The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-03 00:00:00

of this country to the great importance of having cables and
chains in use which had been adequately tested he had done
a very good service. He had read over some of the evidence,
and he agreed in the main with the opinion to which the
committee appeared to have come. He would read the
mean recommendation of the committee. They stated

" that although they cannot overrate the advantage of hav-
ing the chains of every vessel subjected to a test, they are
unwilling to recommend that the test should be made com-
pulsory." Now, in that lay the whole question. If he were
a shipowner, he should certainly desire that every chain
cable he used should be properly tested to see what strain
it would bear ; but if the plan of the hon. baronet were car-
ried out—if the test were made compulsory—contrary to the
recommendation of his own committee, a very great deal of
inconvenience and expense would be occasioned to ship-
owners, and it would be necessary to have at the various
ports throughout the country Government officials to see
that the cables and anchors of every ship were properly
marked. Then, where was this supervision to end ? There

must be some limit. If the Government were to test the

anchors and chains, why not also the masts and spars ?
(No I) Where one vessel went to sea with a defective

anchor or chain, many were provided with defective spars
and masts. (No I) It would be necessary, therefore, first to
inquire what proportion of wrecks were caused by defective
anchors and chains, and what by bad masts and spars. He
believed that very few wrecks in proportion were caused by
imperfect chains and anchors. It was said that the anchors
and chains of men-of-war rarely failed. But they were
made much heavier than those in the merchant service, and
it could not be intended that merchant vessels, will their
small crews, should carry these heavy anchors and chains.
He should say that, as a rule, merchant vessels were sup-
plied with anchors and chains that were too light. All the
service that could be rendered in a matter of this kind the
hon. gentleman (Sir J. Elphinstone) had performed by call-
ing public attention to this subject. He doubted the policy
of any legislative measure, and thought that the committee
had come to a wise decision when they recommended
Parliament not to subject the chains and cables of
merchant vessels to any compulsory test. He thought
it would be very impolitic to place any such resolution-
on their Journals as that it was the duty of the Go-
vernment "to insure that all sea-going vessels, espe-
cially those employed in the carriage of passengers, shall ba
sufficiently supplied with anchors and chains properly tested
as to strength and workmanship." He must, therefore, ask
the house not to agree to the motion.

Mr. BENTINCK wished to bear testimony to the ability
and energy with which his hon. friend (Sir J. Elphinstone)
had brought this matter before the house. (Hear, hear.)
The importance of this subject had, he thought, been un—
derrated by the President of the Board of Trade, who had.
not controverted the statement that a large proportion of
wrecks on the coast were caused by defective anchors and
cables. He believed it had been shown that a large loss of
life might be averted if the Government took the requisite
precautions, and upon them, therefore, rested the respon-
sibility or whatever loss of life might be attributable to this,.
cause. It was proved that 821 per cent. of the chains in
use that were tested at one of the seaport towns failed under
a smaller strain than they ought to bear. On the coast with
which the right hon. gentleman was best acquainted, hun-
dreds of light colliers had nothing but their anchors and
chains to trust to in a gale, and went ashore like a snowdrift
. . .

