opinions on the subject of using Blasting Powder in firing Mines; whether he is about to take any action on the Recommendations of the Reports; and, whether he will lay the Reports upon the Table of the House? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had taken the opinions of the Mines Inspectors, individually and collectively, on the use of blasting powder in mines. The individual opinions were asked for and received as confidential communications; but, having received them, he thought it right that the Inspectors should be called together to consider the matter and make a collective Report, which was a formal document. He had no objection to lay it on the Table of the House, if the hon. Member would move for it. It had been in his hands but a very short time, and the Government were not prepared, without further consideration, to say whether they would take any action it. upon SPAIN-THE CIVIL WAR-BOMBARD- QUESTION. of the kind referred to in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question would have the desired effect. WEST AFRICA-EXCHANGE OF TERRI TORY.-QUESTION. MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any truth in the report that an exchange of territory upon the West Coast of Africa between Great Britain and France is in process of negotiation? MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, a correspondence upon this subject has, as my right hon. Friend's own official recollections will, no doubt, recall to his mind, been in progress for a considerable time. I may, however, take this opportunity of stating that the reports which have recently appeared in the newspapers, and which have probably revived my right hon. Friend's interest in this question, are incorrect, and that no conclusion has been arrived at. I need hardly add that the feelings of all parties having a claim upon the consideration of the Government will be fully considered in any arrangement arrived at. Afterwards SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA asked, When the Correspondence on South MR. O'CLERY asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any official intelligence relative several towns and villages on the Can-African Affairs, and relating to the distabrian coast of Spain by the naval Fields are situated, will be supplied to puted territory in which the Diamond forces of the Alfonsist Government, the House? to the bombardment and destruction of whereby, according to the reports in the MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I am happy newspapers, thousands of persons have been rendered homeless, and also of the are ready, and will be immediately laid to say that some Papers upon the subject devastation of the corn-producing districts of the north of Spain by the Alfonsist upon the Table. They will be an instaltroops; and, whether Her Majesty's Go-ment of others that will follow in due vernment would make representations to the Government of Madrid, with a view of mitigating the sufferings of the noncombatant population? MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had received intelligence of the bombardment of certain villages on the Cantabrian coast and other villages by the Spanish steam frigate Vittoria. As to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that thousands of persons were rendered homeless, he feared that such results must be expected in a country given up to the calamities of war. As at present advised, he did not think that any representation to the Government of Madrid course. THE TICHBORNE TRIAL.--QUESTION. MR. WHALLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Tichborne trial, Whether, during the progress of the trial a printed notice issued by the Government in Australia was not sent to the Solicitor of the Treasury and exhibited in his office, whereby a reward of £1,000 was offered for the apprehension of Arthur Orton on a charge of murder; and also another like paper offering a reward of £300 on a charge of horse stealing; whether a detective officer, to whom the person of Arthur Orton was well known, was not sent to England by the authorities in Australia for the purpose of identifying him; and, whether such officer did not make known to the authorities here that the defendant was not Arthur Orton, but that he was a person known to him in Australia as Thomas Castro ? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he had only just time since he saw the Question of the hon. Member on the Notice Paper to consult the present Solicitor to the Treasury, who was Assistant Solicitor during the Tichborne trial, but who took the principal share in conducting the business under Mr. Gray, who died some time ago. He could, therefore, do nothing more than repeat the answer he had received. Mr. Stephenson, the present Solicitor, said he was quite convinced that if Mr. Gray had received any such notice as that referred to in the Question he would have sent it to him; but he never saw or heard of any notice of the kind, nor was such a notice, or any notice to that effect, exhibited in the Treasury Solicitor's office. Mr. Stephenson knew nothing of a detective having been sent over to this country by the authorities of Australia; and if such an officer made known to the authorities here that the Claimant was not Arthur Orton, he (Mr. Stephenson) never heard of such an occurrence, and he did not believe that the late Mr. Gray or any other person had. If he (Mr. Cross) could make further inquiries on the point through the police, he