in India. The employment of officers in such capacity had not, so far as I am aware, been undertaken with the approval of the authorities here. A Memorandum prohibit- ing such a practice has been issued by the Commander-in-Chief, and circulated among all general officers. This was of a recent date, about the end of last month, or the commencement of this. With regard to the formal repeal of the Regulations as to correspondents which are stated to be "provisionally sanctioned," I can say that, inasmuch as no Regulations have been issued, there have been none to cancel, so far as the War Department or Commander-in-Chief are concerned.

asked if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would produce copies of the Memorandum he had mentioned?

said, he did not think the production of the Memorandum could add anything to the information of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Departpart, Whether, having regard to the report of Mr. Walpole, one of the Inspectors of Fisheries, dated Jan. 24, 1880, on the subject of the Solway Fisheries, in which he states that the English fishermen have a right to complain of the state of the Law, and that their complaint in this respect can only be redressed by placing the whole Firth under uniform legislation, the Government will institute the inquiry into the subject which the Inspector further recommends with a view to such legislation?

in reply, said, he entirely agreed that there should be uniform legislation for the whole Firth; but there were difficulties in the way. The first step he had thought right to take was to give instructions that an English Inspector and a Scotch Inspector should proceed to the spot, and report to him on the subject.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been directed to the case of Elizabeth Morpeth, a married woman, who last year out of her earnings deposited £76 in the Post Office Savings Bank at Manchester, and, through the negligence or violation of trust of the Post Office officials there, was not only deprived of £48 of that sum, by its payment to her husband without the order of court required by Law, but was also refused payment of the balance of £28 without appeal to the County Court; and, whether, as this and other similar cases have occurred under the loose wording of Rule 8 (Post Office Savings Banks) as to deposits of married women, such Rule can be so amended and explained as to make it clear that the Post Office authorities will give full effect to the provisions of "The Married Women's Property Act, 1870?"

My attention has been called to this matter. The facts are as follow:—The money (£76) was not all deposited last year—indeed, £30 is the largest sum which can be deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank in any one year by any one person. The sum of £60 odd was deposited by Mrs. Morpeth at various times before the passing of the Married Women's Property Act in 1870; but this amount had been reduced by withdrawals to £48 8s.1d.when the husband's claim to the money was made in October last. This balance was clearly the property of the husband by law; and as he, when advancing his claim to it, complied with all the requirements of the Department in such cases, even to the production of the depositor's deposit book, at the time when payment was made to him, the money was paid in accordance with the 9th clause of the Regulations framed for carrying out the provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank Act. There was no alternative. The husband also laid claim to the sums—£28 odd—placed to the credit of the account after the passing of the Act of 1870, but this claim was resisted by the Department; and it was left either to the husband or to the wife to establish a title to that portion of the money in accordance with Section 9 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1870, by application to one of the judicial authorities therein mentioned. The husband took no action in the matter; but the depositor—the wife—did apply to the Salford County Court, and obtained an order in her favour with costs against her husband, and payment was made to her forthwith. The correspondence was conducted entirely by the Department in London, and not through the Manchester Post Office; and there is no foundation whatever for the statement that the depositor has been "deprived" of her money "through the negligence or violation of trust of Post Office officials." I have no knowledge of any similar cases having occurred. Paragraph 8 ofThe Post Office Guidestates the substance of No. 9 of the Savings Bank Regulations dated the 13th of August, 1861, with an addition as regards the Married Women's Property Act, 1870. Possibly the reference to that Act might be more clearly expressed; but it does not appear that the paragraph, as it stands, has prevented the Act of 1870 from having the full effect which the Post Office authorities have always endeavoured to give it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information as to the reported outrage upon Colonel Synge near Tricovitza; whether the brigands who carried him off are known to be subjects of the King of the Hellenes, or notorious inhabitants of the vilayet of Saloniea and its neighbourhood—subjects of the Porte, who have long been in the habit of committing depredations in the district; and, if they are Hellenic subjects, whether he can explain the existence of an armed band of Greek brigands in time of peace in Turkey, inland, at a distance of about one hundred miles from the Greek frontier?

I have no doubt that every hon. Member present has seen an account of this circumstance in the newspapers. I am sure the House will perceive that, under existing circumstances, it would be extremely inexpedient for me to make any statement with regard to the facts alleged by the hon. Member in his Question.

I beg to ask, not for any information that may hurt Colonel Synge in any way, but whether the hon. Gentleman has any information as to the nationality of the brigands who committed the outrage? To state that cannot do Colonel Synge any harm.

I will not undertake the responsibility of saying that any statement I may make might not be injurious to Colonel Synge.

I beg to give Notice that I shall call the attention of the House to this subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Turkish newspaper "Uncid" has been suppressed by the Lord High Commissioner of Cyprus; and, if so, on what grounds?

in reply, said, the newspaper in question had not been suppressed by the Lord High Commissioner of Cyprus. Some little time ago the Ottoman authorities applied to the authorities in Cyprus, with the view of having this paper stopped at the Post Office in Beyrout. The Post Office authorities at Beyrout applied to the Commissioner at Cyprus to have this paper stopped, both at Cyprus and Beyrout; and, acting under the precedents in existence of former Governments, orders were given that the paper should be stopped at the Post Office in Beyrout and in Cyprus. Of course, the English Post Offices in Turkey, existing only by permission of the Turkish Government, could not claim greater liberty for British persons, or greater rights of passage through the British Post Offices than the Turks. At the same time, the paper was not suppressed in Cyprus.

in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the privilege of Immunity from Arrest, now enjoyed by Peers and Members of Parliament, is not for the public good, and ought to be abolished;"

said, if the House was not already wearied by its recent discussions of Privilege, he craved its indulgence while he rose that question in another form. The Privilege of which he desired to speak, though hoary with antiquity, and once, no doubt, of great value to Parliament and the nation, had now become almost obsolete, and was of such doubtful benefit that he pleaded, not for its continuance, but for its removal. He complained not of its breach, but of its observance. It was not his intention to go at length into its origin. It was sufficient to say that originally it formed one of a large number of similarly anomalous exemptions, by which the High Court of Parliament protected itself against the ordinary processes of the Common Law. Not only the persons of Members, but also those of their servants, were held free from arrest, while their lands and goods were also exempt from being taken in any form of execution. It appeared that the Privilege was first claimed by the House of Lords, who probably based their right upon their succession to the Great Council of the Kingdom. The first case on record was in the 19th year of Edward I., when the Master of the Temple petitioned the King for permission to distrain on the goods of the Bishop of St. David's. The reply of the King was—

"It does not seem fit that the King should grant that they who are of his Council should he destrained in time of Parliament."

But whatever the origin of the Privilege might have been, it rapidly grew and extended itself, until it became a serious anomaly in the administration of justice. While Parliament was sitting, no writ or other process could be issued against any Member, or even against his servants. Members refused to attend as witnesses in a Court of Law, or to obey a writ of subpoena in Chancery. It was dangerous to bring an action at any time against a Peer, for the plaintiff might find himself committed for contempt, even after a long lapse of time. The public inconvenience reached its height during the reign of the later Stuarts. The officers of Parliament were continually acting in antagonism to those of the Law Courts and the Sheriffs, while the Houses were not unfrequently divided against each other. There were abundant cases in the Journals of the House of Commons, where the Speaker committed persons to prison for entering on the estates of Members, carrying away timber, lopping trees, digging coal, and fishing in their waters. The historian Hallam says—

"Hardly anything could he done disagreeable to a Member of which he might not inform the House, and cause it to be punished."

When Privilege was thus used as a weapon of offence rather than as a shield of protection it became intolerable, and the general public demanded some alteration. By a series of Acts of Parliament this Privilege had been curtailed to its present limits. The 12 & 13Will.III. c. 3, allowed actions to be brought against Members of both Houses, immediately after the Dissolution or Prorogation of Parliament. The Statute of 10Geo.III. c. 50, enacted that any suit might at any time be brought against any Peer or Member of Parliament, their servants, or any other person entitled to Privilege of Parliament, except that the person of a Member of the House of Commons should not thereby be subjected to any arrest or imprisonment. The Motion which he (Mr. Blake) now made was—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Privilege of Immunity from Arrest, now enjoyed by Peers and Members of Parliament, is not for the public good, and ought to be abolished."

To illustrate the law as it now stood, he would call the attention of the House to a case which occurred in August last, upon which the public Press commented at the time with pardonable severity. A defaulting debtor, who was a Peer, was summoned in a Metroplitan County Court for the sum of 48s.,for coals sold to him by the plaintiff. The Peer claimed to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the County Court as respected personal process, and carried his claim so far as to state that he was also exempt from personal appearance at the County Court. The debt was not disputed, and an order of the Court was made for payment. This order was treated with contempt. Two courses were then open to the plaintiffs—either to take out an execution against the debtor's goods, or to apply for a judgment summons calling upon the defendant to show cause why payment, as ordered, was not made. The plaintiffs adopted the later course, and obtained a judgment summons against the noble defendant. In this, also, as in the former summons, his Lordship pleaded his Privilege as a Peer, and declined in any way to take cognizance of the proceedings. He even went so far as to give notice to the learned Judge, by letter, that—

"In the event of his signing a warrant against him, he would he dismissed from his seat on the Bench, and all sorts of condign punishments would be visited upon the parties concerned."

His honour, the Judge, was reported to have said publicly in his Court, that—

"The fact of this Privilege being claimed was so surprising to him that he had a difficulty in considering it possible that it should be advanced in answer to a just claim. He had, however, referred to a case which showed that the objection was well founded; and although he did not believe it was a correct view of the law he considered himself bound by the decision of Lord Denman. He hoped that the decision to which he referred would some day or other be altered by the law of common sense, and regretted that he had no power to help the plaintiffs."

The present mode of procedure was regulated by the Debtors' Act of 1869, 32 & 33Vict.c. 62, which enacted—Section 4—that—

"With the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, be arrested or imprisoned for making default in payment of a sum of money."

Among the exceptions in Section 5 was the case of a person making default in payment of a debt due in pursuance of any order,

"when it is proved that such a person has.…the means to pay the sum…and has refused or neglected to pay the same."

It is further provided in the same section that

"such imprisonment shall not operate as a satisfaction or extinguishment of the debt;"

as would have been the case under the old writ ofca. sa.The House would remember that, with reference to this case, he (Mr. Blake) put a Question, on the 13th of August last, to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, asking him if his attention had been called to it, and also if defaulting debtors who were Peers were entitled by law to such exemption; and, if so, if he had considered the desirability of repealing the exemption? The Attorney General, in his reply, said—

"My attention has been called to the case mentioned in the Question, and the facts appear to be correctly represented. I may state that the judgment summons was issued against the noble Defendant to compel payment of an amount of £2 8s.for coals sold to him by the plaintiffs. I do not think it would be becoming in me to pronounce an opinion upon a point of law which has been decided by a competent Court. The learned Judge of the Brompton County Court is a man of great ability and experience, and I think we may presume that his decision was right.…I should not myself be disposed to advocate an extension of the power of commitment for the non-payment of debt, or to interfere with the long established Privileges of the Peerage. It is to be regretted that the Privilege should have been relied upon in the case in question. The plaintiffs, however, may be consoled by the reflection that, as the noble Defendant thought proper, for the purpose of evading the payment of a debt, to envelope himself in the mantle of the Privileges of his order, he may be left to resort to the same mantle for the purpose of keeping himself warm. The plaintiffs can refuse again to supply the noble Lord with coals."—[3Hansard,ccxlix. 910–11.]

Now, he (Mr. Blake) would admit that the case he had quoted was in itself so ridiculous and contemptible that it was unworthy of further remark. But, as affording an illustration of the offensive manner in which the musty and fusty Privilege of Peers might be used to defeat the ends of justice, it was of importance. The privilege of exemption from arrest on civil process was shared by Members of the House of Commons. There was, however, this distinction between the Members of the two Houses. Privilege of Peerage extended to all Peers and Peeresses, whether by birth, by creation, or by marriage, and also to Scotch and Irish Peers, even though they were not elected Representative Peers of the United Kingdom; whereas commoners had merely Privilege of Parliament, and enjoyed immunity from arrest, and only that while Parliament was sitting and for a limited number of days afterwards—generally assumed to be 40 days. The Privilege only extended to civil process, and formed no bar to arrest for treason, felony, misdemeanour, or even breach of the peace. In the interest of equal justice and of the Peerage itself, this immunity should be abolished. The simple question was, should any class of persons be placed above the law? Was it for the public good that there should continue to be amongst us a privileged class of persons exempt from the statutable penalties of fraud which attached to the rest of the community? It was difficult to see how there could be any but one answer to that question. Imprisonment for debt had been abolished. He had no desire to revive it. That was not the question. The question was, should any class of persons who had the means of payment treat the decrees of their Law Courts with contempt, and be allowed to plead that they were not amenable, while all other persons are, for the moral offence of evading payment of their just debts? By no surer method could any Member of that, or of the Upper House of Parliament, bring himself into contempt and ridicule than by availing himself of that Privilege in the manner of which they had been furnished with so humiliating an example. Though he (Mr. Blake) had quoted but one case, he had good reason to believe that it did not stand alone. He had received, since he gave Notice of his intention to bring forward this Motion, many communications from traders complaining of the difficulty they experienced in procuring payment of debts due from defaulting debtors having Privilege of Parliament. It was no secret that some Peers, whose estates were entailed, and whose life interest therein was heavily incumbered, had also given bills of sale, which included nearly all their personal effects, and which bills of sale protected them from seizure by other creditors. Hence it followed that as their persons were free from arrest or imprisonment, and their goods could not be distrained upon, their creditors were entirely at their mercy. He held in his hand an official Return just issued to Members of that House, of the number of prisoners confined in Holloway Gaol for the past year. In it he found that over 500 poor debtors were committed for "non-payment." It would be difficult to convince those persons that there was not in the matter of debt one law for the rich and another law for the poor. How could they who made the law justify the longer continuance of this inequality? Justice demanded either that they should at once open the doors of all the gaols to those who were now confined therein for nonpayment of debt, or that all others, of whatever rank, who were guilty of the same offence should receive the same punishment. He did not know what the verdict of the House would be on the question which he had submitted to it by his Resolution; but of this he was sure, that outside that House there would be but one opinion—namely, that the continuance of a Privilege which operated so injuriously and unjustly was not for the public good, and ought to be abolished. With reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), he (Mr. Blake) had but little to say. It related to a subject wholly and entirely distinct from that raised by his (Mr. Blake's) own Motion, and he would respectfully suggest to him the propriety of withdrawing it, and not mixing up questions which differed so widely. The bankruptcy of Members of that House, to which the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry related, had been provided for by the Bankruptcy Act, 32 & 33Vict.c. 71, Sections 120 to 124. They were briefly as follows:—Sect. 120 enacted that privilege of Parliament should not benefit in bankruptcy. Sect. 121 enacted—

"If a person, being a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, is adjudged bankrupt, he shall be and remain during one year from the date of the order of adjudication incapable of sitting and voting in that House, unless within that time, either the order is annulled, or the creditors who prove debts under the bankruptcy are fully paid and satisfied."

(122.) If the bankruptcy is not annulled, or the debts of the bankrupt fully paid or satisfied within the year, the seat of such Member shall be vacant. (123.) Mr. Speaker thereupon to issue a new Writ. It was not his intention to discuss these provisions then, and he hoped the hon. Member would not ask the House to discuss them in connection with his (Mr. Blake's) Motion. If the hon. Member considered those provisions were not sufficiently stringent, he would have ample opportunity of raising the whole question. Two Bills for amending and enlarging the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act were now before the House—one introduced by the Government, and one by private Members. Both those Bills were referred to a Select Committee, and he would suggest to the hon. Member that he would best effect the object he had at heart by getting his own name placed on that Committee, or, failing that, offering to the Committee such evidence as he might deem important. Should he not adopt either of these courses, he would have ample opportunity, when the Bills came down for discussion, of raising the important question to which his Amendment pointed. He would now conclude by formally moving the Motion which stood in his name.

who had given Notice of an Amendment to the Resolution, remarked that unquestionably, during the last few years, all the tendency of legislation had been towards the abolition of arrest for debt. It was quite true that in the Debtor and Creditor Bill passed in 1860, and in the various County Court Acts passed during the last 20 years, there was a residue of imprisonment for debt in certain circumstances still left to our Courts of Law. That residue was, however, of a very limited character, and the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass) had on several occasions proposed to do alway altogether even with the limited power of the County Courts in regard to imprisonment for debt. Indeed, all the tendency of public discussion, both in and out of the House, had been in that direction. The first part of his Amendment was to the effect—

"That it was not advisable to extend the liability of any class of Her Majesty's subjects to arrest or imprisonment for debt."

It did not follow, however, that he was an advocate for keeping up the present power of imprisonment as regarded the unprivileged classes; but as the case put by the hon. Gentleman opposite had arisen from a discussion in the newspapers of a claim for £2 8s.for coals supplied, it did not appear to him that any practical good would result from the House discussing it. The latter part of his Amendment declared—

"That it was advisable for the honour and dignity of this House that provision should be made for the immediate vacation of his seat by any Member who might become bankrupt or otherwise arrange or compound with his creditors under the Bankruptcy Laws."

