this action on the part of the Board is based? SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the first recommendations for loans were received by the Board of Works on April 30, 1875. On that date six recommendations were received; four more on May 25; 139 during June; and 155 during July. Some necessary delay took place in arranging the mode of procedure to meet the requirements of this service, involving, among other things, the arrangements under which the promissory notes given in security for the loans should be executed. The first advance of money was made on the 13th of July, and since that time the Board of Works have been in communication with every one of the 304 borrowers. As fast as the promissory notes are returned signed by the borrowers and their securities the Board are issuing the loans, and have already issued 123 loans amounting to £1,839. With regard to the second Question of the hon. Member, the Board of Works have informed the promoters of the pier that they cannot at present bring this case before the Treasury until their Lordships have decided on some cases before them. It is obvious that all cases of this kind cannot be dealt with at once. LEGAL DEPARTMENTS COMMISSION. QUESTION. LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is proposed that the Legal Departments Commission should inquire into the administrative departments of the Courts of Justice of Scotland and Ireland; and, if not, when and in what manner it is intended that the inquiry recommended by the Select Committee on Civil Service Expenditure in 1873 should be completed? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that in the first instance it was proposed that the inquiry by the Legal Departments Commissioners should be confined to England. There were, however, certain questions arising in the Lord Advocate's Department which satisfied them that inquiry ought to be made on the subject. It would also be seen from the Report that it was desirable to extend the inquiry to Ireland. It was proposed, however, that the inquiry with regard to Ireland should Mr. O'Connor Power be conducted by a different body, the constitution of which had not yet been determined upon. LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Will these inquiries be conducted within a short time? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER replied in the affirmative. CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCES FOR VIOLENT ASSAULTS.-QUESTION. MR. J. G. TALBOT asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Cleary, charged on the 26th instant, before Mr. D'Eyncourt, with violently assaulting his wife, whom he twice knocked down and struck several times; and to the case of James Stroulett, charged on the same day, before Mr. Lushington, with violently assaulting Mary Thompson, whom he struck in the face, on the arm and shoulder, and again in the eye; and, whether, considering that the punishment awarded in each case was of three months and two months imprisonment respectively, and that the Offences against the Person Bill has been withdrawn, he will give such instructions to the stipendiary magistrates as will insure better protection to Her Majesty's subjects in London and other large towns? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had put himself in communication with the magistrates in question. With regard to the first case, he was informed that, although it was apparently a bad case, yet no serious harm had been done. The magistrates were under the impression that in this class of cases it would not do to inflict too heavy punishments, because there was great difficulty in getting women and others to prosecute; and if such cases were sent for trial prosecutions would be still more rare than they were. He (Mr. Cross) must confess that he did not quite agree in that view; but it would be impertinent in him to send round instructions such as his hon. Friend had referred to. Indeed, he had no power to do so. He had no hesitation, however, in saying that, in his opinion, these serious assaults were far too leniently dealt with. The Home Office would take great care in watching the sentences passed upon the perpetrators of brutal assaults, in order that, if necessary, the | which occurred at the level crossing of Government might bring forward a Bill on the subject next year. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1871-PRO- the Midland and the London and North Western Railways at Bedford, March 12, 1875; and, if he is aware that the Grand Jury of the county of Bedford, in their presentment during the present assizes, publicly called the attention of of the present level crossing, and whethe authorities to the dangerous nature ther the Board of Trade propose to take any action in the matter? MR. EVELYN ASHLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the dismissal by the petty sessions at Poole last week of a case against SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, a shipowner, in which the Home Office prosecuted and laid the information Captain Tyler's Report has been laid under the eleventh Section of "The Mer-before Parliament. In it Captain Tyler chant Shipping Act, 1871;" and, whe-recommends that the signalling arrangether he has been informed that the ments at the Bedford level crossing, grounds of this decision were, that "un seaworthiness" in the above-named sec tion does not include "overloading," that "sending" a ship to sea in the same section does not include "taking," and that receivable evidence of the defective state of a ship's hull and equipment, for the purpose of such a prosecution, must be the result of a survey and not the statements of those on board? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to this case for the same reason that the President of the Board of Trade had just given to the hon. Member for Stafford-namely, that the prosecution had been ordered by himself. He was very much surprised at the result of the inmuch surprised at the result of the inquiry before the magistrates, and he had made application for the reasons of the conclusions to which the magistrates had come. Owing, probably, to the shortness of the time, the only answer he had received to his application was a newspaper containing a report of the proceedings, which he already had in his possession before he wrote. The grounds of that decision were, he believed, pretty much the same as those mentioned by the hon. Member in his Question, and it was his intention to lay the whole matter before the Law Officers of the Crown, with the view of taking such proceedings as might be thought desirable. RAILWAYS-LEVEL CROSSING AT BEDFORD.