if their chains and anchors failed them. The professionar
evidence was all one way. It establish, d that a great loss
of life took place on the coast of England, owing to the de-
fects of anchors and chains, particularly the latter, and
that there was but one way for the Government to take the.
matter up—namely, by making the test compulsory. The
right hon. gentleman altogether rested his case on the fact
that the committee did not recommend that the test;
should be compulsory. He (Mr. Bentinck) had in the
committee opposed this paragraph of the ,report, believ-
ing that the committee, in hesitating to recommend
the compulsory test, were shrinking from a responsibility'
that they were bound to undertake. (Hear, hear.) So long'
as the Government, with the evidence they had before them,
refused to deal with the question, he considered that they
would be responsible for the casualties and loss of life which
occurred from the badness of chains and anchors. The
right hon. gentleman said that the proposal would entail
inconvenience to the shipowners. " Inconvenience" seemed-
to be an odd word to use under the circumstances. If it was
inconvenient for the shipowners to submit to regulations by'
which anchori and chains might be tested, it was a male
greater inconvenience for men to be drowned and ships to
be lost in consequence of the want of good anchors and
chains. The right hon. gentleman proposed to leave the
matter to the shipowners, but that was exactly the presenP
state of affairs and it was because the shipowners were too
short-sighted and indifferent that the hon. member for
Portsmouth called upon the Government to make up for
their want of energy, foresight, and humanity. The house
had just been told that merchant ;vessels, being short-
handed, could not carry the same anchors and chains as
men-of-war; but the question was not the weight and pro-
portion of the anchors—it was the defective character of the
chains and the systematic frauds practised by a great num-
ber of chainmakers in this country. The honest chain--
makers, being damaged to a certain extent by these fraudu-
lent proceedings, desired to have some regulation estab-
lished, by which the work of the honest man might be dis-
tinguished from that of the fraudulent dealer. A large
amount of life and property was annually sacrificed in con
sequence of this fraudulent system, and all the evidence went
to show that the evil might be averted by the adoption of
some plan of compulsory testing; and he had heard nothing
from the right hon. gentleman to justify the Government
in saying that they considered themselves exonerated from
any responsibility in not attempting to deal with the fraudu-
lent practices, which led annually to great loss of property
and life. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET thought that the hon. member for Nor-
folk had not dealt fairly with the observations of the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade ; for, instead of saying that
the matter was of trivial consequence, the President of the'
Board of Trade acknowledged the importance of the
subject, and stated that he was glad that the mem-
ber for Portsmouth had brought it under the considera-
tion of the house. What the President of the Board
of Trade objected to was, that the Government should take
on themselves the entire responsibility of testing anchors
and cables for the merchant service. If they did so they
must test those articles, not only when they were new, but
after they had been used for a certain number of years, so
that it might be ascertained that they were in good working'
order. He agreed with his right hon. friend in thinking
that if the Government interfered in this sort of way with
the trade of the country they would have the shipowners in
a body complaining that their liberty of action was tram-
melled and controlled by the Government of the day.
(Hear.) No one was a better judge of what the shipowners
thought of interference on the part of the Government than
his right hon. friend. Not long since the Merchant Ship-
ping Act provided various regulations with respect to.
passenger vessels, and the Government had never ceased,
to hear from the shipowners that that was an undue inter-
ference with private trade, and a great inconvenience to the
shipowners without any public advantage. If the Govern-
ment were to undertake to test anchors and chains, they
must supervise other matters and see that all vessels had.
proper pumps, masts, and sails. He was extremely glad
that this subject had been brought before the house, because
he trusted the discussion would induce underwriters not to
insure ships which were not properly found. (Hear.)
Sir M. SEYMOUR was at a loss to understand how such
a test as that proposed by the hon. member for Portsmouth
could be applied as he desired, and he should therefore be
unable to support the view which he advocated.
Mr. HASSARD hoped the hon. member for Portsmouth
would press his motion to a division.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE thought it hard that the Govern-
ment seeing that restrict'ons were imposed in the case of
mills and other various descriptions of machinery, in the safe
working of which human life was involved, should refuse to
provide similar safeguards in the case of chain cables.
The motion was then negatived without a division.
DERRYVEAGH EVICTIONS.

Mr. BUTT moved a resolution,—That having regard to
the papers laid before this house in relation to the evictions
which have recently taken place on the lands of Derry-
veagh, in the county of Donegal, the nature and extent of
those evictions, and the allegations as to the causes by
which they are said to have been produced, it is expedient
that a full and efficient inquiry should be instituted into
all the circumstances attending these transactions. In sup-
port of the motion he repeated details of the transaction
which were brought before the house in a recent debate.
Mr. CAR DWELL reiterated the arguments he had em-
ployed on that occasion. That, he observed, was a motion
for inquiry with a definite object—to remove Mr. Adair
from the commission of the peace, which the house rejected.
The present motion was likewise for an inquiry, but not
with a view to any result, nor was any statement made as
to its object. Ile could not advise the house to agree to
this motion, or to do otherwise than adhere to the opinion
it expressed the other night.
Mr M. O'Ferrall, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Scully,
and Mr. W. Forster spoke in support of the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON observed that Parliament, pos-
sessed as it was of large powers, ought to be very careful
in the exercise of them, and not overstep the bounds pre •
scribed by the constitution. He held that it would be a
most outrageous abuse of tho power of the house to inter-
fere with the private transactions of individuals and the
actions of men within the limits of their legal rights. The
only object of the proposed inquiry was the exercise by Mr.
Adair of an unquestioned right of ejecting his tenants. If
he had exceeded his legal power, the tenants had their
remedy by process of law. It was, however, admitted that
he had acted within the limits of his rights, and no proper
ground had therefore been laid for inquiry.
Mr. BUTT having replied, the house divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority 65
The motion was therefore lost.
Mr. CARDWELL obtained leave to bring in certain
Irish bills, and
Mr. PEEL brought in a bill to make arrangements as to
the disposal and management of property belonging to the
University of Edinburgh.
Certain bills were forwarded a stage, and the house ad-
journed at five minutes past one o'clock.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE Sux Office, No. 112,Strano,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of buicileuelt
WeclueuGlay, July 3, 1861,