The first Act which related to the bankruptcy of Members was passed in 1812, and the Preamble declared that—

"Whereas it was necessary for the preservation of the dignity and independence of Members of Parliament that Members of the House of Commons who become bankrupt and do not pay their debts in full shall not retain their seats."

Similar provisions to those under the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 were in the Act providing for a temporary suspension of a Member's position for 12 months, and then if he did not pay his debts in full, his seat was absolutely vacated. The Acts of 1833, 1849, and 1869 continued these provisions. When the first-named Act was passed there existed none of those hybrid arrangements which were subsequently introduced—such as composition with creditors and liquidation under the sanction of the Court. At present, perhaps, 29–30ths of the cases which went into the Court of Bankruptcy were carried out by liquidation or composition. This case had happened—a Member had gone into the Court of Bankruptcy, had liquidated his affairs by arrangement, and there had been no other result than this—that the creditors had not been paid. He would ask the House whether that was a satisfactory state of things? In Norwich there was a saying that an empty sack could not stand upright. That saying rested on a physical law; but it also illustrated a moral law. The action of the House of Lords in the last few years was a pretty good guide to what would be an improvement in the law of the Lower House relating to the bankruptcy of its Members. By the Act 34 & 35Vict.c. 50, passed in 1871, a Peer was disqualified from sitting and voting immediately on his bankruptcy; and he had not a year's licence or liberty to pay his creditors. Moreover, a Peer was disqualified under that Act if he made an arrangement of his affairs under bankruptcy, and not merely by form of bankruptcy. What had the Legislature done in other cases? The Education Act provided that if a member of the School Board was adjudged bankrupt, or entered into a composition or arrangement with his creditors, he should cease to be a member of the School Board, and that his office should thereupon become vacant. If that were so with the School Board, he would have thought it was a ten timesá fortioricase that in that House they should keep themselves perfectly free, and on the highest pinnacle of independence, with reference to the personal relations of Members with their creditors. A similar provision to that which applied to members of the School Board was also enacted in 1869 with regard to mayors, aldermen, town councillors, and justices of the peace; but no alteration was made in the status of Members of Parliament who might compound with their creditors. He was sure that no Member of the House, whether as an individual or in respect of his private character, would desire the present immunity of Members to continue. The present state of things was also opposed to the principle of consolidation in the law, which tended to make the law uniform, and which it was now endeavoured to effect. He had been one of those who supported the system of imprisonment for debt until he saw that it had become an instrument of oppression and a means of obtaining power over small debtors by tradesmen of a certain class, who induced the wife to take credit in order to get the money out of the husband by threat of imprisonment. The House of Lords had set them a good example, and he hoped the House of Commons would evince a disposition to follow it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment which stood in his name.

thought that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Londonderry; but it did not seem to him that that proposal necessarily conflicted with the Motion of the hon. Member for Leominster. What was the condition of things at the time when the Privileges of Members of Parliament and Peers in this connection arose? Arrest for debt was then an every day occurrence; but now, in theory at all events, the supposition of the law was that no person could be arrested or imprisoned for debt unless he was a person who could pay his debts and would not, and such a person was as fraudulent as many of those who found their way to prison on direct charges of fraud. No doubt, in the practical working of the law, many people were now sent to prison who really ought not to be there, and a great deal of mischief was done by the present system of imprisonment under the County Courts Acts. He fully conceded all that had been said on that point. The law ought to deal with all alike; and the higher a man's social position was the more blameable he was in case he avoided the payment of debts; and he did not think that if the Resolution of his hon. Friend were adopted anyone would find his way to prison who did not richly deserve it. He agreed with most that had fallen from the hon. Member for Londonderry. There might be cases of great hardship, such as had happened to innocent trustees in the City of Glasgow Bank, who deserved nothing but sympathy. No one would desire that such persons should be put in the same position as those who were to blame for fraudulent non-payment of money due. Subject to that, he agreed with the spirit and object of the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry, whose proposition ought, he thought, to be moved, not as an Amendment, but as a rider to the original Motion.

felt, with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Herschell), that both the propositions were such as would, to a great extent, commend themselves to the consideration of the House; and he would suggest, as a solution of the difficulty in which they found themselves, that the hon. Member for Londonderry should add the latter part of his Resolution to the Motion before the House, and in that way, by one amended Resolution, the House would affirm the two principles. The House was indebted to the hon. Member for Londonderry for having brought the matter before the House; but he (Dr. Cameron) did not think he quite exhausted the anomalies of the law as to bankruptcy and its effect upon a Member's seat in Parliament, for it was a remarkable fact that sequestration, a process in every respect analogous to English bankruptcy, did not forfeit the seat of an hon. Member of that House. Such an anomaly certainly should not exist. As to the hypothetical case of hardship that had been quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last—the case of a trustee in the City of Glasgow Bank failure, who had been made bankrupt from no fault of his own—he must not forget that under present circumstances, unless that trustee could manage to get his bankruptcy annulled before the end of the year, he would be compelled to vacate his seat in the House. As to the privilege of freedom from arrest for debt, he did not think the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis) could have been in earnest when he based his Resolution on the objection to extend the principle for arrest for debt. As had been pointed out, although a change might take place in the customs on this subject, it was in the highest degree improbable that any Member of this House, or the House of Lords, would ever become a victim to that change. The privilege which they enjoyed was not by any means unmitigated benefit, for in consequence of their freedom from liability to arrest for debt it had been held that Members of Parliament could not enjoy the privilege of bail should they find themselves in the position of being in custody for some bailable offene. He thought there was very considerable room for doubt as to the decision of the County Court Judge in the case which had been under discussion; for he found, by reference to a number of cases in the valuable work on Parliamentary Practice of Sir Erskine May, that in recent years a number of cases had occurred in which Members of both Houses of Parliament had been committed for contempt of Court. Those cases, or some of them, had been brought before the House of Commons, and by repeated Resolutions it had been held that it was not desirable to interfere with the ordinary exercise of the law in such circumstances. It struck him very forcibly that had the same course been pursued in the case of the Peer in which his hon. Friend (Mr. Blake's) Motion had originated the Peer might have the matter brought before the House as a Breach of Privilege, but nothing further would have resulted from it.

hoped the Amendment would be either moved substantively, or as a rider to the Resolution. The matter might find a place, he thought, when the Bankruptcy Bill of the Government was dealt with. The reason why the proposition should remain a separate Resolution, and not be mixed up with the Law of Bankruptcy, was, that it was a matter which stood by itself, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) had stated, under a very different state of the law. The Law of Arrest might be abused in the main so as to interfere with the ordinary Business of the House; but the time had gone by for the occurrence of anything of that kind, and they had all come to wonder why an abuse of that kind should have lasted so long. It was not because efforts had not been made to repeal the law, for he remembered giving assistance some years ago to Mr. Moffatt in an endeavour to get rid of it. Mr. Moffatt's Bill was favourably received, and he thought it had passed a Second Reading; but owing to several influential Leaders in the House having set themselves against it it was ultimately thrown out. He thought the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion to-night might take warning from that circumstance, and not be too enthusiastic about success merely upon the first Motion. There were, perhaps, the petty evils in this matter that were found to belong to all Bills, and they would have to make provision for particular cases in which it might not be easy to calm the apprehensions of Members. For instance, there might be a dread that they might become liable to arrest when going to attend a Committee. The Resolution should be followed up by a Bill; and he trusted that the subject would not be incumbered with any mention of the House of Lords, for he considered it quite enough that they should deal with their own House. He thought that, with the assistance of the Government, the Motion and the Bill might be passed, and so relieve them of the scandal and disgrace arising from the exercise of the present Privilege.

agreed that it would be as well if the two Houses were to cooperate on this question, although he did not see how they could do so without joining in an Act of Parliament. The exemption from arrest now enjoyed by Members of that House subtracted from the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law; and hon. Members should set an example of submission rather than of opposition to the jurisdiction of the Courts. As regarded the cases of composition, it was a monstrous thing that a Member who had compounded with his creditors, and whose action resulted in a dividend to them of only a very small sum, should be allowed to retain his seat in the House. The Rules of the House of Lords were more stringent. The question, however, was one which might be usefully dealt with by the Committee which was now sitting upon the Bankruptcy Bill; and it would be unwise to hamper the deliberations of that Committee by passing any Resolution on the subject at the present moment.

I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know, before this debate proceeds further, if you will inform the House whether it is in Order, and proper and convenient, that a Resolution should be brought before this House dealing with the Privileges of the other House of Parliament?

The Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster is simply a Resolution of this House; and I am not prepared to say that it is not competent for hon. Members of this House to invite the House to express an opinion in reference to matters of Privilege affecting both Houses of Parliament.

hoped that the proposition contained in the two Resolutions which had been brought before the House would be discussed separately. The privilege of being exempt from arrest for debt was not now of much practical value. It was a mere theoretical exemption; and it might, therefore, be well to abolish that which created an anomaly between different classes in the State. In his opinion, however, the House should proceed with some caution in the direction indicated by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry. When it was necessary that a person should possess a property qualification before becoming a Member of that House, the fact of his becoming a bankrupt and so losing that qualification might have been important. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry were agreed to, no time would be allowed to a Member to either annul his bankruptcy or to pay his debts. Thus, in the case of a Member becoming a bankrupt and ceasing to be a Member of the House, the constituency might be put to the trouble and cost of a new election; and yet, after all, it might turn out that the Member ought not to have been made bankrupt at all. This would go far beyond the legislation of former times, which suspended a Member from his functions for 12 months, and allowed him to return to them if, in the interval; he obtained his discharge. The motives which weighed with the House of Lords in the Act of 1834–5, relating to Scotch and Irish Peers, should press with far greater force in relation to those Members; for not only was their position to be considered, but also that of their constituents, who might desire to retain their services, particularly if no moral wrong had been committed. There was special reason for consideration in the case of those who were engaged in manufacturing and commercial pursuits, and subject to all their viscissitudes, and who might become bankrupt without any blame attaching to them. The argument was that if a gentleman was not always able to pay all his debts he should be suspended; but he was afraid there were at least some of the Members in the present House—he hoped they were not many—who, if they were asked whether in the whole course of their career they had ever been in that position, would have to admit the fact. He thought the question was one which ought to be approached with caution, and would be much better dealt with in a Bill than by a crude and broad Resolution like that now brought forward. The details of the subject could thereby be much more readily discussed than in a debate on the general terms of a Motion.

said, he did not desire, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) and others who had spoken, in favour of the Resolution, to go into the matter at any length. He thought that in both the Resolution and the Amendment there was something which they could find to agree upon; though, for his part, he thought there was more shadow than substance. For his own part, he should be prepared to vote for the last part of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Charles Lewis), though he quite thought that great caution was required in the matter. Any question affecting the Privileges of the House of Lords must be delicate ground, and the amount of time the House had had to consider the question was insufficient. He quite agreed that persons who were Members of the House, and who had most important duties to perform both in the House and in the Committees upstairs—duties relating to large and im- portant transactions of all kinds—should not be liable to be arrested at any moment a creditor might think fit to set the law in motion. He was reminded by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) that it was one thing to suspend a man, and quite another toipso factoexpel him without inquiry, and especially if there was no fraud attached to it. It might be right that, in the case of bankruptcy, a Member should be suspended from his functions for a time, but, at all events, without affecting his constituents; however, as the matter would, in all probability, be considered by the Committee about to sit on the subject of Bankruptcy Law, he could not help thinking that it would be the wiser course for both the Motion and the Amendment to be withdrawn, and that the hon. Member should satisfy himself with having drawn attention to the subject; for he had, at all events, gained his point so far, that he had brought that important matter to the attention of the House.

suggested to the hon. Member for Leominster the propriety of omitting from his Resolutions all reference to the Peers. He could not help thinking, notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling, that they were treading on dangerous ground.

I rise to make a suggestion on the point which has just been referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Fraser), though not for a moment, Sir, questioning what has already fallen from you, and which, if not sufficiently supported by your own authority, is, unquestionably, upon its merits. There is what I may call a comity prevailing between the House of Lords and the House of Commons; and I have known instances when proposals made in this House which were unquestionably in the power of Members to make, and within the jurisdiction of this House to entertain, have been withdrawn simply on that ground. It does not follow that it is to be a universal maxim that under no circumstances are we to entertain questions affecting the Privileges and immunities of the House of Lords. I should decline to assent to any abstract Resolution of the kind; but I confess I am strongly prepared to adopt the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry Tames), and vote for the Motion in re- gard to Members of this House; but I think the Motion would be very greatly improved, and I should be relieved from a difficulty which to me is insurmountable, if the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite is adopted, and all that relates to the House of Lords omitted from the Resolution.

said, he was willing to amend the Resolution by omitting the mention of Peers.

pointed out that, as there was an Amendment before the House, the Resolution could not be amended until that Amendment was withdrawn or otherwise disposed of.

said, he would be glad to relieve the House from, any difficulty by withdrawing his Amendment, if the Mover of the Resolution would, consent to withdraw also; but he would not do so to allow the Motion to be amended.

rose to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the duration of any future Parliament should not exceed five years."

That, he considered, was a proposal of a very moderate character in itself; and it was one, as it appeared to him, that would benefit the country at large. He admitted that the conduct of the Government with reference to the continued existence of the present Parliament had been perfectly within the law of usage; but it must be apparent that enormous obligations had been entered into during the lifetime of this Parliament which were not contemplated when it was called together. The map of Europe had been re-drawn. The map of Africa had also been changed; and it was clear that the Government were at this moment engaged in changing the map of Asia. A short time ago, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies, at Tewkesbury, stated that Her Majesty's Government had matured many measures that, in all probability, would occupy the time of Parliament this Session, and that he saw no reason why this, the seventh Session of Parliament, should not be capable of doing good work. Ministers were entirely within their right to continue Parliament even up to the very end of seven years; and the speech of the Colonial Secretary indicated the possibility of straining the law up to the complete point; and, indeed, by the principle which he laid down a Ministry which possessed the confidence of the country might repeal the Septennial Act and extend the Parliament beyond the period of seven years. Well, so far as continuing the seven years, he entirely supported Her Majesty's Government in the course they had pursued. They had law—certainly they had precedent—on their side. Within a century there were four Parliaments which lasted seven Sessions all but 10 weeks; one of which lasted, indeed, within seven weeks, of seven years. Again, Her Majesty's Government had usage on their side. Since the year 1832 there were 11 Parliaments, 10 of which came to an end, not by, but against, the will of the Minister, simply because the Government were defeated. There was but one Parliament which could be put in contrast with the present Parliament, and that was the Parliament of 1859. It was opened by Her Majesty in person in May, and the first Session concluded at the usual time in August. It was a short Session; but it was a Session, and some good work was done in it. Six Sessions followed, and the Parliament was dissolved in 1865. It had existed so long because the Ministry had a distinct majority from the beginning to the end, and considered that it was wise and for the benefit of the country that there should be a seventh Session. That Parliament had at its head a Minister who would always be regarded as one of the leading statesmen of the country—Lord Palmerston. That noble Lord had for Colleagues the Earl of Clarendon, Lord John Russell, and for his Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich.

No.

Well, he begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but he understood that he was a Member of the Government which existed from 1859 to 1865.

No, no.

