Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

The Committee divided:-Ayes 130; Noes 193: Majority 63.

of the Exchequer had remarked that it MR. E. J. REED said, he must ask was no use punishing a man for having the Committee to divide upon his promade a voyage in safety with a danger-posal, for the reason that nothing stated ous cargo, but it might as well be said by the Representatives of the Governthat because no one was killed a man ment had shown that it could have any was not punishable for firing a shot in a other than a good effect. crowded thoroughfare. The right hon. Baronet had stated that the difficulty had been met by the Government of Canada; but, as a matter of fact, timber came to England from places other than Canada, and to such places the legisla tion was not applied. The right hon. Baronet also opposed the proposal of the hon. Member for Pembroke, on the ground that it would interfere with the interests of the country; but if he meant by this phrase the shipowning interest, the objection was one which had no weight as compared with the importance of guarding the interest of the community generally. They ought to punish men if they endangered the lives of their crews. Deck loading ought to be prevented on all British ships coming from any quarter in the winter by a provision in the Bill.

MR. DISRAELI: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are arguing this question as if we were passing this measure in sæcula sæculorum, instead of a brief measure resting entirely on the confidence which the Government asks the House of Commons at an exigency, and which the House is prepared to grant. The hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford says-and it is very true-that the legislation of the Dominion of the United States has provided happily against abuses in the importation to this country of timber cargoes. Well, but there are other countries from which we import timber. Certainly. It requires no great geographical knowledge or commercial information to know that. But in an exigency like this we are governed by the information at our command, and it is a fact that from the Baltic Ports there are no abuses of this description. Practically, we have no abuses of this kind at all, and therefore we did not think it necessary that we should encumber this Bill by any powers to prevent them. The powers we have taken for dealing with export cargoes are not questioned, and we undertake to deal with them efficiently; but I really must call on the Committee not to accept an Amendment in this form.

MR. E. JENKINS moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. DISRAELI: I hope the Committee will not consent to the proposal. I think it is, considering all the circumstances of the case, a most unreasonable proposal. There remain only two clauses of importance to be dealt with, and one of those-that of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell)— it is the intention of the Government to accept. I trust, therefore, the Committee will proceed with its labours and conclude them to-night.

Motion negatived.

MR. E. J. REED moved the following clause :

(Cargo of grain, &c.)

"No cargo, consisting wholly or partly of any kind of grain, corn, rice, paddy, pulse, seed, nuts, or nut kernels, shall be carried on board any British ship unless the same shall be contained in bags, sacks, or barrels, or thoroughly secured from shifting by boards, bulkheads, or consists wholly, or partly of any such goods otherwise. A British ship carrying cargo which shipped in bulk shall not be deemed seaworthy. The master of any British ship who shall knowingly allow any cargo or part of a cargo to be shipped therein for carriage, contrary to the provisions of this section, shall, for every such

offence, incur a penalty not exceeding two hundred pounds."

The hon. Member said, the evil against which the clause was directed was one of the most frightful causes of marine disaster. The foundering of ships owing to it was as unnecessary as it was frequent, and there would be an easy method of securing safety if the clause were adopted. The Bill, as it stood, furnished no direct means of dealing with that evil.

New Clause (Cargo of grain, &c.)Mr. Reed)-brought up, and read the

first time.

On Question, "That the Clause be read the second time?"

its willingness to make some sacrifice of British interests, as such a course would not only induce other Governments to follow our example, but would greatly strengthen our position in demanding a settlement of the question. The necessity of some preventive legislation was proved by the report of the Committee of Lloyd's, from which it appeared that five large steamers were lost last winter laden with grain, in consequence of no precaution having been taken in the loading. One of them had previously carried a grain cargo properly stowed safely across the Atlantic; this time the precaution was neglected, and the loss of 28 lives and a valuable property was the consequence. Such was the report of the Committee of Lloyd's.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- | pared with the foreigner, applied to the QUER said, that on the second reading whole of this class of legislation. They of the Bill, he carefully pointed out the were dealing, however, with British difficulties attending the subject; but he ships in order to save the lives of British admitted it was one well worthy the con- seamen, so far as that could be done. sideration of the Committee. The Go- The Committee of Lloyd's were keenly vernment had given their best attention alive to the importance of the subject to the subject; and, in consequence, a under discussion; and, as the Govern letter was addressed by the President of ment in July last declined to make any the Board of Trade to the Committee at representations to the Government of Lloyd's for the purpose of obtaining Russia, with a view to diminishing the information, and in reply the secretary risks attending the transport of grain, stated that it was the opinion of the the Committee of Lloyd's were about to Committee that little could be done in despatch their secretary to Russia in stopping these shipments as at present order to bring the matter before the conducted, unless it could be made to Russian authorities. At the present apply to the shipping ports, or other- moment, therefore, it was particularly wise it would materially affect the carry-important that Parliament should show ing trade of this country. There was great difficulty in dealing with the subject in a temporary measure. It had been effectually remedied on the other side of the Atlantic; but as regarded the grain coming from the Black Sea, the season arrangements had probably been already made respecting its shipment, and it would be impossible that any legislation which they might adopt in the present Session could be effective in preventing a very large proportion of that grain coming over in ships laden in a certain way. That being so, if the Committee passed the clause, the result would be that the moment a British ship reached the shores of this country laden with grain in a certain way, she would be rejected, while a foreign vessel similarly laden would have to be admitted. English shipowners would, therefore, be driven either to carry their grain under other flags, or to land and sell their cargoes in France or some other country. Besides, many other difficulties would arise in carrying out the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, and he had no doubt that the attention of shipowners and underwriters having been called to the matter, they would avoid the greater proportion of those terrible accidents which occurred in the course of last year; but whatever might be the case, the Committee would be acting hastily and unwisely, if they were to introduce into the present temporary measure a proviso of the kind proposed.

MR. GOSCHEN said, that the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proposal, if adopted, would impede the British shipowner as com

MR. RATHBONE confirmed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen). He pointed out that the Cunard steamers and other vessels of the very first class were in the habit of constantly carrying grain in bulk, and doing so under proper and safe consideration. But if the clause were carried, all such vessels would be declared to be unseaworthy, which would be a very great hardship. For that reason he could not agree to the clause; but he did not deny that if proper time were given to them, that the Government would be able to draft clauses which would effectually prevent the abuses connected with the carrying of grain in bulk.

MR. BATES said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke as to the manner in which he suggested grain should be carried. In his (Mr. Bates's) opinion, the safest way to carry

cargoes of grain would be to put it in | his impression was that the Chancellor bags; lay a series of the filled bags of the Exchequer had made a promise longitudinally, and then other bags to that effect. transversely over them, and fill in the interstices, or wells, with grain, the effect of which was to keep the bags snug and tight in their berth when the ship rolled in rough weather. As to sliding boards, so much relied upon by some hon. Members, he had no confidence in them as a means of securing the grain from drifting. He himself could never think of carrying grain in bulk for any consideration.

MR. E. J. REED said, he was perfectly willing to omit the following por-mittee. The proposal of the hon. Memtion of his clause :ber for Pembroke went too far, and therefore he should be willing to accept a proposal of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), which limited the prohibition to cases in which more than one-third of the cargo consisted of grain, coupled with the omission of the words in the proposal of the hon. Member for Pembroke which reated to unseaworthiness.