should be happy to do so. MR. WHALLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he (Mr. Whalley) furnished him with certain affidavits, for he had not placed the Question on the Paper without satisfying himself as to the facts and the bona fides of his information-would the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made into the truth of the allegations contained in his Question? MR. ASSHETON CROSS made no reply. MR. WHALLEY then said he would postpone until Monday next the following Question, of which he had given Notice:-Whether the Secretary to the Treasury would lay upon the Table of the House a further Return of the expenditure in the Tichborne Case completed up the present time, and when; and whether the Return already made, Mr, Whalley or which may be so made, will include the services or the expenses incurred by the detective police officers who were specially employed in relation to this prosecution? BREACH OF ORDER-MR. PLIMSOLL AND MR. BATES. QUESTION. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. MR. BATES: I wish, Sir, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government will assent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of the honourable junior Member for Derby regarding my conduct as a shipowner? MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it is my wish and it is my duty whenever the conduct of a Member of this House, wherever he may sit, is impugned in a matter of personal honour, to assist in every way I possibly can, and to give him an opportunity to vindicate that conduct. I must confess myself I do not think that on the present occasion the Question of my hon. Friend was necessary. There was no doubt-though I refer with unaffected pain to recent occurrences-that a Member of this House, under circumstances of great excitement, committed a great and terrible indiscretion in charging Members of this House even criminally. But that Member has made to the House, which he offended, and to you, Sir, whose reprimand he appeared in his place, if necessary, to receive, what I consider, and the House and you considered, an ample and complete apology. I believe that the words of that Member, and the expression of contrition which he used with respect to having violated the Orders of this House, entirely and principally cover that outrage upon those Orders which was committed by referring by name to Members of this House as connected with circumstances so painful and disgraceful. My hon. Friend who has appealed to me by this Question had an opportunity of immediately vindicating himself in a full House; and I think he did it in a proper and dignified manner. He made this statement-that it was his great misfortune, in the course of three years, to have lost, I think he said, five ships. He stated to the House that they were ships of the highest quality; that they were registered as ships of the highest quality; that they were iron ships; and he would ask him whether it was not possible that, under the Bill, some provisions should be made for the fixing of such a load line for each vessel by some competent authority? As Notices of Amendments to that effect had been given, he should not move his Resolution, and should give his support to the second reading. that they were very lightly insured. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend in making these statements said what he would have no difficulty whatever in proving; and certainly, so far as my own feelings are concerned, I think no reproach lies on my hon. Friend in connection with the unfortunate transactions which have so much interested the House during the last 10 days. Nevertheless, MR. BATES: I rise, Sir, alike with every man must be the judge of his own regret and reluctance-regret that the honour; and if my hon. Friend still feels hon. junior Member for Derby (Mr. it would be a satisfaction to him, as a Plimsoll), when he had the opportunity, Member of this House and the Repre- did not come forward and acknowledge sentative of a large constituency, that that he had done me a grievous wrong. there should be an investigation into My maxim through life has been, when this matter by a Committee of this House, I found, either from intemperance of I shall not only not oppose such a Mo-language or ignorance, I had done antion, but shall give every facility to my other wrong, to take the earliest opporhon. Friend in the formation of the Com-tunity of acknowledging my error and mittee for such an inquiry. asking forgiveness. Had the hon. Member for Derby followed that course yes UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.-[BILL 274.] terday, I should not have been neces (Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Sir Charles Adderley.) MR. MONK, who had given Notice that he would move an Amendment, to the effect that no measure would satisfy the just expectations of the country which did not contain efficient provisions against the overloading or improperly loading vessels about to proceed to sea, said, he did not so much complain of the Bill for what it contained as for what it did not contain. Everyone must have sympathized with the President of the Board of Trade, when the painful necessity of withdrawing the Merchant Shipping Bill was forced upon him by the Government. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman; but he did blame the Cabinet, in which, unfortunately, the Board of Trade was not directly represented. He was very sorry to see a temporary measure of that nature introduced, for he considered the provisions of the Bill to be wholly inadequate to the requirements of the case. Persons quite as competent as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to form an opinion maintained that a compulsory load line was essential for the safety of merchant vessels, and VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] sitated to ask your permission to put the Question on the Paper which I have read from my place to-day-namely, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would, on the part of the Government, Committee to inquire into the truth or assent to my request to grant me a Select falsehood of charges or allegations brought against me as a shipowner and a man, in order that you, Sir, the House of Commons, and the whole world can decide Aye or No as to my fitness longer to occupy the proud position of a seat in this House. I will take this opportunity of expressing my grateful thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer to my request, and also for the kindly expressions he has used towards myself, and I may assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the result he will find that, although I am aware he has only a very poor supporter in me as far as making myself heard in debate is concerned, yet he has a truthful one, and one whom he may safely add to his already other numerous Friends in the House. I said, Sir, I rose with reluctance, and that is because yesterday week I asked the indulgence of hon. Members while I said a few words in reply to the attack made upon me without any warning or notice of any kind by the hon. junior Member for Derby, and which was so cheerfully conceded to me by the House. Sir, I am obliged again to-day to ask the same indulgence, and I trust before I sit down hon. Members will consider I have not I asked this unreasonably. When I made the statement I did on Thursday last, I was not prepared to answer the charges so fully as I could have wished, and simply for this reason-that from the period I first had the honour to appear here as one of the Representatives of the good people of the borough of Plymouth, I have devoted my time to their service, and taken no active management whatever in my business affairs. I do not make this statement with a view of shirking any responsibility; just the reverse; for I fully confirm every action of those I left in my place; and if I had to do the work over again, I should just act as they had done. They are, SirI am proud to say it-my sons. I have alluded to these matters for the purpose of showing hon. Members that I was hardly in a position on Thursday week last to reply so fully as I now can do to the statement made by the hon. junior Member for Derby, and to repel, not only by my own assertions, but by proof of documents that I hold in my hand, a statement that I hesitate not to designate as cruel, unwarranted, and untruthful. First, Sir, I would correct a slight inaccuracy in what I said last Thursday week-namely, that I had lost five of the six ships named by the hon. Member for Derby in the years 1873, 1874, and 1875. Since that day I have learnt that, although one of the ships left England in June, 1873, yet she left Calcutta early in 1874. On her return, therefore, she could not have been lost in 1873. However, I think this is immaterial. The ships were lost in 1874 or 1875. I also stated that the six ships named were classed A 1. They were so classed; but, in addition to this, I find four of the six were also classed double A 1 in Lloyd's Register, three of them with a star, and which denotes they were constructed of heavier or stronger material than required by Lloyd's rules. I have taken the particulars of each ship from the certificates kindly furnished me by the secretaries to the classification committees, and to whom I am indebted; for, as hon. Members will understand, the originals of these documents were all lost in the respective ships; and, with the permission of the House, I will occupy their time only a few moments longer by reading these particulars. The Melbourne, iron ship, 1,636 tons register, was classed *AA 1 in Lloyd's, with the Mr. Bates special star denoting being heavier plated than the rules of Lloyd's require, also classed A1 20 years in the Liverpool Surveyors' or Underwriters' Book, as shown by the duplicate certificate now in my hand-she was specially surveyed by Lloyd's in Dundee in June, 1873, as also shown by the duplicate certificate now in my hand. This ship sailed, I believe, in June, 1873, for Calcutta direct, and, if I am not mistaken, sailed again from Calcutta for London in January, 1874, along with two other vessels of equally high class, one of which also belonged to me-namely, the William Fairbairn. This vessel put into the Mauritius a wreck. The other two were never heard of. The Tethys, iron ship, 1,219 tons register, *AA1 at Lloyd's, built under special survey and classed with the star, denoting extra strength, also classed A 1 in red in the Liverpool Book, as shown by the official certificate I now hold in my hand-this ship was specially surveyed by Lloyd's in London on the 24th February, 1874, and sailed for Sydney with a general cargo in March, 1874; arrived at Sydney, all well; loaded a cargo of coal for San Francisco, and sailed sometime about August; was never heard of afterwards, and whether lost in 1874 or 1875 no one can say positively. The Euxine, iron ship, 1,594 tons register, classed A1 in the Liverpool Book for 