It was evident that the present Government interpreted the Act as though it enabled them to remain in office for seven years, and he hoped the House would say that such ought not to be the case. They had departed, to some extent, from the custom which was carried out from 1780 down to 1837. According to that custom, they had Parliaments of only six years' duration. Hallam, the historian, said that that custom established substantially that six, not seven, years constituted the natural life of a House of Commons; and he added that "an irregularity in that respect might lead to consequences which most men might deplore." It was for them now to put their foot down firmly, and say that no Parliament should sit for seven years again. They were at the present time adding another precedent to the solitary case of the Parliament of 1859; and it would hereafter be said that both Liberal and Conservative Governments, when they had power at their back, had continued in office for the full legal term. By his Motion the question divided itself into two considerations—the one historical, the other practical. As regarded the historical part of the question, he might remind the House that immediately after the Revolution of 1688 the Parliament of England laid down one clear and distinct principle—namely, that the people of England should govern themselves, and to that end they passed the Triennial Act. That Act was not hastily passed, for the Parliament in which it was passed lasted six years and six months, and the Bill was well considered before it was agreed to; and during more than 20 years the Triennial Act was in force, and no one could doubt, who was acquainted with the facts, that that period was one of great success as regarded art, commerce, and literature. But, although it was a period which could be turned to with satisfaction, the Parliament of 1715 passed the Septennial Act. That Act was passed for a temporary purpose; but, notwithstanding that fact, it was allowed to become permanent. But the people had never been consulted on the subject; and he thought he might safely say that the Act had never been heartily accepted by the House of Commons. During the last century the subject had been frequently debated, very often as forming a part of the great question of Parliamentary Reform; and on four occasions it was discussed this century on its own merits, and on each occasion there were a considerable number of the House in favour of the repeal of the Act. He would ask the House to bear in mind the great difference that existed between the condition of the country in 1716, politically, socially, and commercially, and its present condition—the increase of its population, the greater extent of its Colonies, and its increased wealth and expenditure. Considering all this, he thought he was not wrong in saying that seven years now were practically as long as a generation was then. In 1716 the population of the United Kingdom was 6,000,000, now it amounted to 35,000,000. The expenditure then was £7,000,000, now it was £80,000,000. He could not say what the number of electors was in 1716, but in 17C0 it amounted to 160,000; no w the number was about 3,000,000, while the population of our Colonies had risen from 2,000,000, which included 1,500,000 in the United States, or, for the purposes of comparison, 500,000 to 13,000,000, apart altogether from India. The question of locomotion had, to his mind, a most important bearing on this question. At the period of passing the Septennial Act a man was the least transportable species of luggage it was possible to find. In the year 1750 there was a coach only once a month from Edinburgh to London, and it took 12 days to complete a journey which could now be made in 10 hours. The other day there was a great election at Liverpool, at which 60,000 votes were taken. The Writ was issued on one Friday; the election took place on the following Friday; and the result was flashed to all parts of the Kingdom at 8 o'clock on the day of polling. In 1784 an election took place in the City of Westminster. It lasted for 46 days, although there were less than 19,000 votes recorded. Let it also be remembered that in the middle of last century there was a war which lasted during seven years; but in the middle of the present century there was a war between pretty much the same combatants which only lasted for seven weeks. These historical aspects of the case showed the changed circumstances of the times, and, he thought, made it clear that the more rapid movement of events, and the in- creased facilities for locomotion, rendered necessary some such change as he proposed to the acceptance of the House. So much for the historical view of the question. He would now refer to one or two practical points in connection with the subject. He knew that he should be told—and truly told—that our Parliamentary system was one that had drawn forth the admiration of all those countries in the world which had adopted a Parliamentary form of government. As an illustration of this fact, he was in Paris in 1870, when the French Assembly commenced existence under a Parliamentary system; and he heard the President of that Body tell the assembled Deputies that he had been to London in order to consult the Speaker of the House of Commons as to the Rules followed in the Imperial Parliament of this country. This was a high, as it was also a deserved, compliment to our system; but let it not be forgotten that neither France nor any of the other countries which had based their Constitution to some extent upon that of England had adopted the principle of septennial Parliaments. America had adopted two years; France and Germany three years; Holland, four years; and Spain and Italy five years. What had this House itself done? Whenever it had discussed the duration of Parliaments for our Colonies seven years had never even been mentioned. In some cases the triennial period had been adopted, and in others quinquennial Parliaments had been ordered. Another practical consideration in connection with the question was the economy of time. It must be perfectly well known that in septennial Parliaments there was very little work done in the last two Sessions when the Parliaments lasted to their normal close, and that, therefore, a great deal of valuable time was cut to waste.The Timesnewspaper—an organ whosedicta,he supposed, were much respected by hon. Members opposite—had an article immediately upon the re-assembling of Parliament after the Easter Recess of last year, which contained a sentence with every word of which he heartily concurred.The Timessaid—

"Half the Session is over, and for all the work that has been done this might almost as well have "been the opening day."

This was perfectly true; and he put it to the House and the country that they could not afford to lose an occasional year or two. He could not but think that a more frequent appeal to the country than once in seven years would produce more method and greater earnestness in the political work of the House of Commons, alike with regard to great measures and mere administrative detail. Macaulay, Brougham, and Romilly were all opposed to the Septennial Act; and a host of other great political thinkers and statesmen. He might be asked why he had fixed on five years, and had not proposed to restore the Triennial Act? His reply was that he was not in favour of triennial Parliaments, on account of the principle laid down that no Parliament should continue to sit for its full legal term. A wise Minister would always dissolve a year earlier if the country were in a peaceful condition, and then, practically, the duration of Parliament would be four years—a period long enough for the discharge of good and efficient work. He was opposed to triennial Parliaments, if only on the ground that there would be an election after every second Session, and it would be quite impossible for new Members in that time to understand the ways of the House at all. When triennial Parliaments existed they did not average more than two years and seven months, which was too short a period. With regard to the objections which might be urged to his proposed quinquennial Parliaments, there were only two he had heard which were of any importance, and, curiously enough, they were diametrically opposed the one to the other. The one was that there would be fewer elections, and the other was that there would be more elections. He admitted that, on the average, there would be fewer elections. He found that from the year 1802 to 1832, a period of 30 years, there were nine Parliaments, the average duration of which was less than three years and four months; whilst from 1833 to 1874, a period of 41 years, there were 10 Parliaments, averaging three years 11 months and 24 days. Taking the whole of those 19 Parliaments, he calculated their average duration at three years seven months and eight days. But the question of averages did not really come into play. His object in advocating quinquennial Parliaments was to provide a regulation for a discovered danger—a safeguard against the danger of Parliaments running to extreme lengths. As to the other objection, that we should have more elections, his own belief was that the number would be pretty much the same as it was now, and he doubted very much whether the expenses would at all be increased by the proposed change. The House had to consider what the people outside would think in regard to the question of expense, which was not confined to the candidates. The blunders of the Government for one week would cost the country more than five times the expense of a General Election. The shortening of the duration of Parliament would have a direct influence on the finances of the country. If the Government had to go to the country at the end of every fourth year they would very likely be economical during the whole duration of the Parliament. Of course, although the Parliament came to an end, the Administration might continue to exist—nay, they might increase their majority at the new Election. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury), who had given Notice of an Amendment to his Resolution, took some interest in foreign affairs; he asked him to remember this fact—Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury had at Berlin added considerably to the territory of this country, and immense obligations were incurred by our Protectorate of Asia Minor. But while framing a new Constitution for Bulgaria, what was the first and foremost part of it? It was this—

"The territorial limits of the Principality of Bulgaria can neither be enlarged nor contracted without the consent of the great National Assembly."

It would have been well, indeed, had the same principle applied to this country during the last two years. Looking to the events which had recently taken place, and the serious obligations which had been imposed on the country without the consent of Parliament, he thought it due to those they represented to enter a protest against such a state of things, and, to avoid the recurrence of such difficulties and dangers, to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the duration of any future Parliament should not exceed five years."

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms). After his able and exhaustive statement, little remained to be said in support of it. The suggested change would have to encounter, no doubt, the stereotyped set of adverse prophecies; but its supporters need not, therefore, be discouraged. Evil forebodings as to the result of a new course of action were more easily found than sound arguments. There was no established custom in connection with their representative system—however anomalous, however indefensible, however inconsistent—that had not found ardent champions to assert its value, to insist on its sacredness, and to predict the ruin that would inevitably ensue if profane reformers dared to touch it. Their repeated failures might have taught them the folly of attempting to foretell the future; but prophets were not soon abashed. Whatever crop failed, there was always an abundant harvest of them. The proposition before the House was not an untried and dangerous novelty. It was not a wild "leap in the dark," nor a heedless "shooting of Niagara." It was the adoption, in a modified form, of a time-honoured Constitutional practice. "Frequent and new Parliaments"—such was the ancient phrase—had been a point in every Reform programme for generations. Annual Parliaments, or, to speak more correctly, Sessional Parliaments, were the principle of the English Constitution; and they had certainly been the unquestionable practice of this country for centuries. Mr. Prynne, a plodding, painstaking, but somewhat verbose political antiquary, was appointed Keeper of the King's Records in the Tower after the Restoration. When put in that office he collected all the parchments committed to his charge, and had them assorted, arranged, and tabulated. Some had been destroyed, some damaged. But those that he could decipher he copied, and re-published in a book entitledParliamentary Writs Revived.From the catalogue then printed, it was shown that during the 143 years that immediately preceded the accession of Charles I. there had been 103 new Parliaments. When they considered that Kings frequently broke the law, and failed to call a Parliament; that some of the Writs were lost, and others of them were illegible, this catalogue of Mr. Prynne's sustained his (Mr. Cowen's) argument that Parliaments—at least during that period—were frequent. Mr. Hakewell, a gentleman in a position to obtain correct information, published about the same time a book entitledThe Manner of Holding Parliaments in England.In that volume a list of the Speakers in the House of Commons was given. Every new House chose a fresh Speaker. The list of these functionaries given by Mr. Hakewell, and the list of Writs given by Mr. Prynne, tallied. The one corresponded with the other. During the Recess an interesting Blue Book was issued on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Kidderminster (Sir William Eraser), entitledThe Roll of Parliament.It contained the information got together by Prynne and Hakewell, with further details. The whole combined to confirm and sustain his (Mr. Cowen's) contention that Parliaments, up to the time of the Stuarts, were either Sessional or annual. The late Earl Russell, in the last discussion on this question, maintained that the assertion that annual Parliaments were the principle of the English Constitution was an historical fallacy. A statement made by that noble Earl on such a subject—or, indeed, on any subject—was entitled to respect, and should be considered with deference. But his Lordship, on the occasion in question, gave his authority for his statement, and, unfortunately, that was not a dependable one. He justified his argument by quoting extracts from the writings of that not very scrupulous placeman and pensioner, Sir Richard Steele. He (Mr. Cowen) could occupy the House for hours reading quotations having the very opposite meaning, and upholding the very opposite opinion, from eminent lawyers, distinguished statesmen, and influential political writers. He would not, however, weary the House with such an infliction; but compress into a sentence or two the opinions of men entitled to as much—in his judgment to more—confidence than that of the editor ofThe Tatler.Mr. Prynne, in the preface to the book just quoted from, said—

"The power of the Representatives continued no longer in force than during the Session of the particular Parliaments to which they were summoned, when they presently ceased to be knights, citizens, and burgesses in any succeeding Parliaments or Councils, unless newly elected and restored to serve in them by the King's new Writs."

Mr. Samuel Johnson—not the lexico- grapher, but a writer of great influence of the time of the Revolution of 1688—said—

"We will never be better for this Revolution till we have a settlement of Parliaments. Our ancient right of anniversary Parliaments and nothing else can set the Government to rights. I wish that all our rights were reduced to one line, which is our right to have a Parliament every Kalends of May."

In an essay by the same author, entitledConcerning Parliaments,published in 1693, he said—

"Our ancestors would no more have dreamed of having an old and stale Parliament cut into new Sessions than of having an old moon cut into new stars."

Mr. Wynne, a celebrated writer on the Law of Parliament, said in hisDialogues—

"The law formerly had as little idea of a Member of Parliament being fixed for more than a year than it had of a parish officer being-chosen for more than 12 months."

Sir Robert Raymond—who was Solicitor General to Queen Anne, Attorney General to George I., and afterwards Chief Justice of the King's Bench—asserted in a discussion on this subject, that a "prorogation" of Parliament was against the law of the land, and that every departure from annual elections was not only illegal, but mischievous. Mr. Archibald Hutchinson, another Parliament man of distinction, said that frequent and new Parliaments were more valuable than all the other reforms claimed. The ancient Constitution, he added, was in favour of annual Parliaments, and not triennial. Dean Swift—who was sent by Sir William Temple to see King William, with a view of inducing him to consent to reduce the duration of Parliaments—wrote—

"As to Parliaments, I adored the wisdom of that Gothic institution which made them annual. For who sees not that while such Assemblies are permitted to have a longer duration there grows up a commerce of corruption between the Ministry and the Deputies, wherein they both find their accounts to the manifest danger of liberty"

He further said that—

"Our liberty could never be placed upon a firm foundation till the ancient laws should be revived, by which our Parliaments were made annual."

Lord Somers, in his plan of reform, advocated biennial Parliaments; and in the famous Petition presented by Lord Grey in 1773, from the Society entitled "Friends of the People," annual Parliaments constituted one of the main points. But if these authorities were not sufficient, he (Mr. Cowen) would quote one, the force of which even Earl Russell himself would have admitted if he had still been spared to them. At a famous meeting of Whig statesmen and politicians, held on the 20th of March, 1780, at the King's Arms Tavern, Westminster, the following resolution was unanimously adopted. Mr. Charles James Fox was in the chair on the occasion, and Mr. Sheridan submitted the motion—

"That annual Parliaments are the undoubted right of the people and law of England; and that the Act that prolonged their duration was subversive of the Constitution, and a violation on the part of the Representatives of the sacred trust reposed in them by their constituents."

He (Mr. Cowen) contended—from evidence supplied by Mr. Prynne, Mr Hakewell, and the Blue Book recently published—that the custom of this country up to the time of the Stuarts was to hold Sessional or annual Parliaments; and from the authorities submitted, he held that that was the principle of the Constitution. Two Acts passed in the reign of Edward III. declared that Parliaments ought to be held annually, if need be. The testimony he had supplied, and the opinions he had quoted, proved that that was not only the principle, but the practice of this country up to the period named. Charles I. introduced a new system. He attempted to tax and govern the people without a Parliament. But in the 16th year of his reign a Bill was passed, requiring the King to call a Parliament every three years. If the King failed, neglected, or refused to do that, the Lord Chancellor and the Keeper of the Great Seal could summon the Peers and issue Writs for the election of Members of the House of Commons. If, for any reason, these officials neglected to discharge that duty, it could be undertaken by 12 Peers. If they failed, the Sheriffs in the different counties could proceed to the election without Writs. But if the Sheriffs, the Peers, the great Officers of State, and the King all evaded their responsibility, the people themselves could undertake the work. The citizens in cities, the freeholders in counties, and the burgesses in boroughs could meet on their own motion and elect Representatives; and if anyone so elected refused to obey the mandate of his constituents, he was liable to fine, if not imprisonment. It might not be generally known, but it was a fact of some interest, that this Act was copied from one passed by the Spaniards in the Kingdom of Arragon and Castile some years previous to meet an analogous position of affairs to the one that existed in England under the Stuart King. This Act establishing triennial Parliaments continued in operation until the reign of Charles II. That Monarch regarded it as an invasion of his Royal Prerogative, and as lowering him in the estimation of his brother Sovereigns. He said—with what truth he (Mr. Cowen) did not profess to know—that foreign Princes refused to enter into Treaties with this country as long as the Triennial Act remained in operation, because such Treaties would be dependent for their existence on the temporary and transient impulses and caprices of the people. He appealed to Parliament to repeal the Act, and the Parliament then sitting was an obsequious one. It was filled by servile placemen, and was known by the well-meritedsoubriquetof "The Pensioners' Parliament." In 1694, at the instance of the Duke of Devonshire, a Bill re-establishing the system of triennial Parliaments was introduced into the House of Lords. The King had put his veto on a Bill of a like purport that had passed both Houses of Parliament some years previously. At the time referred to, circumstances favoured his accepting it. There were special reasons why he should stand well in the opinion of the House of Commons. He had been engaged in expensive wars on the Continent, and required at that moment £5,000,000 to pay the debts he had incurred. The Queen, too, was ill, and likely to die. The King knew that his position in the country would be greatly weakened by the death of his Consort. For the double purpose, therefore, of obtaining the necessary money and securing the good opinion of the House of Commons, he assented to the Bill introduced by the Duke of Devonshire, although he had opposed a like measure so recently. The object of the Bill, broadly stated, was to curb the power of the Crown, to curtail the corrupting influence of the Court, and to increase the authority of the constituents over their Representatives. Nine Parliaments were elected under the Triennial Act; and the testimony of all historians goes to prove that its action was beneficial; that the liberties of the people were strengthened by it; and the authority of the country abroad was augmented and sustained. It was repealed in 1716 in a somewhat extraordinary manner. At the General Election held in 1714 the Whigs had obtained a majority; but during the year afterwards the first Stuart rising occurred. This was put down with fierce and almost brutal severity by the Hanoverians. A-natural and, he (Mr. Cowen) was free to confess, in his judgment, an honourable and generous re-action was generated by the cruelties of the conquering party. The Hanoverians, feeling and knowing this, were afraid to appeal to their constituents at the time legally prescribed by law, and they passed an Act that not only increased the length of Parliaments in future, but the length of the one that was then in existence. In other words, they made a law that kept themselves in power and in place four years longer than they were justly entitled to remain. It was the grossest and most outrageous act of unconstitutional aggression that they had any record of in modern history. There was no assault on popular freedom to be compared to it since Charles I. attempted to collect ship money. The Act, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Alexander) was going to defend was tainted at its birth. It was the historical memorial of an unhappy era, and an evil event. It was opposed at the time by independent Members of both the Whig and the Tory Parties. There was recorded, on the Books of the House of Lords, an able, logical, even eloquent protest againt the Act, signed by 30 of the most influential Peers, beginning with the Duke of Somerset, and ending with Lord Salisbury. Lord Grrosvenor—speaking and acting in the name of the Whig Party in 1817—concluded an exhaustive and indignant speech against the Septennial Act by declaring that it was a violation of the rights and liberties of the people. He said, further, that the Act repealed itself, and ought to be erased from the Statute Book, which it disgraced. It repealed itself, because the Act cited the reason why it was passed, and that reason had ceased to operate. Its supporters apolo- gized for—they did not attempt to defend it—on the ground that it was a temporary measure, passed in troublous times, to meet exceptional circumstances. When those troubles terminated, and when those circumstances ceased, it was promised that it should be repealed. That promise, however, had not been kept. By the Preamble of the Bill, four purposes were sought to be served by it. First, it was designed to defeat the intrigues of the Pretender; second, to circumvent the machinations of a powerful and restless Papist faction; third, to lessen and allay the heat and irritation—such was the language used—that attended elections; and, fourth, to reduce the costs of contests. There was now no Pretender to the Throne of England. The last of the Stuarts—like the last of the Capulets, or the last of the Mohicans—had long since gone to swell the "great majority." The dreaded Papal faction had vanished into thin air. It existed only, if it existed at all, as a heated hallucination in the minds of weak women and weaker men. The disturbances that formerly distinguished elections had not been destroyed, it was true, but they had been diminished. There was little of the roysterous rioting that once characterized those trials of Party strength. Polls could not now be kept open 10, 12, or 15 days, during which all the corrupt influences in a constituency were let loose. The law now prevented excessive expenditure for agency, for display, and for refreshments, and the votes were collected in a quiet and orderly manner by ballot. He (Mr. Cowen) did not contend that their electoral system was perfect. On the contrary, he thought it capable of great amendment. But he did contend that it was better than it was. There might be heat, and there might be irritation; but these excesses were more characteristic of a period preceding the election than of the elections themselves. The cost of contests had not been reduced by the Act. He did not say they had been increased by it; but he did say that the electoral expenditure at present largely exceeded what it was 100 years ago. In 1764, the average cost of an election was £500 or £600. Prom Returns supplied to that House, they knew that the average cost of a county contest at the General Election in 1874 was £11,000; while the average cost of a borough contest was £2,500. Those figures, as everybody was aware, understated rather than overstated the reality. There were many cases in which they were considerably exceeded. It was quite true that the extravagant expenditure which distinguished some contests previous to the passing of the first Reform Bill was not now common. The restrictions and limitations that the law had thrown around elections had prevented that. It would be difficult for a wealthy man to ruin himself and permanently impair the fortunes of his family by a single contest now, as he could have done half a century ago. There was a time when £150,000 was thrown away over a contest in the City of York, and when from £80,000 to £90,000 was wasted in an election for the County of Northumberland. Such an expenditure could not take place now. But although the outlay in individual contests was lessening, the gross cost of a General Election was greater than it ever had been, and its disposition and tendency were to increase. Formerly, when a constituency was under the control of a patron, or a couple of patrons, they settled the terms of the contest without reference to the constituents. Even in large boroughs, contests were not so numerous in the past as they were now. He (Mr. Cowen) knew best the town he represented; and in Newcastle there was for 50 years prior to the passing of the Reform Bill no contested election. But in the 40 years immediately succeeding that Act, out of 16 elections there were 14 polls. The case of Newcastle fairly well represented that of the country generally. The position of the Septennial Act might be explained thus—The Pretender was at rest; the Papal faction that disturbed the dreams of their ancestors had ceased from troubling; and the heat and irritation of contested elections had cleared off; but the costs of contests had been increased. Three of the purposes of the Act have been accomplished, not by it, but through circumstances that it did not influence, and the last one it had failed to answer. Some arguments that were used in effect against the Act at the time it passed could not now be upheld to its detriment. He willingly confessed that. By the Revolution the House of Commons gained the influence in the direction of affairs that the Crown lost. The Government soon found that they could not coerce Members, but they could buy them. Sir Robert Walpole openly argued that the power and the means of Ministerial corruption were indispensable to Parliamentary government. Members bought their way into this House, and when there they sold their votes and influence to the Party that paid them best. A room at one time was open in connection with the Treasury, where Members regularly went, without shame, to receive remuneration for their services. Sometimes they got £100, sometimes £200, and at other times £300 for help they had given to the men in power. An entry in Sir Samuel Romilly's diary in 1807 throws a strange light over the traffic in seats, even at that comparatively late period. The distinguished Reformer said—

