lated his hon. and learned Friend on the | out to the Government what they conmajority he had just obtained on the sidered to be their shortcomings, and Schedule; but his hon. and learned what, after a certain time, the GovernFriend ought to feel grateful to Gen- ment always admitted to be such. tlemen on the Opposition Benches for Preamble agreed to. having saved him from being overwhelmed by his Friends. He had only to say that they on that-the Opposition -side would wait to see what was done upon the Report, reserving to themselves the right to take any course which they might deem expedient with respect to the Bill for the future. MR. HENLEY said, that in consequence of being a little hard of hearing, he did not clearly understand the Question when it was put on the last Division, and the consequence was that he went into the wrong Lobby. MR. HADFIELD said, he regretted exceedingly that the Government should be so much indebted for support in this matter to hon. Gentlemen opposite. MR. J. G. TALBOT asked when the Report would be considered. MR. GOSCHEN said, he wished to offer the thanks of that (the Ministerial) side of the House to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford for the opposition which he had made to Bills on this subject in previous years; for had it not been for the three years' delay they would not now have got such a liberal measure. MR. MOWBRAY said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) appeared to be over sanguine in drawing his conclusions. He seemed to think that a Bill that had passed through Committee in that House was already the law of the land. The right hon. Gentleman's rejoicings might be premature. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the negotiations between the Government and the Nonconformists, between the Government and the moderate Liberals at Cambridge, and between the Government and the extreme Liberals at Oxford were not yet concluded. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his congratulations were premature. MR. FAWCETT said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, if consistent, would not only thank the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, but also the Gentlemen below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman must, if consistent, thank them for having uniformly pointed Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next. STAMP DUTY ON LEASES BILL, [BILL 59.] COMMITTEE. MR. BOURKE said, it might be in the recollection of the House that early in the Session he called attention to the change that had been made in the administration of the law with regard to the stamping of certain deeds, and urged the necessity of immediate legislation. On that occasion he was supported in his views by several hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and on his own, and there seemed to be almost perfect unanimity as to the course the Government should adopt; indeed, only three hon. Members differed from him, and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) urged him to bring in a Bill. The observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time showed he had not been correctly informed on the matter; but, as the subject was connected with finance, he (Mr. Bourke) waited until the right hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill, and it was not until he found it was quite inadequate that he placed a number of Amendments on the Paper and obtained leave to bring in a Bill himself. The Bill and the Amendments were substantially the same, and although sweeping in character, they were not more so than the Amendments placed on the Paper by the Secretary to the Treasury. During the past three months the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been urged to proceed with the Bill, but he had excused his delay by pointing to the Amendments. At the eleventh hour, however, he (Mr. Bourke) found the Secretary to the Treasury had put Amendments on the Paper giving everything he had asked for in principle, and justifying the course he had taken. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer; his multifarious duties prevented his making that full inquiry into the stamp duties the occasion required; but now that he had acknowledged the soundness of the principle he (Mr. Bourke) and his Friends had laid down, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do justice to himself by permitting his Amendments to be clothed in workmanlike language. If the Amendments of the Secretary to the Treasury were passed as they stood the Bill would be a most miserable affair, creditable to none concerned. His (Mr. Bourke's) Bill, which stood for a second reading to-night, had been before the country three months, and had been approved by everybody who had given attention to the subject. Almost every legal society in the kingdom, including the Incorporated Law Society, had given to it the most cordial approval. The Bill of the Government, on the other hand, had gained no friends either in the House or the country, nor would it be acceptable to the public unless it was accompanied by his Amendments. The best course, however, would be to adopt his Bill; it consisted of only one clause, and would be intelligible to the meanest understanding. The 1st clause of the Government Bill was cut about in a most extraordinary manner, and the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to insert the words "or of any usual covenant in the Bill. It was impossible to say what "usual covenants were; they were most objectionable words, and no words had given rise to more litigation. With regard to the 2nd clause, about which they had been contending for the last three months, various Amendments had been placed on the Paper-one by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), another by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), and a third by the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Stansfeld). There was no provision in the Bill relating to counterparts, which had given rise to much the same doubts. There was another very serious defect in the Bill. He had received a letter from the Secretary to the Law Society of Manchester, describing the kind of tenure which existed there, under which almost all building operations were carried on. That tenure was a grant in fee reserving a rent; and as this Bill was confined to leases, and grants in fee were not leases, it would give no relief to Manchester. Under these circumstances, he Mr. Bourke hoped the Government would either accept his Amendments which were on the Paper, or allow his Bill to be read a second time. By adopting either course the Government would earn the thanks of the country, which they could not expect to have if they passed this Bill in its present shape. The stamp MR. HADFIELD said, he must support the general argument of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke). He thought this Bill very little creditable to the Government. It would not in its present shape remedy the grievance complained of. For 14 years after the Act of 1854 was passed by Sir Charles Wood, the Stamp Office did not know the meaning of their own Act, and hundreds of thousands of leases were granted in all parts of the country, which, by