proposals. We must have the Bill printed and before us, and we must discuss its provisions; and we shall then, no doubt, be able to form a judgment on them, and to compare them with those which have been so much advocated in the course of these discussions. Even now, late as it is in the Session, I would suggest whether it would not be desirable, if not right, to embrace in the discussion the principles of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. I only now rise to speak on my own part and that of Friends near me, that it was not understood that this Bill, when its introduction was promised, was to be brought in without protest or comment on our part, but that we reserved to ourselves the right of, on the second reading, taking steps to ensure an ample discussion for the purpose of urging on the House the principles contained in the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. MR. SULLIVAN: Our moments are so precious now, that every speaker in this debate will best show his sincerity to the object in view by talking as little as possible. The first duty before us is to have the Bill passed a first reading, so that we may see it in print, and at once know what exactly are its provisions; but I may indicate in a sentence or two my disappointment with the measure proposed. I invite the attention of my hon. Friends around me to this, that there should be before us one or other of these courses-either to give up the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby, and endeavour to engraft on the Government Bill such Amendments as may bring it nearer perfection than it is in its present state; or, should the Bill of the Government be found incapable of satisfactory Amendment, to stand by the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. Now, in order that right hon. Gentlemen opposite may know what is before them, I wish to point out that they have failed to notice two important points that are least debated on this sore question-namely, they do not deal with the question of deck-loading, nor with the carrying of cargoes of grain in bulk. Now, shipowners themselves will say that these are the points in the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby which are least objected to, and yet they are the two that this Bill leaves untouched. I protest, for one, against that failure in the Bill of the Government. I do not pretend to speak in the name of the hon. Gentleman; but I believe that he himself would have opposed it, and that the shipowning Gentlemen themselves have a serious objection to committing powers of this description to officers of the Board of Trade, and that, if driven to a choice, many would prefer to give up an additional week to the consideration of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, so that they might see in black and white in the clauses of the Bill how they stood there, and how their property was to be affected, rather than be handed over blindly to the discretion or the competency, unproved as it is, of the officials of the Board of Trade. I hope the Bill will be placed in our hands as early as possible, and that the Government will tell us when they mean to proceed with it. MR. NORWOOD: Sir, with reference to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), which I must say I heard with surprise, that the provisions of the Bill do not seem to go far enough, I cannot, of course, form a judgment of the nature of those provisions, until we have an opportunity of perusing the measure itself. It does appear to me, however, that the powers the Government propose to take are of a very serious character indeed. That it should be in the power of a portion of the crew of a ship to stop that ship, and demand that a survey shall be made upon her, just as she is about to commence her voyage, and that they should not be in any way responsible in the event of the survey being against them, does seem to me a very large power to give. I am not going to discuss the Bill now, however, as we shall have an opportunity of doing so hereafter; but I cannot allow the House to imagine that it is not a power of a most vital character. For the very fact of retarding the departure of a ship with a large and valuable cargo must involve the owner in a considerable loss. It may be thought by some a small matter that the power of stopping vessels from proceeding to sea should be placed in the hands of officials at the outports; but it is, in reality, a very serious and unprecedented power. We, the representatives of seaports, have much reason to complain of the position in which we are placed. We have been in constant communication with the Government on this subject. We have been down to see our constituents respecting it, and just as we thought it likely that our labours would come to an end, we found ourselves thrown over, and permitted to discuss neither the Bill of the Government nor that of the hon. Member for Derby; and now, at a moment's notice, we are compelled to swallow the Bill just introduced by the Government. Reference has been made by the hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Sullivan) to the desirability of a discussion of the proposals of the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby. We should be delighted to have the opportunity. I think it desirable, in the interests of the shipowners and of the community at large, and also for the sake of the House itself, that there should be a complete and calm discussion of the principles involved; and I shall deeply regret if we close our labours and go back to the country without having had an opportunity of correcting the misapprehensions and exaggerations in regard to figures and details which now exist. I believe there is the greatest desire on the part of the shipowners and their Representatives to treat the matter in a fair and candid spirit. I do not find fault with the President of the Board of Trade, and it is only an act of justice to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had much communication, to say that, although differing often with him in opinion, I have always found him actuated by a sincere desire to press forward this important question. MR. E. J. REED said, he thought the difficulty in which they were placed had arisen from the want of sympathy with the feelings of people outside of the House on that subject, and he believed the Bill now about to be brought in would not allay the public anxiety. That anxiety existed because, from one cause or another, rotten ships, overloaded ships, ships with excessive deck cargoes, and ships with improperly-stowed grain cargoes were sent to sea. And the only step now proposed to be taken was to enable the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to send representatives of his Department to watch the going out from the ports of those vessels which were popularly believed to possess the faculty of drowning, and which, in fact, did drown, Her Ma jesty's subjects. He invited the Govern- the Bill, there would be some limited more difficulty in regard to overloading. The Go by taking proper advice and not con- | of the lives of our seamen. vernment would, he thought, add error MR. ROEBUCK said, that as his name was on the back of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby's Bill he might be excused for saying a few words. He hoped that Bill would not be forgotten, and that the House would in some way or other be asked to decide upon its principles; for he was quite sure that the country would not be satisfied with the measure just proposed by the Government. That measure did not strike at the causes of the evil, but would only take precautions to watch it. But watching an evil would not do any good. It would not do to say that the shipping interest was very great-what they had to do was to save the lives of their seamen, and to protect them by all the means in their power in carrying on their dangerous calling. That was what the Bill of his hon. Friend did, and he (Mr. Roebuck) was certain that his hon. Friend would not be at all content, unless some step was taken to get the House to decide on what he thought were the proper precautions for attaining that object. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade merely proposed to watch the ships going out; but why not watch them when they came home, as the whole of the mischief generally occurred on the homeward voyage? He should also take steps to protect our sailors in foreign parts, and if they did that they would protect their lives. Why should they not in this Bill consider the question of overloading? Why should they not consider the question of deck loading? Why should they not consider the mode of shipping grain in bulk? These were all things which they could do if they only pleased. At all events, he promised them that the promoters of the hon. Member for Derby's Bill would attempt, if they could, to run their Bill against that of the Government, and would propose the necessary remedies if the Government did not do it themselves, so that the Government and that House would be made responsible for the Act which might be passed. those complicated questions in a hurried and imperfect manner. MR. MUNDELLA contended that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had struck the right key in his remarks. In eight weeks of 1873 no less than 30-odd grain-laden steamers were reported sunk or missing, and all had been built within five or six years. Why did that immense fleet go to the bottom? The underwriters said that the expenditure of £50 upon each of those vessels for the purchase of sacks would, in all probability, have saved two-thirds of those vessels. He wished to know when the Government would take the second reading of their Bill; whether it would be put down as the first Order of the Day; and, whether they would give any facilities for discussing the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby side by side with it? MR. DISRAELI: I merely rise, Sir, to express a hope that the House will allow the Bill to be brought in, which cannot be done if this discussion be proceeded with at this hour. I would suggest that, considering the time of the year, the second reading should be fixed for Friday morning, and I hope that the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning. [Mr. MUNDELLA : The first Order?] The first Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield will find, on studying the Parliamentary forms of our Constitution, that every legitimate means will be offered for obtaining what he wishes without my interfering to assist him. MR. RATHBONE said, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had asked the question why honest shipowners should object to legislation which would not touch themselves? He (Mr. Rathbone) answered, because they believed the legislation referred to, although it would not touch their interests, would cause more loss of life than it would save. ["No, no!"] He spoke the opinion of the very large body of shipowners who had been successful in saving life, and their practical judgment was surely entitled to some weight. The hon. Member for Pembroke had also asked why the Government during the coming winter should not undertake to survey everything connected with the shipping that would leave our ports. It should not; simply for this reason-that the attempt to do it would be vain; that they could not do it so effectually; and that the result of their trying to do so would give a charter of indemnity to those who wished to be careless or dishonest. One of the most important points relied on by the hon. Member for Derby was a compulsory classification of ships. Now, he had taken a list of ships which that hon. Member had reported as missing, and he found that all those who had lost any number of lives were classed A 1 at Lloyd's. He did not, of course, mean to suggest that there was any connection between their being so classed and that loss; but he wished to point out that that was no protection at all, and that by substituting any such provisions for the responsibility of the shipowners, they would take the responsibility off the only parties who really could save life and property at sea. In the present excited state of the public mind they could not calmly discuss those questions, and he regretted that the Government should have withdrawn their former Bill on that subject. He thought they had now, by their present Bill-although he could not speak positively until he had Order read, for resuming Adjourned seen it in print-probably taken another Debate on Question [16th July], "That step in the direction which had been the third of the Resolutions which upon found very effectual. At that period of that day was reported from the Committhe Session, and with the present excite- tee of Supply, relative to Criminal Proment out-of-doors, it would be very un-secutions and Law Charges (Ireland), desirable to attempt to deal with all be now read a second time," VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] Motion agreed to. Bill to make provision for giving further powers to the Board of Trade for stopping Unseaworthy Ships, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. DISRAELI, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 274.] SUPPLY-REPORT. ADJOURNED DEBATE. SUPPLY [Report 16th July.] G Question again proposed. Debate resumed. Question put, and agreed to. before Six o'clock. "an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen should not be indictable as a conspiracy if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime." House adjourned at five minutes At present certain acts which were legal if done by only one person acting singly became illegal when they were done by large numbers. Thus, one man might advise another to break his contract and leave his employment; but if a number of persons conspired together to induce a workman to leave his employment that conspiracy was an offence. The Bill, therefore, made a considerable alteration in the law as to conspiracy as it stood under the common law. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, 29th July, 1875. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Committee Report Summary Prosecutions Ap- Law Revision* (194), and passed. CONSPIRACY, AND PROTECTION OF (The Lord Chancellor.) COMMITTEE. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Bill did make a change in the existing law, and the clause now under consideration was in harmony with the other parts of the measure. Taken in connection with the following clauses, the Bill attempted to define what acts connected with trade disputes were criminal and what were not-therefore, it recited all acts relating to trade disputes which were intended to be treated criminally, and it set those acts out. On the other hand, it declared by this clause that an agreement by two or more persons to do what would not be a crime if done by one person was not to be punished as a crime; but by the next clause intimidation and annoyance by violence was struck at, and it was declared that every person who with a view to compel any House in Committee (according to other person to abstain from doing or Order). Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Amendment of law as conspiracy in trade disputes). to LORD WINMARLEIGH said, that throughout the Royal Commission, of which he was a member, the object of all parties appeared to be that both employers and workmen should be placed on an equal footing with regard to the law of conspiracy as far as circumstances would allow. The Commission accordingly proposed such alterations in the then existing law that they believed would effect that object. This clause, however, and the other clauses of the Bill, failed to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The clause provided that to do any act which such other person had a legal right to do or to abstain from doing should use violence or intimidation either to his person, or his wife or children, or his property, should be liable on conviction to a pecuniary penalty or to imprisonment. By this clause, then, intimidation was struck at, and combined action to carry out such intimidation would therefore be struck at. It was true that, under the existing law, if one man broke his contract that would not be a crime, while if—say 50-broke their contract that at common law might be regarded as a conspiracy. Under this Bill it would not be a conspiracy. The principle upon which the Bill was framed was that the offences in relation to trade disputes should be thoroughly known and understood, and that persons should |