"I shall procure myself a seat in the new Parliament. Tierney, who manages this business for the friends of the late Administration, assures me he can hear of no seats to he disposed of. After a Parliament which has lived little more than four months, one would naturally suppose that those seats which are regularly sold by the proprietors of them would be very cheap; they are, in fact, sold now at a higher price than was ever given for them before. Tierney tells me that he has offered £10,000 for the two seats at Westbury, the property of the late Lord Abingdon, and which are to be made the most of by the trustees for the creditors, and has met with a refusal. £6,000 and £o,500 have been given for seats, with no stipulation as to time, or against the event of a speedy dissolution by the King's death, or by any change of Administration."

No one would attempt to say that that condition of things existed in these days. Many hard things were said against the House of Commons now; but no one could, with justice, say that the votes of its Members were bought and sold. It might have intellectually degenerated; but, at least, it was honest. It might be sometimes disorderly, and not unfrequently too loquacious; but it could be affirmed, however, with satisfaction, that men of all Parties would spurn bribes by whomsoever they might be offered. In that respect the House of Commons to-day presented a marked and honourable contrast to the House of Commons even 60 years ago. The historical arguments in support of shortening the duration of Parliaments was interesting, as it recalled memorable political struggles. It was instructive, as it showed how stoutly their Constitutional rights were fought for, and how resolutely they were retained. But it was of less practical value than reasons that could be adduced from our changed social condition, and the different circumstances of our national life. The entire aspect of the country had altered since the days of the Pretender. Myriad-minded and million-handed enterprize had been busy in that period, weaving a new garment for humanity. The condition of existence had been changed, and the current of public affairs had been quickened. As his hon. Friend (Mr. Holms) had said, it took in 1714 12 days to travel between Edinburgh and London, and the journey could only be accomplished with difficulty and with discomfort. Now they could cover the same distance with ease and with security in less than as many hours. The lumbering stage-waggon had been succeeded by the high-fiying coach, the coach had been displaced by the locomotive, and the locomotive itself had been supplanted in many instances by the telegraph. They could not only correspond, but converse by electricity. The poetic promise that Puck gave to Oberon—that he would put a girdle round the earth in 40 minutes—had been practically realized. The England of to-day was as different from, and superior to, the England of the days of Walpole as the England of that time was different from, and superior to, any semi-civilized country. A man's life was measured not by his years, but by his sensations, his sufferings, his experience, and his knowledge. And as with the life of a man, so should it be with the life of a Parliament. Now-a-days Parliaments not only attempted, but accomplished, ten times as much work in a year as they formerly aspired to perform. They had been assured that one year of Europe was worth 100 of Cathay. If that was so, surely three years or five years of a Parliament, worked as theirs was, must be worth seven years of such drowsy legislation as their forefathers had a century ago. The opponents of the Septennial Act resisted it mainly because of the dread they had of the illegitimate influence which the Court, the Crown, and the Cabinet could bring to bear on Members of Parliament. That, however, was past. The danger now lay in an entirely opposite direction. They had extended the suffrage, they had increased the constituencies, and they had invented (he thought very unwisely) a complicated and complex system of elections. Those changes had driven the supporters of all Parties in the State to systematic and minute organization. It had been thought, indeed, that they could only develop and apply their strength through such channels. They were, he (Mr. Cowen) feared, now running the risk of suffering from over organization. It was possible that their enlarged constituencies might disappear before cliques and caucuses, as had not un-frequently been the case in America. That had not taken place yet, and he knew no better means of preventing it than by making elections frequent. The best antidote to that excessive organization was to bring the Representatives and the represented, into closer and more direct contact with each other. Shorter Parliaments would help to accomplish that. And if, along with such a change, the legitimate expenses of elections were thrown upon the constituents as they ought to be, and it was rendered illegal for candidates either to pay for canvassing, conveyances, or agency, the necessity for—and certainly the danger that would arise from—the organizing spirit of the time would be avoided. If there were more appeals to the constituencies, the political intelligence of the people would be quickened, a healthy independence of thought would be generated, and the breath of national life would be sweetened.

rose to move, as an Amendment—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Septennial Act has been satisfactory in its operation, and ought not to he repealed."

The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) said, last Session, that the present was the worst Parliament that had been elected since the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. He (Colonel Alexander) was very glad to see, however, that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) did not, at least, share that opinion. That hon. Gentleman thought so well of this Parliament, that he was prepared to propose it should fix the duration of all future Parliaments. Moreover, although in his (Mr. Holms's) opinion the natural life of a Parliament should not exceed five years, he confidently submitted to a Parliament in its seventh year of existence the decision of this most important question. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had maintained that the House of Commons which had passed the Septennial Act, having only been elected for three years, was not constitutionally competent to prolong its duration for seven years. But Lord Brougham, although himself an advocate of triennial Parliaments, had triumphantly disposed of this objection, and pointed out that the acceptance of such a doctrine would involve the validity of the Unions with Scotland and Ireland, and imply a denial of the supreme power of Parliament. Assuming then, as he thought he was entitled to do, that the Parliament of 1716 was legally competent to prolong its own existence, the question now before the House was whether the hon. Member for Hackney had succeeded in showing to its satisfaction that the Septennial Act, which had been in operation more than 160 years, ought now to be repealed? If he (Colonel Alexander) rightly understood the hon. Gentleman, the main objection he brought forward against the Act was this—that under its working Parliament might be seised of questions on which the electors had never been consulted. Unquestionably it might; but he would ask, why not? Lord Brougham, an authority who had been often cited, speaking on this point in 1818, said—

"Ho must take leave to observe that the supreme power necessarily vested somewhere, and that it was the constant practice of the Legislature to perform acts which the electors had never had in contemplation, but which they had confided full authority to their representatives to perform if necessary."

But even if they admitted the validity of the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman, he (Colonel Alexander) would ask, how would it be met by the substitution of quinquennial for septennial Parliaments? It was, after all, only a question of degree. A Parliament elected for five years might, equally with one of longer duration, be called upon to decide questions of the gravest importance as on which the opinion of constituencies had never been collected. Take, for instance, the Eastern Question, and supposing the present Parliament to have been quinquennial, a dissolution would have occurred immediately after the return of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury from Berlin, and who could doubt what would have been the result of a General Election under such circumstances? The hon. Gentleman was haunted by the dread of the dangers into which the uncontrolled power of the Government might lead the country when their majority in this House no longer represented the majority of the electors. But upon this point, he (Colonel Alexander) would commend to his attention a very apposite sentence from a speech of Lord Althorp's delivered in the year 1834. Lord Althorp said—

"Gentlemen who found the decision of the House directly against their opinions were, no doubt, apt to think that the House decided against the opinion of the people at largo."—[3Hansard,xxiii. 1061.]

It struck him that those words of Lord Althorp, uttered in the year 1834, were not wholly inapplicable to the circumstances of the present day. The other day he read a letter from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, in which he said—

"The Government did not dissolve because they were afraid to submit their conduct to the verdict of the country;"

and almost immediately afterwards two of the largest constituencies in the Kingdom gave an emphatic denial to the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman. Had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle, he need not have said so much about the early Parliaments of this country; although it had always been the custom in debates upon this subject to refer to the famous Statute of Edward III., which provided that Parliaments should be held at least "once a year, or oftener if need be." The fact was, there was no analogy; and, therefore, no comparison could be profitably instituted between those Parliaments which were summoned sometimes only for a few days, for the purpose of granting Supplies, and the Parliaments of the present day. In former days it was necessary to compel men to serve in Parliament, and our forefathers very unwillingly quitted their homes in Cornwall or Cumberland for the purpose of giving their attendance at Westminster Hall or elsewhere, even though the Sheriffs were em- powered and ordered, in fact, to assess all reasonable expenses to the Knights"veniendo morando et redeundo."It happened not unfrequently, in the days mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle, that the time occupied in passing to and fro between Cornwall and London was longer than that taken up by the actual Session of Parliament. Thus, in the ninth year of Edward III., Parliament sat for only eight days, while the Members for Cornwall were allowed travelling expenses for 32 days, or just four times that period. Then as to boroughs, so little at that time did they value the electoral privileges and their rights of returning Members, that some boroughs actually refused to make any return; whether by reason of inability or poverty, or because they had no fit persons to return or who would serve. In other boroughs they allowed their privileges to go by default; the Sheriff having to make the following report—"Nullum mihi responsum dederunt."How, then, could the House compare, as the hon. Member for Newcastle had done, the Parliaments of those days with the Parliaments of the present? The fact was, as was pointed out by Mr. Lamb, afterwards Lord Melbourne, that this Statute of Edward III., mentioned by the hon. Member, was disregarded almost as soon as it was enacted, because towards the end of the reign of Edward III. no less than 21 years elapsed without the holding of any Parliament at all. The fact was that the complaint in the old days was not that Parliaments were not new, but that they were not frequent enough; and it was for that reason that in a famous Statute—namely, the 16th Charles I., to which allusion had already been made—it was provided that Parliament should not be intermitted above three years. The Preamble of that Statute ran—

"Whereas by the Law and Statutes of this Realm, the Parliament ought to be holden at least once a year."—[Statutes at large,16 Car. I., cap. 1.]

No mention whatever was made of elections. The word "chosen" was not used. What was meant was "frequent Parliaments," not "new Parliaments;" and, in point of fact, until the Triennial Act in the reign of William III., the duration of Parliament was limited only by the pleasure or by the death of the Sovereign. He was quite aware that the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) did not propose to return to the triennial period; but, nevertheless, as he had extolled that period, thinking it would bear a favourable comparison with the septennial, and as the hon. Member for Newcastle had followed his example, and had pointed out all the corruption which had existed in the septennial period, perhaps the House would permit him (Colonel Alexander) to prove—which he hoped he would be able to do to its satisfaction—that the triennial period was not quite the virtuous period which the hon. Members for Hackney and Newcastle supposed, and that the evils complained of in the one were equally rife in the other. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for Newcastle had stated, and also as had been said by the hon. Member for Hackney, that the power of the House of Commons was largely increased in the reign of William III.; but he did not think that at that time that fact was a source of unmixed blessing, for although the House of Commons had been emancipated from the control of the Crown, no means had as yet been taken to insure its responsibility to the people. The triennial period lasted altogether about 22 years; and as Lord Macaulay had been quoted, perhaps the House would allow him to quote a few words from that authority, referring to a third of the period, beginning with 1698 and ending 1705. Lord Macaulay had said of that period—

"No portion of our Parliamentary history is less pleasing or more instructive. It will be seen that the House of Commons became altogether ungovernable, abused its gigantic power with unjust and insolent caprice, browbeat the King and the Lords and the Courts of Common Law and the constituent bodies, violated rights guaranteed by the great Charter, and at length made itself so odious that the people were glad to take shelter under the protection of the Throne, and of the hereditary aristocracy from the tyranny of the Assembly which had been chosen by themselves."

Another writer, Tindal, told them, with regard to the Parliament that sat in 1701, that the French had a great Party in it; that the French pacquet boat always brought over 10,000 louis d'or and sometimes more; and that, instead of the old practice of treating and drinking and entertainment that was formerly adopted, the most scandalous practice came in of buying votes. Then, how infamous was the conduct of the House of Commons at the time of the trial of Lord Somers, when, pending the impeachment, the House prejudged the question, and carried an Address to His Majesty, "praying him to remove John Lord Somers from his Council and presence for ever." They would find that during the whole of the triennial period the conduct of the Upper formed a brilliant contrast to the conduct of the Lower House of Parliament. Early in the reign of Queen Anne, grants to the enormous sum of £100,000 a-year were voted in Committee of the House of Commons as a provision for Prince George of Denmark in case that Prince survived the Queen; and they were told by Lord Stanhope that the Bills embodying this lavish grant were adopted by the Commons with only a semblance of debate, although stoutly resisted in the House of Lords. Then the Bill for preventing occasional conformity, which imposed heavy penalties on Dissenters who took the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England as a qualification for office and afterwards attended conventicles, was twice carried by immense majorities in the Commons, and on both occasions rejected by the Lords. At the Dissolution in 1705, Burnet writes—

"Thus this Session and with it this Parliament came to an end; it was no small blessing to the Queen and Nation that they got well out of such hands."

Go on to the next triennial period—1707. When a Committee of the Lords was appointed to examine the complaints made by the merchants against the Admiralty, they were told by Burnet that the Committee of the Lords called the merchants before them and treated them not with the scorn which had been very indecently offered them by some Members of the House of Commons, but with great patience and gentleness. In 1708, Parliament was dissolved on the presentation of the most fulsome Addresses to the Queen after the trial of Dr. Sacheverell. With a General Election held under such circumstances in 1710, it was not surprising that at the end of the first Session Burnet wrote'—

"All considering persons had a very melancholy prospect when they saw what might be apprehended from the two Sessions that were yet to come of the same Parliament."

That was the Parliament which sent Walpole to the Tower, and was adjourned no fewer than 11 times for the purpose of keeping him there. Of this period, Burnet wrote—

"The scandal of corruption was now higher than ever, for it was believed men were not only bribed for a whole Session, but had new bribes for particular votes," and he added, "this is the worst Parliament I ever saw."