-QUESTION. CAPTAIN POLHILL-TURNER asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has received a Report from Captain Tyler, one of the Government Inspectors of Railways, relative to an accident which have been in operation ever since the opening of the railway, should be improved, and that the modern arrangements of interlocking the points and signals should be adopted. The Board dations of Captain Tyler to the London of Trade communicated the recommenand North-Western and Midland Railway Companies. The Board of Trade are still in communication with the was Companies on the subject; but they have no power to compel the Companies to adopt the recommendations contained in the Report. The presentment of the Grand Jury of the county of Bedford wa not communicated to the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce) has just informed me that he has heard from the Chairman of the North-Western Railway that they have received the presentment and are about to act upon it. PUBLIC BUSINESS-LOCAL AUTHORI TIES LOANS BILL.-QUESTION. of the Exchequer, Whether, considering THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he would frankly acknowledge that at this very advanced period of the Session it would be very difficult to pass any measure to which much objection was raised. With regard, however, to the statement that the municipal and other local bodies had not had an opportunity of consider ing the Bill, he would remark that the Bill, as amended, had been for some time before the country, and he was informed that several important municipalities were anxious that it should be proceeded with. He would not, therefore, take it off the Paper, but communicate with hon. Members to see whether there was a probability of passing the Bill. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1871- QUESTIONS. and as against the owners of a similar little vessel (the "Alcedo ") belonging to Waterford; and, whether one or both of these convictions was not obtained solely upon evidence furnished by the vessel safely reaching port? SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Nimrod and Alcedo were both detained in port as unseaworthy, were both condemned, and the owners of both were convicted, fined, and imprisoned. I think that Section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1871 should be strengthened, and extended in its application, and there was a clause in the Government MR. MAC IVER asked the President Bill for that purpose. But I think the of the Board of Trade, Whether he is indirect operation of that clause has in a position to give the names of any been effective in the way of deterring first class vessels trading from the port people from sending unseaworthy ships of Liverpool, other than those periodi- to sea. It is true that the only concally surveyed by the Shipwright Sur-victions yet obtained under the very veyors of the Board of Trade, or by those of one or other of the Registry Societies; and, whether in regard to vessels sailing under the Passengers' Acts, the Officers of the Board of Trade continue to follow the practice of the Emigration Commissioners in regard to load line? SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the hon. Member can obtain the information as to vessels leaving Liverpool, not surveyed by Board of Trade or any registry surveyor, better than I can, or which of such vessels are first class. All I know is that passenger ships are surveyed by Board of Trade surveyors under the Act, and some others which present themselves for survey. The Board of Trade Emigration officers fix the freeboard in each case of ships carrying emigrants. MR. MAC IVER asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, notwithstanding the appointment of a Prosecuting Solicitor to the Board of Trade, the provisions of Clause 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1871 (whereby sending unseaworthy vessels to sea is made a misdemeanour) remain, and are likely to remain, almost altogether inoperative; whether it commonly is not, owing to the drowning of witnesses, practically impossible to obtain evidence in such cases; and, whether it is not true that, in point of fact, no convictions whatever have been obtained, except as against the owners of a small coasting schooner (the "Nimrod") belonging to Belfast, which did not go to the bottom; The Chancellor of the Exchequer restricted terms of the 11th section of the Act of 1871 are those of the owners of the Nimrod and Alcedo, and, of course, in cases where ships go to the bottom evidence can rarely be obtained; but the principle of the law is to convict offenders and not to anticipate offence by inspecting all. No one doubts that there are unseaworthy ships, and probably more than have been detected; but the Board of Trade has successfully hit many, and has very successfully avoided involving the innocent in its prosecutions. INSPECTORS OF IRISH FISHERIES REPORT.-QUESTION. MR. SULLIVAN asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following passage at page 19 of the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for 1874, in reference to the northern coast of Ireland :— "By the interpretation of a certain decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of mode of fishing practised on the sea coast, called Stewart and Cubett, fishermen using the ancient half-tram, are liable to prosecution for using a fixed engine, unless they hold a certificate for a fixed net or engine from this department, which could not be granted in consequence of the fishermen not being in a position to prove their legal title, as required by the Act 5th and 6th Vic. c. 106, s. 19, to use fixed engines: "In some places, owing to the strong tides and currents, the fishermen are compelled to use their boats in proper position to enable them to the most exhausting exertion at the oar to keep work their nets, and on other parts of the coast, where many industrious men could have success MR. WHITWELL asked the Secretary of State for War, What is the opinion of the Officers who superintended the recent Summer Manoeuvres as to the power of bearing fatigue and exposure manifested by the troops engaged, especially of such of the Army forces as were enlisted during the last three years respectively as compared with the soldiers of more mature age and earlier enlistment ? MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to say I am informed that the whole force was perfectly capable of undergoing any fatigue that soldiers are liable to be called upon to bear. Throughout the Manoeuvres the men who bore fatigue and exposure best of the troops engaged were undoubtedly those who have enlisted during the last three years. The men who fell out were 136 in all. Of these, only 37 had under three years' service. The marches varied from eight to 20 miles, and on the last occasion when the Second Army Corps had to strike its camp after a night so wet that the majority