a recent decision, were invalid on account of the stamp. That was a serious state of things. duties yielded an enormous incomesome £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 a year— and the Government ought to make the law clear and simple, so that everyone might know what stamps Parliament imposed on his transactions. The case at present was so complicated that, to learn what stamp duty the law required, a denoting stamp was permissible at 108. or 208. duty, to certify that full duty had been paid, and in this clumsy way prevent doubt on the validity of the instrument. Such a state of things was intolerable. He hoped the Bill of the hon. Member for King's Lynn would be adopted. It was good sense, good grammar, and good law. The present Bill was hastily drawn, thrown on the Table in a most imperfect form, and, if proceeded with, certainly must be revised. SIR HEDWORTH WILLIAMSON said, he desired to thank the Government for having conceded all that had been asked for, and he also thought much credit was due to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), without whose able advocacy it was doubtful whether so much would have been obtained. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 (As to leases made before the 1st February 1870). MR. BOURKE said, he must repeat that the case of the Manchester deeds was excluded from it. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- | counterparts bore the same stamp as QUER said, the object of the Bill was leases, except that in no case could the to idemnify persons affected by the deci- stamp on the counterpart exceed 5s. sion of the Court of Exchequer as to Everything had been provided for that leases made before the 1st of February, the hon. and learned Member could 1870, and then to make the law the desire. The same gentlemen who had same as it was before. The hon. and waited upon the hon. and learned Genlearned Gentleman now wished to ex- tleman had also waited upon him, tend the operation of the Bill to trans- and he had laid their grievances before actions with respect to freehold, but that the Government, whom he had to thank would be going beyond the intentions of for the ready ear with which they had the Bill. listened to his statement, and had agreed to remedy the defects in the Bill which he pointed out. The measure was a fair and liberal one, and the boon it conferred ought to be thankfully received. MR. BOURKE said, those deeds had always been treated in the same way as leases. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the decision of the Court of Exchequer was confined to the case of leases, and it was not intended by the Bill to go further than indemnifying parties from loss in consequence of that decision. MR. RUSSELL GURNEY said, if the measure did not apply to the Manchester deeds, it ought to be made to apply to them. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he was not prepared to say that the decision of the Court of Exchequer did not apply to the Manchester deeds, as that question was not argued ; but in his opinion it did not. MR. BOURKE said, if the House did not legislate with respect to these deeds exactly the same doubts would arise in their case as in the case of leases. MR. STANSFELD said, the Bill was only intended to remove a grievance caused by a decision of a Court of Law; and he doubted whether it would be competent in them to insert such a provision as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed without a special instruction to the Committee. If, as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Manchester deeds had always been treated in the same way as leases, then the case was met by the Bill. MR. JESSEL said, he concurred in this view. This was a declaratory Bill. The Act 16 & 17 Vict. made the same duty payable upon a fee-farm reservation as was paid upon leases for 100 years; and, therefore the question raised was covered by this Bill. One objection of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bourke) was that counterparts were not provided for in the Bill. Had he, however, looked at the Stamp Act of the 13 & 14 Vict., c. 97, he would find that VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. CRAUFURD said, he thought that the meaning of the Bill as it stood at present was rather doubtful, and that it ought to be rendered clear and distinct. MR. DICKINSON said, he also thought that the law ought to be clearly laid down upon the point. MR. HADFIELD said, that lands were granted at Manchester and the neigbourhood on fee-farm rent, with a covenant to build, and, therefore, he thought that the same question might be raised as in the case before the Court of Exchequer. He hoped that the Secretary of the Treasury would turn his attention to the subject. MR. G.B. GREGORY said, he thought that the grievances that had been pointed out had been fairly met by the Bill. The decision in the Court of Exchequer was a most unfortunate one, and a society with which he was connected had been informed that it was very questionable. Some provision ought to be introduced into the Bill giving an appeal from the Court of Exchequer in such cases. He hoped that the question with regard to the Manchester deeds would be set at rest before the Bill left the House. MR. BOURKE said, he had considerable doubts as to whether the Bill would meet the case of the Manchester buildings; but he would leave the responsibility of the matter on the Government, and not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. MR. STAPLETON appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury to consider whether the effect of the Bill in that respect ought not to be made more clear and certain ? 3 S MR. STANSFELD said, that after what had been said by the Attorney General, he had no doubt that the Bill would cover the case alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke); but the matter would be farther considered. MR. CHARLEY, who had an Amendment to Clause 2 on the Paper, said he thought the latter part of it might be more properly introduced as an Amendment to the 1st clause. He would, therefore, move to add the following words as part of Clause 1 :— "And any person who, on or since the said first day of February and previously to the passing of this Act, shall have paid, in respect of such further consideration, the said Duty of thirty-five shillings, shall be entitled to claim from, and shall be repaid by, the said Commissioners the difference between such last-mentioned Duty and the duty of ten shillings chargeable as aforesaid." He would not press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would promise that the interest of those whom he wanted to protect would not be forgotten. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he shipping, and he admitted that the sewished to support the appeal of the cond demand was very largely though hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed not entirely complied with in the present (Mr. Stapleton). Bill. He gave the hon. Gentleman every credit for the care and ability he had brought to bear on the preparation of the Bill; but some finishing touches to the work was still required, and he trusted the measure would pass the House in so complete a shape that no further legislation on this subject would be necessary for many years to come. The law relating to the settlement of accounts between the shipowner and the shipmaster ought to be very simple; but under the existing system it was complex. There were the amounts due for wages, disbursements, and the liabilities incurred by the master. The Bill gave the master a lien on the ship; but in regard to the second matter he would have to look into the Admiralty Court Act of 1861 for guidance, and in regard to the third he would find there was no statute law affecting it, and that the late and present Judges of the Admiralty Court had given conflicting decisions on the question. He cheerfully admitted that most of the alterations proposed by the Bill were improvements, and would bring the law more in accordance with the circumstances of the present time. He regretted, however, that the Secretary to the Board of Trade had not grappled with the whole subject of ownership of British vessels. The present state of the law, and the rapid development of steam vessels was surely transferring the whole carrying trade to limited liability companies, and he trusted some changes would be made in the law, so that single owners of vessels might not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with shareholders in limited liability companies. It was advisable under these circumstances, that the law should fix the liabiThe present state of the law also exerlity on those who should justly bear it. cised a deteriorating influence on the quality of British seamen. The Bill required amendment in several points, but he thanked the Secretary to the Board of Trade for many provisions in his measure, and he hoped that when the Bill came into Committee the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would be willing to adopt some of the improvements that would be suggested. He especially thanked the hon. Gentleman for the changes he proposed to make in the MR. STANSFELD said, he could give his hon. and learned Friend the assurance he desired. As a matter of course the extra stamp duty, if paid, would be returned. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 161.] MERCHANT SHIPPING CODE BILL. (Mr. Bright, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Stansfeld.) [BILL 24.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.) MR. RATHBONE said, that if the House agreed to the second reading he hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would give them an opportunity of debating the measure on the Motion for going into Committee. The shipping interest had for many years urged upon the Board of Trade the necessity for amendment and for consolidation of the laws affecting Mr. Stapleton laws affecting Courts of Inquiry into the causes of losses at sea, and the courage with which he had dealt with several of the decisions come to by Courts of Inquiry. The hon. Gentleman had, by his action, in this respect, shown that, however bad a law may be, judicious administration may correct it. Errors of judgment were, under the present law, punished as crimes-a practice from which one's sense of justice revolted. He heartily supported the second reading of the Bill. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he desired to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government respecting the difficult position in which this Bill was now placed. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not desire it to be supposed that the Government were indifferent to all measures-however important-which had no connection with party interests. This Bill was of the highest moment. It affected the whole of our vast shipping trade and the lives of our 200,000 seamen. It contained 700 clauses, and he was sure that he should not be misunderstood when he said such a measure ought not to be brought forward except by a Department at the head of which was a responsible Minister of the Crown. No one could possibly lament more than he did the visitation of Providence which had deprived them of the presence of the distinguished Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade. No one could admit more readily than he did the ability with which that Department had been represented in that House by the Secretary to the Board. But, nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was a young and inexperienced Member of the House, and he (Sir John Pakington) submitted that it was not consistent with Parliamentary practice that a Bill of such magnitude as this should be entrusted to any but a responsible Minister of the Crown. Moreover, what prospect was there that, at the present advanced period of the Session-with the Education Bill, and other measures of indispensable importance to be disposed of justice could be done to a Bill such as this, dealing with a variety of extremely important questions. As far back as the beginning of May he felt it his duty to bring a portion of this subject under the notice of the House, when he made most painful statements, which had not since been impugned, and concluded by moving for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into certain matters connected with this great and complicated question. He was opposed, however, by the Government, who refused to accede to the Motion, on the ground that a Bill relating to the subject was already before the House. On that occasion he might remark several hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), fully agreed with him that an inquiry was necessary, although they thought it could be conducted by a Select Committee better than by a Royal Commission as he had proposed. Six weeks had elapsed since that Motion, and now, in the middle of June, they were asked to read the Bill the second time. That was not the manner in which such a subject should be dealt with. He would beg to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that the most prudent course would be to withdraw the Bill, and to institute an inquiry. If inquiry were now to take place legislation would properly follow in the next Session; and he was convinced not only that nothing would be lost, but that much would be gained by the delay, for hurried legislation was never effective. MR. SAMUDA said, while he felt great sympathy with the hope of the right hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House, that an inquiry would be set on foot, he could not see that that was a sufficient reason for preventing the passage of a measure which would confer great advantages on the country generally. The object of the right hon. Baronet, when he brought forward his Motion some weeks ago, was to obtain a general inquiry into all matters connected with the large loss of life which mainly resulted from the overloading of ships and the sending of them to sea in an unseaworthy condition or improperly equipped. He himself believed that enormous loss resulted from this, and, indeed, he laid before the House statistics showing that last year, in the Baltic trade alone, no fewer than 22 vessels out of 282 were lost. He granted that inquiry was needed to ascertain the causes of this loss, but a proper investigation would extend over a long period; and here he might take occasion to remark that whereas the right hon. Gentleman |