He (Colonel Alexander) thought it would be difficult to find a more conclusive proof of the great rise in importance of the House of Commons after the passing of the Septennial Act than the circumstance that whereas Harley and St. John caught eagerly at a seat in the Lords, Walpole and Pulteney reluctantly quitted the Commons. Archdeacon Coxe, in mentioning the refusal of a Peerage by "Walpole in 1723, observed that—

"Hitherto it had been customary for those who are entrusted with the chief direction of affairs to be placed in the House of Lords; but, conscious that his talents were best calculated for the House of Commons, and that his consequence would soon decline if called to the Upper House, Walpole waived the dignity for himself, but accepted it for his son."

But perhaps the most remarkable testimony in favour of the Septennial Act was that given by one of the most eminent of the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman at present occupying the Chair. They were told that Mr. Speaker Onslow was frequently heard to declare—

"That the passing of the Septennial Act formed the era of the emancipation of the British House of Commons from its former dependence on the Crown and the House of Lords, and from that period it has risen in consequence and strength."

The very men who suggested the Triennial Act were so convinced of its failure that they earnestly advocated its repeal; and when the Septennial Act became law the venerable Somers observed to Townshend—"I have just heard of the work on which you are engaged, and congratulate you on it." The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Holms) had stated that the triennial period was glorious for our arms; but against Blenheim and a glorious war they might set the Treaty of Utrecht and a discreditable peace. Besides, what did hon. Gentlemen opposite care about successful wars? It was only the other day Lord Derby told people how much Blenheim cost them, and he spoke of that battle as "the gunpowder and glory business." He (Colonel Alexander) did not, of course, deny the corruption of the septennial period; but having shown that the same corruption prevailed during the triennial, he contended that corruption was altogether independent of the duration of Parliament. The Legislature was corrupt because "the people loved to have it so." The statesmen of the reign of George II., though conscious of the evil, failed to discern the remedy. They saw in the repeal of the Septennial Act a panacea for every evil. To Lord Chatham in the succeeding reign belonged the credit of first suggesting what eventually proved to be the only true mode of reforming Parliament. Speaking in 1766 of the borough representation, he called it "the rotten part of our Constitution," and said—"It cannot continue a century, if it does not drop it must be amputated." His son, Mr. Pitt, also saw what was the true remedy for the evil. He said—

"There were boroughs which had now, in fact, no actual existence but in the return of Members to that House. They had no existence in property, population, in trade and weight. There were hardly men in the borough who had a right to vote, and they were the slaves and subjects of a person who claimed the property of the borough and who, in fact, made the return."

The hon. Member for Hackney had quoted a great many eminent statesmen—Lord Macaulay and others—who were in favour of triennial periods; but against that, he (Colonel Alexander) would quote others who were as decidedly against the proposition. Mr. Pitt, it was true, languidly supported the annual Motion of Alderman Saw-bridge for shortening the duration of Parliaments; but it was clear that his faith in the remedy was not very robust, for it found no place in his Reform Bill of 1785. When Mr. Grey, afterwards Lord Grey, in 1797, brought in his Reform Bill, he made one brief and almost contemptuous reference to this subject in a few words at the close of his speech—

"If the reform in the representation was adopted, but not otherwise, it occurred to him that the duration of Parliament should be limited to three years."

But in the Bill of 1831 the proposal was not included. Lord John Russell, in introducing the Bill, said that—

"It was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to originate any proposal on the subject of the duration of Parliament."

And in the many speeches on the subject of Reform made by Lord John Russell between 1820 and 1830 there occurred no allusion whatever to shortening the duration of Parliaments. When Mr. O'Connell, in 1830, moved Resolutions advocating triennial Parliaments, Lord John Russell moved a counter Resolution entirely negativing the proposal. When, in 1834, Mr. Tennyson brought forward his Motion to shorten the duration of Parliament, Lord Althorp made use of very remarkable language. He said—

"He had voted formerly for the repeal of the Septennial Act during the continuance of an unreformed Parliament, because he never then entertained the least hope of carrying the great measure of Parliamentary reform, and knowing that so large a portion of the then Members of that House were sent there on the nomination of individuals, he thought it desirable that the power of the people over them, whom they actually did elect, should be increased to the greatest possible extent."

And in the same speech there was a sentence which was very applicable to some remarks recently made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich—

"One reason why the duration of Parliaments had been shorter than the law permitted, had been that the Governments had taken advantage of the period when it was most convenient to dissolve the House of Commons with the greatest prospect of advantage to themselves."

The fact was that Lord Grey, Lord Althorp, and Lord John Russell saw that shortening the duration of Parliament without reform would be useless, and with other reforms would be unnecessary. When they were told that at an election in Bute, within living memory, only one person attended the meeting, that he took the chair, called over the roll of freeholders, answered to his own name, moved and seconded his own nomination, put the question to the vote, and was unanimously returned; what did it matter whether a gentleman so returned elected himself for seven, or, for the matter of that, seventeen years? He was entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney—Who asked for this measure? Had he been able to evoke any enthusiasm in favour of it? He dangled it before the House and the country during the whole of last Session, and presented, he (Colonel Alexander) thought, some three or four Petitions, with about as many, or, at any rate, not many more, signatures attached to them. The hon. Gentleman in that respect trod in the footsteps of his Predecessor, Mr. Tennyson, whose Motion in favour of shortening the duration of Parliament was so feebly supported out-of-doors that the late Lord Derby, then Mr. Stanley, contrasted the small number of Petitions in its favour with the enormous number presented in favour of the abolition of the Slave Trade, a circumstance which so discouraged Mr. Tennyson that he allowed many years to elapse before he attempted to renew his proposal. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, in a very interesting article, had said last year that the question of the duration of Parliaments had not been prominently before the country during the present century. He (Colonel Alexander) would go further, and say that the utmost apathy had been shown by the country on the question. The hon. Gentleman had adduced the example of foreign Legislatures; but he (Colonel Alexander) did not think that they need go to foreign countries to ascertain how they were to legislate on such a question. He knew the hon. Gentleman was a great admirer of the German military system; but he was not aware that he was also an admirer of the German legislative system, lie had spoken in favour of quinquennial Parliaments; but he (Colonel Alexander) desired to point out that they had had no experience of them. If the theory of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) were adopted, that no Parliament was ever to have a last Session, the quinquennial Parliament of the hon. Member for Hackney would become nominally quadrennial, and practically triennial. Lord John Russell had on two occasions spoken of quinquennial Parliaments, and he spoke of thorn at an interval of 16 years, during which time he had considerably modified his views on the subject. Speaking in 1833, Lord John Russell said that—

"If he had to frame an abstract Constitution.…he should certainly prefer the term of five to that of seven years. Living, however, as he did, under a Constitution which was already formed, he did not see any advantage likely to result from altering the duration of Parliaments … equal to the inconvenience of making the change."—[3Hansard,xix. 1127.]

That was the opinion of Lord John Russell on quinquennial Parliaments in 1833. Sixteen years later, the same noble Lord withdrew his modified approval of quinquennial Parliaments. In 1849, he said—

"My right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennyson) asks me whether I am now prepared to state that I think seven years the best term for which Parliament should endure? After the experience we have had for the good many years which have elapsed since the passing of the Reform Bill, I am prepared to state my decided opinion that we had better not alter the present term for which Parliament now endures."—[3Hansard,cv. 865.]

He (Colonel Alexander) commended the attention of the House and that of hon. Gentlemen on the other side to the "decided opinion" of this distinguished veteran Reformer, and repeated that they had no experience of quinquennial Parliaments. The adoption of the proposal would be simply change for the mere sake of change. They had heard what the hon. Member for Newcastle had said of annual Parliaments. They might establish quinquennial Parliaments; but that would not settle the question. Lord Brougham told them that Mr. Burke once observed to him in jest—

"I see you have got to universal suffrage and annual Parliaments; but you will still be beat by the oftener if need be-ans,"—[1Hansard,xxxviii. 1166.]

alluding to the words "once a-year, or oftener, if need be," in the Statute of Edward III.

"The oftener if need be-ans would still start up and carry the day. Their existence was eternal; there was no pitch too high, no base note too low for them. They knew of no obstacle, hardly any difficulty; their only rule in the comparison was to go beyond the last man who had offered."

He asked the House to reject the Motion, which, in his humble opinion, was both unnecessary and harmful. It was unnecessary, because the country, whenever it desired a Dissolution, had ample means at its disposal for giving an expression to its wish; it was unnecessary, because, in the words of Lord John Russell, the change would make Members of Parliament dependent, not on the settled opinion of the people, but on their transient and temporary impulses. Let the House say, and say decisively—"Hic statui signum—hic optime manebimus." The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. There was no magic in the precise number of years a Parliament endured. In ancient times Parliament was called together for the nonce, and for every Parliament there was a fresh Election. That, however, was not the case at the present day, and that House did substantially represent the opinions of the body of the people, although its term lasted seven years instead of one. The desideratum was to get a Parliament whose duration should be sufficiently long without being too short. Its duration should be sufficiently long to enable Members to learn their business and to gain experience, without which they would be of no use, and not so long as to enable them to forget that they were not independent legislators, but Members of a Representative Assembly. It was said that under a septennial system Members were of little good during the last two years, because they were talking to their constituents rather than endeavouring to transact the business of the country. But the same thing would happen under a quinquennial, a triennial, or an annual system, and the useful years of a Parliament would be proportionately shortened. Moreover, it was contended that no Parliament should be suffered to run out its full term; and, therefore, the five years' Parliament would become a four years' Parliament, and a three years' a two years' Parliament. He thought that the present Government were acting well within their right in refusing to dissolve Parliament before the expiration of its full term; and if they were wrong in that respect they would be answerable to the next Parliament. Again, if this demand for a five years' Parliament were complied with, an agitation would be got up for a three years', for a two years', and, ultimately, for an annual Parliament. If Parliaments only endured for very short periods, the result would be that the House would be filled with a number of adventurers, whose only object would be to get into some office or otherwise enrich themselves at the expense of their country, while lawyers would refuse to imperil their professional prospects by coming into that House for a year or two only. The shortening of Parliaments would necessitate great expense, and the ablest men in the country would hesitate before expending large sums of money in order to procure seats which in all probability they would not retain except for short periods of time. The main results, as far as he could see, of shortening the duration of Parliaments would be to bring into the House a large number of agitators whose only object was to appeal to the passions of the mob. As far as he was concerned, he would prefer to see the duration of Parliaments doubled instead of shortened, feeling assured as he did that such a course would increase the independence of Members and insure their taking a wider course than they would do if they were in continual fear of incurring the displeasure of constituents less wise than themselves.

said, the tendency of the present time was in the direction of democracy, not only abroad, but in this country; and he strongly urged as a means of stemming the tide which was setting in that direction that the House should pause before acceding to any proposal which could have the effect of shortening the duration of Parliaments.

said, that the hon. and learned Baronet who had just spoken had simply indulged in a hypothetical harangue. He (Mr. H. Samuelson) did not think any results so terrible as those anticipated by the hon. and learned Baronet were likely to flow from adopting the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney. It was not, in his view, logical to suggest that adventurers and men who sought their own interests only would be induced to seek seats in Parliament by the passing of a law which would probably shorten their Parliamentary life. If men who aspired to Parliamentary careers sought simply to make hay during the shining of the sun, they would have larger opportunities for doing this in a possible seven years' Parliament than they could have in one which could only last for five, three, or, perhaps, one year only. The last Parliament only lasted five years; and no one, he thought, would be found to say that there was not a great deal of good legislation during the life of that Parliament. Then it was urged that Parliament ought to last long enough to teach hon. Members their business; but he believed that 100 years would not be long enough to teach some people. Parliament was supposed to represent the opinion of the country; but it was not only possible, but probable, that within seven years the opinion of the country would change, and how could that fact be ascertained but by an appeal to the country? The last Government was strong when it came into power; but it was found at the end of five years that it had lost all its strength, and that the mind of the country had undergone a change. If a Government desired to retain strength, he thought it could best do so by submitting its conduct and its measures at the end of each five years to the judgment of the people of the country. He had heard no valid argument against the proposal of his hon. Friend; and if an additional reason were wanted for his support of the Motion it might be found in the fact that he believed it would, if carried into effect, lessen the expenses of elections, which were, in many cases, so great as to be positively scandalous.

who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Septennial Act provides a sound expression of the matured wishes of the nation, and no occasion exists for its repeal,"

said, he had not heard from any supporter of the Motion a single argument in favour of a quinquennial Parliament which did not equally apply to a triennial Parliament. The Motion he regarded as a mere caprice of political speculation. They had no experience in this country, and no great principle to appeal to. The only principle he re- cognized in the Motion was the somewhat unstatesmanlike principle of splitting the difference between triennial and septennial Parliaments. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), in his eloquent speech, did not conceal his real wishes on this subject; for the whole of that speech was in favour, not of the Motion, but of annual Parliaments. In his opinion, it was quite by accident that the hon. Member for Hackney had fixed upon five years for the duration of Parliament, because the hon. Member not only made an able speech, but he had written an article—always a dangerous thing to do—upon the subject. That article appeared inThe Nineteenth Centuryin January last year; but it so happened that that was a time when the Government had reached the end of their fifth year, and it was a period also when many people who had at one time lost their head were barely beginning to recover their sober senses. Of course, it was natural for the hon. Member for Hackney, if he believed that the people were influenced by what had been told them of the foreign policy of the country, to think that a system of quinquennial Parliaments would have at that time given the Liberal Party an admirable chance. In considering the proposition of the hon. Member, they should narrowly examine the charges which he brought against the present Parliament. The hon. Member said that it failed to represent the opinions of the constituencies, and pointed out that great changes had taken place in the foreign policy of the country since the Parliament began to sit in 1874. He believed that both these allegations were unfounded. With regard to the first, it was unfortunate for the hon. Member that since he placed his Motion upon the Paper they had had some test elections, which had shown, if anything could, that Parliament was not out of harmony with the electors. It had been declared that test elections were of no real value, but he would remind the House that it had been in consequence of test elections that Parliament had been dissolved in 1874 in a most sudden manner; and if those elections were not to be taken as an expression of opinion outside the House, then he would say that Parliament had never been dissolved in a more arbitrary manner than had been the case on that occasion. Then the hon. Member spoke of a great change in the foreign policy of the Government. Should it not be remembered that the war that took place in South Africa was in distinct opposition to the wishes of the Government, and that it would have taken place whatever might have been the legal duration of Parliament? In everything that the Government had done they had carried out the policy approved by the people, who would have unanimously adopted the policy of maintaining the Ottoman Empire in 1874 if they had then been asked whether they would do so. But if the Government had really been in the wrong the remedy proposed by the hon. Member would really be no remedy at all, for the occurrences for which he blamed the Government took place in 1878, within three years of a dissolution; and how could he show that a Government was more likely to act under the control of the constituencies when there were only three years to run in a five years' Parliament than when there were only three years to run in a septennial Parliament? The hon. Member had given them some facts which, in his opinion, altogether upset the hon. Member's theory. He had told them that, since 1833, the average duration of Parliaments had been a little less than four years. Now, what did that show? Why, that when Governments under the present system had not been in harmony with the country they had dissolved. It was only when a Government was supported by Parliament, and Parliament by the country, that Parliament was allowed to last seven years. The hon. Member, therefore, would not allow a Parliament to run on for seven years, even though it had the support of the people, but would put the country to the trouble of a General Election when an election was not required. Was it possible for the nation to have a greater control over Parliament than could be exercised at the present day, when there were such multifarious means of communication by which hon. Members were brought into association with their constituencies? Ancient history had been quoted to a considerable extent in support of the Motion, but quotations of the kind were totally irrelevant, because the times were so much altered. Popular opinion acted upon the House in a far greater degree than formerly, owing to increased representation. The abolition of pocket boroughs also removed the need which might have been said to exist once for more frequent elections. It might have been wise in old days, when corruption was prevalent, to shorten Parliaments in order that Ministers might not exercise too great a control over Members; but they had been told, in the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle, that there was no danger of such control being exercised at the present day. Thus one great reason for diminishing the length of Parliaments had really ceased to exist. It might be said that, under the present system, the influence of the constituencies over Parliament was indirect. Well, he hoped that it might ever continue to be indirect; for that indirect influence rested upon what had always been at the basis of our Constitution—namely, the principle that confidence must be placed somewhere. He believed it would be an evil epoch for England when they became so democratic that the people would not trust those who represented them, and when they scrutinized their acts more as if they were delegates than as if they were Representatives. The hon. Member for Hackney had quoted foreign precedents; but there were no foreign precedents for a quinquennial Parliament. Again, there was an essential difference between our Parliament and any Parliament abroad. In this country there existed a condition of public integrity which in some countries of the world was not so conspicuous as it might be; and in few countries was the control of Parliament over the Executive so great as in England. The House of Commons had to deal with subjects of greater importance and variety than had ever been dealt with by any Parliament which had ever sat; and it was, therefore, most important that they should have in their Assembly men whom the people could trust, who would bring to the consideration of public affairs a sense of justice and independent opinion, and who would not be easily led by popular clamour. Public opinion was apt to be influenced by tides and floods of sentiment; and he held that it would be a bad thing for this country if the Representatives of the nation, renouncing their indepen- dence, were to allow themselves, in all cases, to be ruled by that opinion. There was nothing to gain by substituting this direct control for the indirect Constitutional control which now existed; the control might be greater, indeed, but we might buy it at a perilous price. It was admitted that a more honest House of Commons never sat; and yet, at a time when popular control was greater than ever it was before, it was proposed to shorten Parliaments, on the ground that that control was not sufficient—that, in short, the Members could not be trusted. To do that would be to bring discredit on public life—to bring it down to its level in America, where the majority of thinking and independent men refused to have anything to do with polities. In this country we had to deal with affairs of the greatest importance. If the work was to be done thoroughly it must be done by men who felt their responsibility; but could we obtain men who would appreciate the responsibility if Parliaments lasted only two or three years, and if we had constant appeals to the country rendering it impossible that it could have any permanent policy? That would not only diminish the responsibility of Ministers, but it would discredit the House itself. It would be destroying the substance for the sake of the shadow. While it would nominally give fresh power to the constituencies, it would destroy the prestige and influence of the House, through which the people defended their rights. The people would have increased control, but over what kind of a Parliament? Over ono very much sunk in the popular estimation. At present men were too much inclined to get into Parliament by giving reckless pledges—too many had been given lately. With quinquennial Parliaments there would be practically a Dissolution every four years; at any rate, constituencies would know more certainly than now that an election was impending, and, therefore, there would be a greater chance of their exacting these pledges. If we had not that evil, we must have another—the mischief of a snap Dissolution like the last. At times we should have triennial Dissolutions, with all the results of triennial Parliaments. At present Members had to resign their seats when they took office, and submit to a new election; and we should have Ministers elected twice in three years, or four times in six years; and what men were likely to undergo such an amount of trouble and expense? It was a serious question whether we had not too many elections now. If we increased the number, we should be likely to increase the number—already too large—of electors who abstained from voting, and the best men would go through the turmoil of an election every three years. It was essential that we should have men trained and experienced in political life; but with shorter Parliaments we should have a constant succession of inexperienced men, who would take two out of their first three years to learn the Business of Parliament. What would be the effect of these changes on our foreign policy? Having to face a great Power like Russia, it was important, if we were to maintain our position among the nations of the world, that we should have a firm national purpose; but he contended that this was impossible with triennial Parliaments. The result of these constant appeals to popular opinion would be that it would be worked upon by irresponsible agitators. That would furnish the best argument to despotic Powers against a Government like ours, based on popular control. It would be said it was impossible for a great nation to combine our institutions with a firm and consistent national purpose. The domestic Business of Parliament was so enormous, it was almost impossible to deal with it, and it was growing every day; and how should we get through it with fresh and inexperienced men? At present there was a great deal of talk, much of which was deemed irrelevant by some of them; and one result of the lowered suffrage was that more men were sent in whose constituents expected them to talk. With growing work, increased talking, and shorter Parliaments, it would be almost impossible to transact the Business of the country. It was also important to consider the relation of that House to the other Estates of the Realm. Although the intention of the hon. Member for Hackney was to increase the influence of the House of Commons by bringing it more under the control of the constituencies, the result would be the increased authority of the Crown and of the House of Lords, and the greater influence and power of the permanent officials. He should heartily support the Amendment, because it would maintain the prestige of Parliament, and defend the Commons against the Crown and the House of Lords on the one hand; and, on the other, against the more serious dangers of bureaucracy, arising from the concentration of power in the hands of the permanent officials of the country.