of the men were unable to lie down, they marched in complete service order 15 miles, without including the time and distance gone over during the field-day, when only eight men under three years' service fell out, the total number that day being 67; the majority of these had over 15 years' service. PARLIAMENT- BREACH OF ORDER (MR. PLIMSOLL.) MR. PLIMSOLL: Sir, it did not take me the whole week, so generously accorded to me by this House, to perceive that it would be impossible to conduct the Government of this great country-impossible to maintain its honour and influence abroad, or the dignity and authority of this House at home-unless its debates were conducted within strict limits. I exceeded these limits on Thursday last. This being so, patriotism and common-sense-and, I may add, right feeling-alike demand that I should withdraw such terms and expressions as have transgressed Parliamentary usage, and apologize to you, Sir, and to this House for using them; and this in no grudging or reluctant spirit, but frankly and sincerely. This I now do, Sir, and hope that you and the House it will not be considered inconsistent will accept my apology. I trust, Sir, with that respect which I feel for and have now expressed to this House, if I add that I do not withdraw any statement of fact. I now submit myself to the pleasure of the House. Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd July], "That Mr. Plimsoll, the Member for Derby, for his disorderly conduct, be reprimanded, in his place, by Mr. Speaker," read. : MR. DISRAELI Mr. Speaker-Sir, when I rose a week ago to make that Motion which you have now put from the Chair, I was unaware of any circumstances except those which were patent, in regard to the subject, to every Member present; and I felt that I was doing my duty, painful as it was, to you, Sir, and to the House. But I confess, Sir, that had I been aware then of the circumstances with which we were afterwards acquainted, had that statement been made-that authorized statement-by the Friend of the hon. Member for Derby-had that been made earlier by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), or had I been acquainted with the circumstances to which he referred, I should not have made the Motion which I then submitted to the House. I should have felt that the case | ferred on that occasion by the hon. was one of a peculiar character, and to Member for Derby against Members of be treated in a very different spirit. I this House. I do not think the House should have looked upon it, as I look will be justified in leaving the case in upon it now-as a case of over-strained the position in which it now stands. sensibility in a man excited by his de- This House ought not to be made the votion to a cause, which-however many arena for such discussions; this House of us may differ as to the measures is not the place in which such threats which he proposes as remedies-all must ought to be preferred; and if the hon. acknowledge to be a great and a good Member for Derby thinks it right to cause. I would even say, Sir, that make the charges which he has brought with those feelings-had the hon. Gen- forward, I think that the House is bound tleman not appeared in his place to-day, to call upon the hon. Member either to I should have declined to press for any retract entirely or to proceed to substandistinct opinion of the House. I should tiate those charges. I would venture to have advised them to postpone, and even express my belief that a more honourfor a longer period, the Motion which, able body of men than the shipowners as an act of duty, I had offered to the of this country does not exist within the consideration of the House. But I am four seas of Britain. There are, of as I am sure we all are-deeply grati- course, among all classes of the comfied to know that we have not to con-munity what are termed "black sheep," sider an issue of that character; that we have seen the hon. Gentleman in his place, restored, I am happy to believe from his tone and bearing, to that state of temper which becomes all who are Members of this Assembly; and I think I may express the general feeling of both sides of the House that they receive the statement which he offered to us as a complete and satisfactory apology for what was, no doubt, in ordinary circumstances, a great indiscretion. The sentiments so expressed have been, I am sure, offered by the hon. Member for Derby in sincerity, and I trust they will be received with kindness. And, therefore, Sir, I take this, the earliest opportunity, of moving that the Order which has been read be discharged. MR. BENTINCK: I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion; but I venture to suggest that there is one other consideration in connection with the question that is just being dealt with which the House is bound not to lose sight of. I do not intend to make any remarks as to the proceedings which led to this discussion; but I wish to remind the House that when the hon. Member for Derby made use of language which called for the interference of the Chair, the hon. Member took that opportunity of uttering the most grave and serious charges against Members of this House. We have now heard the apology of the hon. Member, we have heard his retractation of the language which he used, but we have not heard any retractation of the very grave charges preMr. Disraeli and there may be black sheep amongst that portion of the community as well as any other; but I venture to assert that charges so broadly and openly preferred by the hon. Member for Derby against the shipowners of this country are entirely without foundation. I contend that the House, in common justice to those hon. Members, is bound to deal with the question, and call upon the hon. Member either to entirely withdraw his charge or to state what measures he will adopt in proceeding with them. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he could not help feeling the justice of the observations just made by his hon. Friend. As might have been expected, the hon. Member for Derby had expressed his regret for the very improper language he had used and the very unusual conduct he had pursued; but the hon. Member, in the last words of his apology, had re-affirmed the grave charges he had made against Members of that House. Such charges ought not, in his opinion, to be passed lightly over. They ought to be substantiated or retracted, and it ought to be shown that no cause, however good, could be advanced in that House by a process of disorder. Willing, therefore, as he was, in common with all other hon. Members, to pardon the indiscreet manner in which the hon. Member for Derby had spoken, he thought the House should call upon the hon. Gentleman to affirm the charges he had made or to withdraw them. Motion agreed to. |