20 years, and continued for eight years as first-classthis ship loaded a cargo of coals in the Tyne in June, 1874, for the Peninsular and Oriental Company, sailed a few days afterwards along with two other iron ships, and one wooden ship. The Euxine and the two other iron ships of the highest class were burnt at sea about the same time and about the same place; the wooden ship arrived at her destination, Bombay. The Nora Greame, iron ship, of 1,001 tons register, classed A 1 20 years in the Liverpool Book, as per certificate I hold in my hand, specially surveyed in October, 1874, as shown by this certificate, loaded a cargo of coals and sailed shortly afterwards, was spoken or seen off Madeira, all well, and never heard of afterwards; whether lost in 1874 or 1875 no one can ever say. The Foundling, iron ship, 1,186 tons register, classed AA1 in Lloyd's, as shown by the duplicate official certificate from Lloyd's I have here, and also classed at Liverpool, and specially surveyed by Lloyd's on the 14th of September, 1874, | ralty brokers-sworn to before the maas also shown in the official document, gistrates on the 26th of July, 1875, loaded a cargo of coal, sailed from Liver- stating that the six ships alluded to by pool in June, 1874, and was burnt at sea the hon. junior Member for Derby were in November, and has been repeatedly worth in the market £105,235, or seen and reported as being still afloat, £13 2s. 6d. per ton; consequently, at but, of course, a mere shell. The Sydney the time of sailing they were uninsured Dacres, iron ship, 1,380 tons register, to the extent of £41,235. Now, it is classed at Lloyd's *AA 1, built under not every shipowner that dare make special survey, as shown by the official such an admission. All shipowners have document I hold in my hand, and which not been blessed with the world's gear also shows she was specially surveyed to the extent that I have been. But, in February, 1874, she is also classed Sir, though poor, there are many honest in the Liverpool Book A 1 20 years, in ones, I know; aye, Sir, and as good as red. This ship sailed from Liverpool, I the best of us. But, Sir, what might think, for California, arrived there safely, have been the result, if such an one had loaded a cargo of wheat for Liverpool, been attacked as I have been? Why, was abandoned off the Skelligs, West if he had stated probably the truth reCoast of Ireland, in February, 1875, garding his losses, his credit would have afterwards picked up by tugs sent for gone, and he would have been ruined. her, and brought to Liverpool, dis- If he had not proved his loss by the loss charged her cargo, rudder replaced, and of his ships, he would have been conall damage made good by Messrs. Laird demned by such a statement as made by Brothers, and is now on her voyage the hon. Member for Derby. I trust, again to California. It was necessary Mr. Speaker, I have made this matter this ship should be valued in her clear to you and hon. Members. I trust damaged state, in order to ascertain for I have proved beyond a shadow of a the salvors the value of the property doubt that the accusation brought against saved. For this purpose the salvors me by the hon. junior Member for Derby appointed one valuer, and the owners for is as unjust as it is untrue, and in conaccount of underwriters appointed the clusion I have only to thank hon. Memother valuer. Ultimately, they agreed bers for allowing me to make this statefor the purposes of the suit that the ment, and to say that I have made it value in her damaged state was £14,000 from original documents now in my odd. The ship was only insured for hand, and I beg every hon. Member to £12,000. Consequently, I submit that do me the favour to examine and comthe only mode I have of proving pare them. what I stated the other night-namely, as to my mode of insurance is that one out of the six ships condemned by the hon. junior Member for Derby was providentially not lost-and that in her damaged state she was valued at £2,400 odd more than insured for, and that when repaired and made ready for sea she was worth £6,000 more than she was, or now is, on her present voyage insured for. Now, Sir, I come to a vital point-the insurance. The six ships named by the hon. junior Member for Derby were insured for no less and no more when ready for sea with stores and provisions on board for 12 months than £64,000. The ships registered 8,016 tons, which gives £7 198. 11d. per ton, and, as already said, all classed A 1 20 years. But I find that four of the six were also classed in Lloyd's AA 1; three of them with the extra *. I hold in my hand an affidavit from the Admi MR. PLIMSOLL said, that when silence was desirable and seemed likely to facilitate the progress of the Bill brought in by the Government to remedy the state of things which existed in the Merchant Marine, he observed silence. On the present occasion, however, it appeared to him that a short statement on the subject of the Bill before the House would not hinder Business, but would rather facilitate it and leave them in a much better position to deal with the matter in Committee than they would be in if he forebore addressing the House. He could assure the House that he had read the Bill with the utmost possible pleasure, because it appeared to him that if the clauses of which his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had given Notice were adopted, they would form just the other half of the measure, for the matter as it now stood before the |