in reply, said, most of the hon. Members who had spoken against the Motion had dealt with the question as if he had argued in favour of triennial or annual Parliaments, whereas he entirely avoided doing anything of the kind. He still held to the views which he had so fully stated to the House—that quinquennial Parliaments would be of vast service to the country.

in rising to move the appointment of a

"Select Committee to make inquiry concerning the recent foundering of Ships laden with grain, coal, and other heavy or hulk cargoes; and to ascertain whether such founderings are due to excessive cargoes or to defective dimensions or construction, or to the employment of vessels unsuited for the trades or voyages in which the Ships were employed, or to any other and what cause; and to report whether any change in the Law affecting Merchant Shipping is required to prevent the recurrence of such losses,"

said, he need hardly assure the House that this subject had of late very much occupied the attention of the Board of Trade, and need scarcely say that any question affecting the lives of our sailors was one of interest to every hon. Member of the House, on whatever side he might sit, or whatever might be his politics. He was quite aware of the great interest which the question excited in the country, and fully recognized the duty of diminishing as far as possible every danger to the brave men who navigated the ocean under the British flag. He was quite sure that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) was the last man who would wish to claim for himself any exclusive rights or feelings of humanity in this matter. They all wished that the lives of our sailors in their very hazardous calling should be as safe as possible. They all admitted that some inquiry was greatly called for into the terrible loss of cargo vessels from foundering during the last two or three years. For some months past he had been aware that many gallant ships had been lost in the Atlantic and Bay of Biscay, without, he regretted to say, any record of how the loss occurred. With these facts before him, some months before the matter had been taken up by the hon. Member for Derby, he (Viscount Sandon) had consulted the best authorities on the subject, and he made up his mind that as soon as Parliament met he would announce that it would be necessary that a Royal Commission or a Select Committee of the House should be appointed to inquire into the loss of those ships. These losses, it should be remembered, had not been confined to grain ships, but had been very remarkable in the case of cargo ships generally during the last three or four years. He was well aware that the loss had been heavy in the grain trade; but it had extended very much to heavy cargo ships, and he made up his mind to wait until Parliament met, so that he might have an opportunity of consulting hon. Members on both sides connected with shipping, as to whether it would be better to have a Royal Commission or a Select Committee of that House. His own impression was that it would be better to have a small Commission of five or seven Members, who would go very carefully into the inquiry, as experts; and as soon as Parliament met he put himself into communication with an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches to know if he would take the Chair, and he resolved to ask the hon. Member for Derby to take a seat on the Commission. After consulting, however, more and more with hon. Members acquainted with shipping, he came to the conclusion that it would be better to have a Select Committee for the sake of speed, as it would be desirable to get a good judgment on the matter as soon as possible, so that if legislation were needed we might have it during this Session. He was aware it was possible for the hon. Member for Derby to say—"Why not pass my Bill at once, and secure human life by forbidding grain to be carried in bulk, and after that have your inquiry as to the security of the cargo trade generally?" His answer to that was that, with the evidence he had before him, no Government or responsible Department would venture to support the Bill of the hon. Member without inquiry. If they found a certain amount of evidence which made it extremely doubtful that the proposal of the hon. Member would promote the safety of human life, they were bound to pause before passing the Bill. It remained for him now to show that there was an amount of evidence from responsible persons which would lead a man to believe that it was a very moot question with men well acquainted with shipping whether, if they passed the hon. Member's Bill, they might not increase the danger to human life. Having made very careful inquiry on the subject from those best qualified to judge, not only shipowners, but men who had to risk their lives navigating ships—officers and men—there was a very grave doubt in his mind on the matter. The Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom was one of the most representative Bodies in this country. Almost every large port was now represented by its leading men in this Chamber of Shipping. He would ask the House to listen to the opinion of its Chairman, Mr. Glover, a man of very high standing and position. Mr. Glover said, in his inaugural address—

"I should point out that, so far from putting all wheat and maize into bags lessoning losses in the American trade, it is certain the main cause of such losses would he aggravated thereby. It is well known that want of stability, rather than cargo shifting, has led to many of the recent disasters. So much weight of cargo is above the centre of gravity that the ships, in nautical phrase, 'turn turtle.' Grain in bulk occupies less space than grain in bags; consequently, with the same number of tons of weight on board, the vessel entirely laden with bags would have more weight above her centre than if she had grain in bulk below, with the adequate quantity of bags above, according to the Canadian practice, and, therefore, would be more tender—in other words, have less stability—and would more easily turn over. It would be deeply to be regretted if an effort to lessen loss increased the very cause from which most of the recent losses have happened."

Such an opinion as that would of itself make any Government or House of Com- mons hesitate before passing the Second Reading of such a Bill as that of the hon. Member for Derby without very careful inquiry. What was the opinion of the Mercantile Marine Service Association, Liverpool?—an association which was deeply interested in the matter, as being composed of masters and officers, not of owners. They wrote to him officially to say that—

"Mr. Plimsoll, M.P., in his well-meaning efforts to obtain the legislative prohibition contained in his Bill, should understand that the evils he seeks to prevent or diminish would be thereby increased. If the faulty design and formation of so many double-bottomed ships is not carefully investigated and checked, and which they are persuaded lie at the root of the whole difficulty, these losses will continue."

His point, therefore, was that to enforce merely the carrying of grain in bags instead of in bulk would increase the danger to human life. From Glasgow, Messrs. Allan, one of the leading firms, wrote—

"The question is most important, involving vital interests, and is not to be measured by the mere cost of bagging grain. Bulk grain is heavier than bagged, and serves to keep the centre of gravity of a laden ship low."

A ship was safer, therefore, because she was kept stiff, when she carried grain in bulk than when she carried it in bags. But he wished the House to understand that he was expressing no personal opinion on the question; he only wished to appeal to the sense and judgment of the House, and to beg them to consider the whole matter carefully before taking any decisive action, as it was felt to be one of the greatest doubt and difficulty by practical men. He had carefully watched this matter for some time, and he would wish to state what the Chamber of Shipping—the opinion of whose chairman he had already quoted—had done when they came to a vote on the question. After a long discussion, the proposal in favour of carrying in bags rather than in bulk was put aside, and the carrying of grain all in bags was disapproved. They then passed this resolution, that—

"The Executive Council take into consideration the question of carrying grain cargoes with the greatest amount of safety, and take such steps as they deem necessary."

Members of the Shipmasters' Society of London had also expressed opinions on the subject, and there was amongst them a grave difference of views. The chair- man attributed losses very much to the build of the ships. Within the last three or four years, he said, a great change had taken place in the ships themselves. They were unstable. He added that he believed the real question at issue was not the carrying of grain in bags or in bulk, but whether the modern system of having a water-ballast tank and a double bottom was not the real cause of these disasters. No doubt there was great difference of opinion on the matter. He was not saying that the hon. Member for Derby was wrong; his point was that the subject was of such extreme importance that it demanded the most careful consideration of Parliament before any Bill was passed with respect to it. Again, the Shipmasters' and Officers' Protection Association of Scotland had sent him (Viscount Sandon) a copy of a Petition addressed by them to the House. These were not the shipowners, but consisting, as the Association did, entirely of masters and mates, comprised the very people who were most interested primarily in the saving of life. This Association represented Leith, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Greenock, Dundee, Aberdeen, and a number of other ports in Scotland. They begged the House to have an inquiry, to go into the modes of construction and loading for the trades in which these vessels were engaged. They lamented deeply the losses which had taken place; but they particularly lamented the use of water-ballast tanks, and of vessels with what were known as double bottoms. According to these witnesses, 92 per cent of vessels which had lately foundered at sea with grain cargoes had been double-bottomed vessels, and a large number of vessels of this class had foundered at sea while loaded with homogeneous cargoes, and in the proportion of three with such cargoes to one with grain or seed cargoes. These, surely, were important matters demanding very grave consideration. Other testimony came from Ireland. The Limerick Chamber of Commerce had communicated to him the result of a meeting held at Limerick a few days ago, at which they had resolved that the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby would be injurious to the importers of foreign grain, while the freedom of foreign ships from the like restrictions would be detrimental to the shipowners of the United Kingdom. All these facts showed that the matter required deep consideration. Again, he had received an important deputation from the Shipowners' Association of Liverpool, who hoped the House would hold its hand before it advised them to adopt the expensive system of carrying grain in bags. They stated that their vessels had been one of the chief mediums for carrying grain, and that no losses of any extent had been incurred through carrying it in bulk. The steamship owners had spoken in the same tone, remarking that they carried a greater amount of grain than any other body in the United Kingdom, and they had asked that the burden should not be put upon them unless it was undoubtedly necessary for the security of human life. He had also a letter from Mr. C. Mac Iver, one of the patriarchs of the shipping interest, who feared that the change proposed might have the effect of diverting the grain trade from British to foreign bottoms. Now, he did not say that the hon. Member for Derby was wrong, possibly the hon. Member might prove to be in the right, even in the face of such strong testimony; but, in any case, he hoped he would admit that the House was bound to investigate the subject. Let them not, in their zeal to save human life, do that which might increase the loss of life and endanger the enormous interest engaged in the grain-carrying trade. It was no trifling matter to interfere with the course of so great a trade. The rapidity of the movement of grain was one of the great elements of its cheapness, and at present it was rapidly transferred from one ship to another. It was clear, therefore, that the introduction of an intermediate process, such as that of putting it in sacks, would infallibly increase the time and cost of loading. If the proposed process did not, after all, turn out to be necessary, he trusted that the House would not rashly interfere with the existing conditions of the trade. There was one point to which it was specially necessary for him to allude, because on it the hon. Member for Derby had based his Bill—he meant the 16 ships which the hon. Member had stated had been lost during a recent period through improper loading of grain. Now, he had analyzed the loss of those 16 ships, and he found that two of them—theBerninaand theHomer—were not grain ships, but were laden with general cargo; and that two others—theZanzibarand theSurbiton—carried mixed cargoes. The remaining 12 were wholly laden with grain, and of them one was stranded, and was not lost on account of grain-loading; another was sunk by a collision; another came to grief through the machinery breaking down; and another, theBurgos,foundered off the coast of Newfoundland. That reduced the number to be dealt with to eight. Of these eight cases, inquiries had already been held into the loss of theHeimdall, Alphonso, Tiara,andEmblethorpe.In the case of theAlphonso,the Court attributed the casualty to the giving way of a false bulkhead which had been erected to enable the ship to carry a grain cargo. In the case of theHeimdall,the Court found that the casualty was due to want of experience on the part of the master with respect to the stowage of grain and the fitting of shifting boards. The Court of Inquiry found that theTiarawas not a vessel of sufficient stability to carry a grain cargo, especially during the winter months, in the Bay of Biscay. The Court were of opinion that the loss of theEmblethorpewas due to instability from the form of the vessel. Inquiries were pending in the cases of theJoseph Peaseand theTelford.That, the House would see, would reduce the whole of the 16 cases to a very small number, and proved that the losses were not to be attributed to the stowage of grain in bulk. Twelve vessels had been lost in the last three months, of which seven were grain and five were coal vessels; and this went to show that it was highly probable that their loss was owing, not to improper stowage of grain, but to some fault in the construction of the ships. He hoped the House would not be led astray by the evidence as to the extraordinary smallness of the cost of loading in bags which was given by persons representing the sack interest. All had rushed forward to say that they would be ready to meet all the requirements of the grain trade if the House should resolve that it was necessary to carry grain in sacks. With regard to the question itself, he wished to impress on the House that it was a matter for the fullest and calmest consideration. As far as he had seen, those who were the most conversant with the subject attributed the loss of these vessels to water-ballast tanks, to double bottoms, and to changes in the build of the ships, and every shipping man had told him inquiry was urgently needed in this matter. The House expressed no opinion whatever upon the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby; but as men of business they were bound to take the widest interests of the country into view. They were bound to see that an inquiry by careful, sober, and serious-minded men should be made into this question before they submitted themselves to the doctrine of the hon. Member for Derby. He trusted, therefore, that he should have the support of the hon. Member for Derby in moving the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the cause of those losses which they all deplored, and that he should have the hon. Member's support in securing that examination; and if legislation were necessary they might have wise and sensible legislation even before this Parliament came to an end. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the appointment of the Select Committee of which he had given Notice.

said, he had to thank the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade very heartily for the course which he had taken, and for the promptitude he had shown in taking it. He had also to say that he agreed in very much that the noble Lord had said. He thought the noble Lord had placed the case very fairly before the House; but he believed him to be misinformed on one or two very important particulars. When the noble Lord gave the reasons of several bodies of shipowners against the principle of the Bill he (Mr. Plimsoll) was amazed at their feebleness. He differed from the opinion of Mr. Glover and the two other authorities cited by the noble Lord, that because grain in bulk was heavier than grain in sacks, they would, therefore, raise the centre of gravity higher by loading in sacks. They said that if they put grain in sacks which would occupy 10 per cent more space than if the grain were not in sacks, they would raise the centre of gravity of the ship higher. But those who shipped grain in bulk knew very great effort was made to fill up the holds quite close up to the underside deck plank. Therefore, how could it be possible to put the centre any higher if they had got it as high as they could? It must be obvious to anyone that the centre of gravity remained precisely the same in both cases. The only real difference was that 10 percent more would be put under deck in the one case than the other, and, in his opinion, the lightening of the ship to that extent would often make all the difference between safety and peril. The noble Lord referred to a Petition which had been sent to him, praying that instead of passing his (Mr. Plimsoll's) Bill the House would order the whole subject to be inquired into. But he considered there was no competition between the proposal of the noble Lord and his Bill. If there were any competition, he would admit that the mode of dealing with the difficulty as proposed by the President of the Board of Trade was incomparably the best. But they were not in competition; one supplemented the other. He was aware that other things besides grain imperilled the safety of ships, and often great danger arose from the shape of the ships. These were subjects that, of course, demanded inquiry; but they had the ships, and they must be dealt with, and with regard to the proposed alteration in the form of ships to enable them to carry grain in bulk, it must be remembered that, although it was possible to lengthen them, it was impossible to increase their depth or width so as to render them safe for carrying grain in bulk. The question was, could ships be rendered safer by enforcing the rule that grain should be carried in bags instead of in bulk? The noble Lord had stated facts with regard to certain ships which he (Mr. Plimsoll) confessed had startled him. He was surprised to hear that the four first-named ships were not grain-laden when they were lost, and he should have to make some further inquiry with reference to them. But theAlphonsowas damaged, as the inquiry of the Board of Trade showed, by a bulk- head being injured. If the grain had been in bags, would this have happened? In another case, the loss occurred through the master being ignorant how to stow grain in bulk; but if it had been in bags the master would have been at no need to acquire such knowledge in addition to his other qualifications. In another case, it was said that the ship did not carry grain, but cotton seed; but that was grain according to the Act of 1876. He should be glad to second the noble Lord's Motion, and hoped that the Committee asked for by the noble Lord would be appointed, and that its inquiries would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible; but, at the same time, he asked whether it was possible for that Committee to report in time for efficient legislation on the subject this Session? He would, therefore, urge the passing of his Bill, for it would be advantageous rather than otherwise to the efforts of the Committee for them to have the practical results of one year's working of his Act before them, so that they could consider whether it was a failure or otherwise. He forbore to mention the steamers which had been referred to by the noble Lord, as he found by so doing he offended the owners; but he would ask the attention of hon. Members to certain evidence in support of his view that carrying grain in bulk was the cause of the loss of many ships, and especially to that of Mr. W. Dickinson, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and other shipowners of the North of England, who concurred in the opinion that nothing short of the enforcement of the rule of grain in bags would secure the safety of the ships—an opinion that was endorsed by large numbers of ships' captains. But it was said the cost of carriage would be much increased if grain were carried in bags. But the consumer was already paying for the bags, because the cargo was brought to the ship in bags. He had recently travelled down the Danube from Vienna, and had stopped at every grain port. There he saw the people of the country carrying the grain on board British ships in bags and emptying it into the holds. In French and other ships the bags were sewn up at a cost of 1½d.a dozen, and he could not help reflecting that an Englishman's life was as valuable as that of a Frenchman or an Italian. Those who had petitioned against his Bill had done so not because they disagreed with its provisions, but because they did not think that it comprised the whole case. Seventeen hundred officers associated in a society in Sunderland had sent a Petition, in which they said that a great amount of loss had been occasioned by vessels shifting their cargoes and foundering, and in which they asked the Board of Trade to compel the owners of steamers to carry their grain in bags and not in bulk. He had received a letter from Mr. William Young, a steamship master at Newcastle-on-Tyne, in which he said—

"I have been for many years a steamship master in the grain trade, and I am convinced there are no means of securing the grain except by carrying it in bags."

The proposed remedy, which, if applied for one winter, would throw such a flood of light upon the subject in hand, was an exceedingly cheap one, as appeared from a great number of letters which he had received in answer to inquiries he had made to satisfy the noble Lord that there was no reason for the shipowners calling out that an enormous burden was being thrown upon them by the Bill. Tenders had been sent by various firms. One would charge 1d.per sack per month; another ½d.per sack per week; another ½d.per sack per week, 10 days being allowed for the first week; and so on. This, he pointed out, would be about the maximum cost, 1½d.on each sack of grain in cargo, say, from America; and that, he maintained, would not fall upon the ship's owner or the importer, but upon the consumer, who would have to pay for it 1–18th part of ¼d.on the price of a 4 lb. loaf. A letter he had received from Mr. W. M. Jaffray, agent for Mr. D. Mac Iver's steamers, put the additional cost caused by using bags at an average of 4 cents, and that sum covered the cost of sending back the bags to New York. Mr. E.B. Hadley, one of the largest millers in the world, stated that wheat was imported from India, New Zealand, and Australia in bags and sold to the miller. The cost of the bag would not average more than 8d.per quarter; but the bags could be sold again at the same price. The adoption of his remedy for a single winter would not involve any structural alteration in a vessel, or any considerable outlay of capital. It would not, in fact, involve the stroke of a chisel or the driving in of one nail. Some shipowners—for instance, the son of Mr. C. Mac Iver—adopted the precaution which he advocated; and all that he was desirous of doing was to render the practice of those who were careless of their ships similar to that of those who were careful of them. He had also in his hand a letter from a maker of sacks, in which the writer said that he could supply them at the rate of 6d.each, that they would last about 12 months, and that at the end of that time he would be glad to take them back at the rate of 2d.each. The House would therefore see that the expedient which he advocated was one which was exceedingly inexpensive. If there was, he might add, any real reason to fear that our trade would suffer at the hands of foreigners, he should not object to the introduction of any Amendment which might obviate that apprehension. It had also been pointed out to him that a large number of vessels which plied between this country and New York were specially constructed for the carrying of grain, in which grain could be conveyed quite as safely as in sacks, and it was unnecessary to say that he had no wish to extend the provisions of his Bill to cases in which to do so would be needless. He would be very foolish if he were to introduce into the measure anything which was unreasonable; but he had, he trusted, shown the House that the proposal which he made was inexpensive in the extreme. It would, he might add, obviate the necessity for the employment of surveyors at foreign ports. It would be self-acting, too, while it would not have the effect of hurting the ships in the least. The passing of the Bill would, besides, throw a flood of light on the proceedings of the Committee which the noble Lord proposed to appoint, and the whole machinery would be superseded as soon as action was taken on their Report, so that the measure would practically be one which would be in force for a single year only. In conclusion, he had merely to say that in Canada the principle of his Bill was strongly commended. Previous to 1872, a law had existed in the Dominion, by which a fine of $40 was imposed in the case of ships not being loaded according to regulation. It was found, however, that shipmasters preferred to infringe the law and pay the penalty. In that year, a stringent law was accordingly passed, compelling the proper loading of grain vessels, and, as a result, he had received a letter from the Port Warden of Montreal, in which, after referring to the loss of six steamers in 1872, the writer stated that the alteration of the law in rendering necessary the production of a certificate to show that a ship had been laden in accordance with the law, and had put to sea in a seaworthy condition, had operated so satisfactorily that during a period of seven years which had since elapsed no report had reached him of a grain-carrying ship from the port of Montreal having been lost from the shifting of the cargo. He had also a letter from the Assistant Minister of Marine in Canada, to show the good results which had followed from the action which had been taken there in the matter; and it only remained for him, having called attention to those documents, to thank the House for the patience with which they had listened to the remarks which he had felt it to be his duty to make.

said, the speech which they had just heard, and that of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade, must have convinced the House that this was a subject on which an inquiry must take place. To legislate hastily upon it would be doing injustice to one of the largest trades in the country, and nothing would better meet the views of practical men in the North of England than the appointment of a Select Committee of that House to inquire into the matter. He must, therefore, congratulate the noble Lord on having decided to take that step. He would not anticipate the labours of the Committee by entering into a discussion on the details of the question; but he might just remark two things—first, that many ships now carried grain which were never intended to do so, and which were quite unfitted to do so, either in bags or in bulk; and, secondly, that double-bottomed ships, for which he must take some responsibility, were designed not for the grain but for the coal trade; and it was not known that any ship in carrying coal had capsized, whether double-bottomed or not, if the cargo had been properly trimmed. He therefore hoped the attention of the Committee would be directed to these matters, which were a great source of mischief in the shipping trade as at present conducted.

pointed to the importance of the question now under discussion as fully justifying the Notice of opposition which he had placed against the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), with the object of bringing it within the operation of the half-past 12 Rule. The Bill affected shipowners generally; and, therefore, it would have been very unfortunate had it been taken up at 1 o'clock in the morning in an empty House, and all he wanted was that a full and proper inquiry should be held before the House committed itself to any particular policy. The construction of ships was a most important element of the question which the proposed Committee would have to consider. He himself had often been surprised at the extreme narrowness of some of those which came through the Suez Canal, and had even thought that they were too narrow to carry ordinary cargoes with safety. There could be no doubt that some reform in the grain-carrying trade was necessary; and he thoroughly approved of the course the noble Lord had taken in referring the subject to a Select Committee.

said, that if the question before the House had been the Second Reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby he should have supported it. But the hon. Member himself had acknowledged that there were matters which required serious investigation, and that some modification of that Bill would have been required, and sending it to a Select Committee would have been the best way to deal with it. For instance, the provisions of the Bill were not necessary in vessels of small size, and some ships were now constructed to which it was not necessary to apply the provisions of the measure. In his opinion, the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sandon) had proposed too large a range of inquiry for his Committee. He would point out to the House that under the Merchant Shipping Act, whenever the loss of a ship took place, an official inquiry was held into the causes that led to it. Those inquiries had been limited to cases in which the conduct of the officers of the ship might be called in question. But in cases in which vessels went down with all hands, of course no inquiry into the conduct of officers could be held. He was glad to see that of late the Board of Trade had instituted inquiries into all cases of missing ships before the Wreck Commissioner; and the result of several of the recent inquiries had been the procuring of some very valuable information to shipowners, merchants, and underwriters. Of course, where a vessel foundered at sea, the chief questions that should be inquired into were with regard to its construction and mode of loading the cargo it carried. This was a good reason for limiting the inquiry to grain cargoes—that week after week they had the most valuable inquiries held by the Wreck Commissioner into the loss of vessels, and that they, therefore, were collecting valuable information on many points connected with the general loading of vessels. Already a beneficial alteration had taken place in the mode of constructing vessels. For some reason or other, a few years ago, vessels were built with very much too deep, perhaps in order to show a high, free-board, and the result of the experience gained had been to show the error of that construction. The practice of building vessels in that manner had been already abandoned. The inquiries had shown that the vessels which foundered were constructed with a depth disproportionate to their beam. He thought that the inquiry ought to be limited to the question of grain cargoes alone, for by that means the labours of the Committee would be brought into a narrow compass, and they would be enabled to Report in time for legislation during the present Session.

said, that the House was very strongly in favour of the Committee asked for by the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade. He could not follow his hon. Friend who had just sat down in wishing that the state of the inquiry should be limited to grain cargoes only. He was prepared to urge that the scope of the inquiry as proposed was not sufficient, and that it ought to be enlarged in order that a thoroughly satisfactory result might be obtained. In the first place, he wished to remind the House that there were two matters before it—one, that of the Committee proposed by the noble Lord, and the other the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. In the course of his observations in moving for a Committee, the noble Lord had stated that he did not wish the Committee to deal with the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby; but by the arguments he used the noble Lord seemed to be altogether opposed to the proposals contained in that measure. He should feel disposed to vote for the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby as a practical measure to endure for a limited period; but, nevertheless, he considered that this Committee might be very useful to supplement improvement in the mode of dealing with naval matters generally. The objection to make the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby a permanent measure appeared to him to be that it dealt, he believed satisfactorily, with cargoes of grain only, but that it did not touch cargoes of other material, such as coal and iron. He held in his hand a list of 14 vessels lost in a comparatively short time; he believed they were the identical ships referred to by the noble Lord. Of those vessels seven were grain laden and seven were not. It was perfectly clear to the House that if the Bill of the hon. Member was carried it would leave altogether untouched the seven vessels not laden with grain; and if they were to follow up their legislation on grain-laden vessels by attempting to deal with the other seven ships, they would find that they would require to be divided into three or four categories, according to their different cargoes, and dealt with in a separate manner. Indeed, it would lead to the introduction of legislation to govern the mode of loading each ship, and require stevedores to carry out their work by the sanction of an Act of Parliament. It did appear to him that the proposal of the noble Lord was liable to some objection from its not dealing thoroughly with the subject. It was proposed to do what everyone would desire to see done—namely, to search into the defective construction of ships, and into all other matters which it might be desirable to investigate connected with grain-laden vessels. But it would be most dangerous for Parliament to take upon itself to legislate as to the best construction of ships. In his opinion, the inquiry ought to be directed to ascertain whether there were not some general propositions which might be laid down and converted into law for minimizing the risks of ships at sea. He believed that some such propositions might be laid down. In his opinion, the chief, if not the only mode of insuring greater safety at sea was to deal with the question of insurance. If they limited insurance so that the owner could not only have no profit from the loss of his ship, but that he must be a loser by its loss, then they would give the shipowner the greatest possible incentive towards doing everything for the preservation of his ship and cargo. It was no new proposal that he was making, for it was the same principle which governed the case of house insurance from fire. If a person insured his house for a larger sum than the house was worth he could not receive it. The insurance offices in the case of loss could either re-build the house or pay the amount which they considered it worth. But in the case of a ship insured at Lloyd's, a bargain was entered into between the shipowner and the underwriter, by which the value of the ship was taken to be a certain sum, and in case of total loss you could not go behind this sum. If a ship met with an accident, not a total loss, then the whole amount insured was not recoverable; but if a total loss ensued, then the underwriter was bound to pay the whole sum whether the ship was worth it or not. It did appear to him to be a cardinal point requiring investigation as to whether shipowners should be allowed to insure vessels for a larger sum than they were worth, and whether they ought to receive more than three-fourths of their value in case of total loss. The House was aware that some of the greatest shipowners—such as Green and Wigram and the Peninsular and Oriental Companies—did not insure at all. Their greatest profit was derived from not insuring, and the course they adopted was this—They did what was necessary to insure the safety of their ships by seeing that there was no defective loading nor defective equipment nor any undermanning. It had been mentioned by some hon. Members during the course of the debate that many of the ships lost at sea were very much undermanned. Frequently in vessels of 1,800 or 2,000 tons there were so few men that there was no possibility of making a relief if any of the crew were disabled by illness from attending to their duties. In the event, therefore, of any accident occurring to some of the crew, a ship which was so undermanned would be practically helpless. But at present there was nothing to induce shipowners to man their vessels properly, because if the vessel by any chance arrived at its destination, then the shipowner had effected a saving in the expenses, and if it was lost, then he obtained his profit from the underwriters if he had insured beyond its value. He thought if the risk of loss were thrown upon the shipowner one of the greatest elements of difficulty in this matter would be overcome. In his opinion, they could not do better than leave the risk to the shipowner as to the safety of the vessel, restricting him only to make his profit from the success of the enterprize, and not from the loss of the vessel. If that were done, shipowners would soon discover the most satisfactory mode of constructing ships, and of equipping, and even of stowing ships. Our past experience of legislative interference in naval construction was such as to point to its avoidance in future. Formerly, the mode of measuring ships for tonnage was such that a very bad state of things indeed was produced; but by the present method of registration much improvement had been effected. If some method could be devised by which the risk of loss of vessels was thrown upon the owners, and their profit was made dependent upon the success of the enterprize alone, there would be a proper guarantee for good construction. He thought it of great importance to take into consideration in this inquiry all the various questions bearing upon the subject, and that very much good might be done by framing some general regulations for all shipping, rather than limiting the inquiry to grain-laden vessels.

said, that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had introduced a very large question into the debate. Although he agreed that the subject of insurance was one requiring consideration, yet he trusted that the scope of the present inquiry would not be enlarged. In saying that, he did not mean that he considered an inquiry into the question of insurance would not be advisable; but, in his opinion, the question of grain-laden ships was one well deserving the attention of the Committee, and one which required a speedy answer. If the Orders of Reference were enlarged, he doubted whether they would have any Report upon the subject in that Session of Parliament at all. He agreed with very much that had been said with reference to the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby; and, in his opinion, he looked for the best remedy in one direction. In his opinion, it was not necessary that grain should always be carried in bags. If grain were shipped in vessels without bulkheads, or any means of preventing the action of the sea, no doubt the vessel would get a list in one direction from the shifting of the cargo; but if a vessel were separated in compartments it was quite unnecessary that the grain should be stowed in bags. Even when stowing bags or sacks, grain might be liable to displacement by some accident, as bags themselves were liable to shift. He was glad to hear from his hon. Friends that such means of improved stowage had been adopted, that in some cases grain could now be carried in bulk with perfect security. He thought that the Committee would have enough to do in reporting to the House as to the desirability of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, and as to the proper precautions to be adopted in the stowage of grain cargoes. Upon the basis of the Report of the Committee, legislation could be made which would enable grain to be brought into the country without unnecessary risk to human life.

was inclined to think that the scope of the inquiry proposed was quite wide enough. In his opinion, it would be very undesirable to extend the inquiry which the Committee was to undertake. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets on the subject of insurance, he would like to mention that the subject was fully gone into by a Royal Commission a few years ago. They reported most strongly in a direction suggested by the hon. Member, and recommended that insurance upon vessels should be limited. In the opinion of the Commission, many of the losses at sea arose from over-insurance. Upon the recommendations of that Committee, so far as his recollection went, the Government prepared a Bill which they laid upon the Table of the House; but for some reason with which he was unacquainted that Bill had never been proceeded with. For his own part, he was most strongly in favour of the Bill, and he regretted extremely that the Government had never carried it through. Unfortunately the Bill never got so far as the Second Reading; and, therefore, hon. Members had had no opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to it. Having once fallen through, the Bill was never re-introduced, for what reason he could not state. When such a Bill should be again brought before the House he ventured to say that it would receive a great deal of support from that side of the House. It was his conviction that a very great deal could be done for insuring safety at sea by limiting the amount of insurance to be effected upon vessels. It was only by making shipowners lose money by the loss of their vessels, and preventing the loss they sustained being entirely covered by the insurance, that they could bring the motive of self-interest to bear upon them.

thought that, in dealing with the question of insurance, it would be found very difficult to gauge the value of ships. For instance, four years ago a vessel might have been worth £20 a-ton—a short time ago its value would have fallen to £5 a-ton—and it would probably now be worth £8 per ton. As between the shipowner and the insurer, he did not see how the value of a vessel under those circumstances could be ascertained. It seemed to him that was one of the most difficult questions that the Government would have to deal with, and that it was one which required more research and inquiry than was made by the Royal Commission to which reference had been made. The question which the House had then to consider was that raised by the hon. Member for Derby—namely, the loading of grain in bulk. The question was whether grain in bulk could be made what was designated in shipping language "good stowage." It was worthy of remark that vessels were now constructed for the purpose of carrying grain, and in such cases the grain was first stowed in the between decks, then beneath the lower hold, and above the water ballast. The plan of loading was to run in the grain from elevators. First the main hold was filled, and then the between decks; when the vessel got in a sea way the grain in the lower hold settled down, and if the cargo shifted in consequence of the water ballast at the bottom shifting, then, in many instances, the vessel capsized. In his opinion, it was quite impossible to load a ship properly with grain in bulk, and the only remedy was to enact a law that grain should be carried in bags, and not in bulk. The opinion of practical men—he meant those materially concerned in the navigation of their ships—was distinctly in favour of abolishing loading in bulk. He had recently had the honour of presenting a Petition from over 1,700 shipmasters and owners, in which it was stated that grain could only safely be carried in bags. The Petition went on to ask that a Select Committee might be appointed to inquire into the question, and also into other matters connected with shipping. But while he held the opinion that grain could not safely be carried in bulk, he also thought there were some exceptions to the rule. He believed that the hon. Member for Derby was disposed to make an exception in favour of vessels engaged in the Montreal trade. Those vessels carried grain between decks in bags; but in the lower hold, with the exception of two or three tiers, the grain was carried in bulk. But the grain in bulk was placed between boards and partitions in such a manner as to prevent any chance of shifting. Vessels engaged in the coasting trade would also probably form an exception to the rule, because they were mostly of a small size, and it was not necessary, in their case, to stow the grain in bags. He held that, whether vessels be great or small, there was danger in carrying grain in bulk, unless some measures had been taken specially to adapt them to this purpose. Some vessels had been fitted with bulk-heads, and others had also been divided into compartments. When, therefore, vessels of this kind were in question, an exception might be granted to vessels so specially adapted for carrying grain by Board of Trade licence; but where they had to deal with vessels constructed, as at present, with between decks and lower hold, and water ballast underneath, he held that it was impossible to carry grain in bulk with safety. He had not come to any hesitating conclusion on this question, for it had occupied his attention during a long time, and after considerable discussion with the members of the Shipowners' Society in Sunderland. When he said that the members of that Society were nearly all men who had themselves been to sea, and were personally ac- quainted for that reason with the navigation of ships, he thought that he was placing before the House sufficient evidence to prove that the opinions of such men ought to be received with considerable attention by hon. Members. One of the members of the Society to which he had referred, and who had been for 30 years at sea, and was then one of our largest shipowners, had told him that "when leaving port with a cargo of grain in bulk he never felt himself safe until the cargo had twice shifted, after which, in all probability, there would be very little chance of its shifting again;" the settling down, as expressed in the sea phrase, being then complete. The opinion of that shipowner had had with him more weight than any other opinions which had been laid before him, especially those of men of theory who had no practical experience in the loading and sailing of ships with grain cargoes on board. He would like to see the Government introduce a temporary Bill dealing with this question, which was one upon which the House already possessed abundance of information. It was perfectly true that differences of opinion existed upon this subject; but it was found that all the shipping associations, not with standing the differences of opinion amongst them upon some points, admitted the importance of an inquiry into the question of ships laden with grain. Not only the losses of last winter, but those which had occurred previously during a series of years, were quite sufficient to prove to the Government, to hon. Members, and to the country generally, that something in the shape of legislation was necessary with reference to the loading of grain cargoes. What he held to be necessary was that some measure should be passed such as that which had been submitted to the House by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), providing that all grain coming to the United Kingdom should be imported in bags, with the exceptions to which he (Mr. Gourley) had alluded in the case of vessels specially adapted to the trade. But, in dealing with this question, they had also to deal with the question of the carriage of grain by foreign ships. Now, it was the opinion of many shipowners in England that if it was made compulsory that all grain coming to the United Kingdom in British vessels should be imported in bags British shipowners would be handicapped by foreigners. There was a great deal of truth in this objection. The remedy, however, which he suggested was that it should be made the rule that all grain imported in bulk, whether in British or in foreign ships, should be subjected to a duty of 1s.or 2s.per quarter, according to the ports from which such grain might be imported. Hon. Members would see that unless the grain imported, say, in Swedish or Norwegian vessels, was subjected to this regulation, those vessels would practically get a large portion of the grain-carrying trade. He would make it law that any ships bringing corn in bulk from the Baltic should be subject to a differential duty of 1s.per quarter, and that those carrying grain in bulk across the Atlantic should be subject to a like duty of 2s.per quarter; and this, in his opinion, would prevent British ships from being handicapped by foreigners. There were some other points to which he would allude. He thought that the simplest and safest way of dealing with the question of stowage would be to enact that all grain carried across the Atlantic, with the exception of that coming from the port of Montreal, which was already subject to exceptional local rules, should be imported in bags. It had been found that in the Californian, Calcutta, and Australian trade, all grain was, at the present time, so imported. But it was said that the putting of grain into bags would cause much loss of time. No doubt, it was true that some loss of time would be occasioned; but it was clear that in a very short time the merchants, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, would adapt themselves to the new state of things, and that when vessels arrived at New York and other ports they would find their cargoes ready in bags, just as they now found them ready for shipment in bags in Australia and Calcutta. There was no place in the world where a vessel could be loaded more quickly than in Calcutta, the rice and wheat being at that port always shipped in bags; and there was, therefore, no reason why wheat should not also be shipped in bags from the American ports. Had the question been raised by the shipping interest instead of by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), he felt sure that the Government would have at once assented to the change recommended by that hon. Member. He hoped that the necessity for dealing promptly with this question would be seen by hon. Members; and if they would legislate with regard to the loading of grain as between this country and the United States, he had no doubt that the shipping interest throughout the country would agree with him that the best mode of dealing with the subject would be to enact that all grain coming from Atlantic ports should be imported in bags.

pointed out that a great difference existed in the capabilities of ships for carrying grain cargoes in bulk as between the coasting and ocean trades, for they all knew the difference between taking a short run from Ireland or Scotland, as the case might be, and crossing the Atlantic. He trusted that due protection would be given to the coasting trade, which was so essential to the interests connected with our own ports. As regarded the distinction between the ocean and coasting trades, it would be found on reflection that the danger which was apprehended from the former would be very much diminished in the other case, in which it was quite practicable to carry grain with safety by looking to the state of the weather. He expressed his satisfaction with the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby; and, having regard to the opposition which it was likely to meet with, he thought that the course taken by the Government would give satisfaction both to those who were in favour of the measure and to those who opposed it.

would have voted for the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) with some qualifications. He (Mr. D. Jenkins) contended that whether grain be stowed in bulk or in bags, it would be necessary to exercise care that the cargo should be safely secured, for every seaman knew that even a cargo stowed in bags was not safe without shifting-boards were made use of. But there were other points of greater importance than this which required to be looked into. For instance, the over-loading of vessels was a very serious question; and, in his opinion, the Act of 1K76 relating thereto was altogether a failure. He would like to see some plan adopted for fixing the maximum load-line, which should be marked on the sides of all ships, and which, he believed, would prevent the very great evil of over-loading, that was now the cause of so much loss. Again, there was the question of undermanning, from which, no doubt, a large number of casualties occurred. With regard to the build of ships, he did not care what was their form of construction as long as they were navigated with skill; for, in his opinion, the safety of a ship depended upon the skill and care with which it was navigated—irrespective of its dimensions. He hoped the inquiry would tend to do good, and that loss of life would be lessened as soon as the Select Committee had made its Report.

said, that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had stated that he placed great faith in the opinions which he had received from practical men. Now, he (Mr. Bates) had received a document from Sunderland, which had, no doubt, also been received by many hon. Members. It emanated from the Society of British Ship Masters and Officers in Sunderland, and was a list of 30 steamships which had been lost. Hon. Members would be astonished when he told them that 28 out of the 30 vessels lost had been built in Sunderland and the adjacent ports, and that 24 of them had been fitted with water compartments. He maintained that the Bill which they were now discussing was, however well meant, valueless for the purposes for which it was intended, for the reason that it did not in any shape or way touch the root of the evil. He believed that the great cause of loss among these ships was that they were too long, too narrow, and too deep in build—that was to say, that they had too great depth of hold, too little breadth of beam, and too great length; in addition to that they had water ballast compartments. When a ship was loaded with cargo, as a matter of course the ballast compartments were empty, consequently there was a space of from one to two and a-half feet in the bottom of the ship empty above which the cargo was stowed, and the grain being raised in this way became more liable to shift, and the ship, in consequence, to "turn turtle" and to go to the bottom. In order to remedy this, he suggested that these water ballast compartments should be so fitted as to be able to receive grain in bags, which would give the ship more stability. That a cargo of grain could be carried safely in bulk he had no doubt whatever; but, in order to insure this, it was necessary that the ship should be divided into compartments made of iron. As to shifting-boards, he believed them to be valueless for this purpose; but if the vessel were divided down the middle by iron bulkheads running fore and aft as far as the engine-room, the cargo would be then in two equal portions, and if the vessel lay over one half of the cargo only would go to the lee-side. The expense of this arrangement would only occur once—namely, when the ship was built, and would be, in his opinion, in the end, less than the cost of modern bulkheads. It had been said that this plan would unfit the ship for general purposes; but he answered that these iron bulkheads could be fastened in such a manner as would allow them to be taken down when the ship was going to load a general cargo. They had only to be fastened to the keel, keelsons, beams, and other parts of the vessel with screw-bolts, and then they could be taken down when necessary, and would cost less in the end to the shipowner than shifting-boards. He would just give hon. Members his opinion as to what these grain-carrying ships ought to be. Ships crossing the Atlantic with grain cargoes should have greater strength and greater propelling power; they should not be more than seven times their beam in length, and they should not be more than two-thirds of their beam in depth. If they were fitted with water compartments, they should be so made that cargo could be stowed in them, and they should be fitted in compartments. Something had been said about the handicapping of British shipowners; and this was, no doubt, a very serious matter. He thought the best plan and the only plan to meet this difficulty would be to levy a fine upon all cargoes brought in bulk, whether in foreign or British ships, unless they were certified by the Board of Trade to be fitted for such cargoes in the manner in which they now certified for the carrying of passengers.

having no knowledge of ships, would not have entered upon this debate, were it not that in Ireland large quantities of oats were grown and exported coastwise. Now, if the Bill was carried as it then stood, it would apply to this Irish coasting trade and ruin it, while, at the same time, it would place the grower of oats at a great disadvantage. Had the Bill come before the House he should, in the interest of the trade to which he had referred, have voted against it. The vessels engaged in this coasting trade were of a peculiar construction. They were short and broad, and very few accidents had occurred to them, from their sailing over seas which were calmer than those which had to be crossed in other trades, and from their having an opportunity of running into port when a storm occurred. He trusted that the noble Lord would not entertain the suggestion of the hon. Member that the Bill should be passed provisionally; but he joined with those who wished to see a Bill passed during the present Session, which he trusted would be very carefully framed with a view to the protection of the interests which were involved in legislation upon this subject. He thought it would be a most unfortunate thing to adopt the suggestion which had been thrown out for a system of differential duties, which, in his view, savoured too much of Protection.

said, there could be no dispute as to the advantages which would result from the appointment of a Committee; but it must be borne in mind that no legislation could take place this Session, or, perhaps, during the next. With regard to the suggestion that the scope of the inquiry should be widened, so far as marine insurance was concerned, he reminded the House that that had been fully dealt with in the Report of the Royal Commission, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to introduce, and did introduce, in 1876, a Bill for dealing with maritime contracts. But he did not believe there was any means of securing the maximum of safety until the shipowner had a greater interest in his ships coming safely to port than he now had in their not arriving. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the best possible advice before withdrawing the Bill to which he had referred. It was most important the Government should deal with this question, because it did not affect grain cargoes alone, but all cargoes that floated in British bottoms. He would not put his experience against that of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates); but he had had the advantage of assisting the other day on a Committee, before which the best possible information was laid with regard to this question of grain cargoes. The question was put to that Committee,—"What would be the advantage of a Bill such as that brought in by the hon. Member for Derby?" The answer was from all sides that there could be no doubt that loss of life occurred from defective construction, but that the greatest blot on our carrying trade was the shipment of grain cargoes in bulk, and that from this cause there arose a greater loss of life than from all other causes put together. It had been urged that the additional cost of carrying grain in bags would increase the price of the grain; but it was necessary to place the advantages of this plan against its disadvantages. In the first place, it would materially diminish the cost of insurance; in the second place, the grain would be brought to market in a much better condition than at present; in the third place, there would be a great diminution in the loss of ships and cargoes; and, in the fourth place, there would be the saving of life; and, quite apart from this saving of life, he impressed upon the House that the advantages of the proposed plan would be equivalent to the pecuniary outlay for sacks. Having regard to the fact that they might enter upon one or more Sessions before legislation upon this matter took place, he asked the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade whether—not for the coasting traffic, but merely for long voyages—he could not see his way to introduce some provisional measure, until such time as the whole question could be considered, which would require that all grain cargoes should be brought to this country in sacks? This proposal would go a great way to give experience and to guide legislation in that House; it would also show whether grain cargoes could be carried in bags without any large increase in expense, and whether a saving of life would be the result. The present system of carrying grain was the greatest blot upon our carrying trade; and he hoped it would be possible by some temporary measure to deal with it until the Committee could report, and a Bill could be brought in on the subject.

thought that the House would now feel that it was time to close the discussion, which he might justly characterize as having been very useful and interesting. "With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), it seemed to him to be based upon the idea that the Committee could not report at all that Session. He had purposely confined the Reference in order to shorten the labours of the Committee; and he hoped that it would be able to report before the end of the Session, as he was most anxious that its recommendations should be carried out at once. The questions raised were most important, for they concerned human life. He saw no reason why the Committee should not get through its labours speedily, and report in time for a Bill to be brought in and passed before the end of the Session. He did not wish to be understood as meaning that the result of the labours of the Committee would be to show that any legislation whatever was necessary. He was certainly of opinion that if they could do without legislation it would be better, for any unnecessary fettering of a great industry should be avoided. He was sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield would agree with him upon that point. But if it were found that legislation was necessary, then he hoped that it would be completed during the present Session. He would observe, with reference to what many hon. Members had stated regarding the grain trade, that he was not at that moment prepared to say that the proposals of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) were necessary. So far as he was informed, since 1875, the grain trade of this country had greatly increased, until the value of the imports now amounted to £150,000,000 a-year. But the proportion of ships engaged in the grain trade which had been lost was comparatively small, whereas there had been many hundreds of lamentable calamities to vessels laden with other cargoes. He thought it was really a question to be considered whether grain was the real cause of the loss of many vessels. Suppose that the carrying of grain in bulk was dangerous, and that great additional security to human life would be afforded by its being carried in bags. But, as he had previously stated, there was a great difference of opinion upon that subject, and that it required investigation. He had expressly guarded himself from stating any opinion upon the subject; but people of great experience had expressed the view that the danger to human life was not increased by the stowage of grain in bulk. He hoped that the Reference had been so framed that the question would be fully decided. With respect to the question of insurance, there was no doubt that the matter was one which required consideration. He wished to protest against one or two observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), in which he laid down the maxim that grain could not be safely carried in bulk. To that proposition he could not give his assent, but should wait the issue of the labours of the Committee.

remarked, that he had laid that proposition down with certain exceptions. He had stated that it was the general rule that vessels engaged in the Montreal and the coasting trade were exceptions.

said, that no doubt the hon. Member did not mean his assertion to be a sweeping one. The other point against which he must speak was a most serious suggestion to come from the other side of the House—that was the proposal that all ships that carried grain in bulk should be forced to pay a duty of 1s.or 2s.per quarter upon the grain so carried. He was surprised to hear those doctrines propounded by hon. Gentlemen upon the other side of the House; and if they were seriously meant he should not-wonder if the Government were shortly asked to again put duties upon corn. So long as he had the honour to occupy the position he did, no protective duties of any kind would be put on. It must be understood that the object of the Government in this case was to obtain a thorough investigation, so that they would be enabled to legislate on the subject. Nothing would induce the Government to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill until investigation had convinced them that it was really required for the preservation of human life, and that it would not have the effect of destroying the great shipping interests upon which this country so much depended.