Commons Sitting of 14 March 1871

MINUTES.
— NEW MEMBER SWORN — Right hon. James Stansfeld, for Halifax.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2)*.
Ordered — First Reading — Medical Act (1858) Amendment* [72].
Second Reading — Poor Law (Loans)* [68]; Trades Unions [28]; Income Tax Assessment * [64].
Committee—Report—Private Chapels [37].
Considered as amended—Stamp Act (1870) Amendment * [46].
Third Reading—Fairs* [60], and passed.

METROPOLIS—THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. HEYGATEasked the First Commissioner of Works, What steps have been taken since November 1870 to secure the completion of the Wellington Monument by some sculptor of established eminence?
MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that the subject had been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of making some arrangement to secure the object mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member. Her Majesty's Government had not yet arrived at any final determination. He was informed that they would do so in the course of a few days, and that the Papers relating to the arrangement would then be laid on the Table of the House.

ADJUSTMENT OF LOCAL BURDENS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ACLANDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When it is probable that the Bill on the adjustment of Local Burdens, referred to in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, will be introduced?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Bill on the adjustment of local burdens — a subject which I think has been completely mastered by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty—will continue to receive his attention, notwithstanding his change of office. With regard to the date of its introduction, I cannot yet name a day until we have read the Army Regulation Bill a second time, and made some progress with the Army Estimates; but it is our confident intention to introduce the Bill on some day before the Easter holydays.

THE INDIA OFFICE MUSEUM.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the zoological collections in the India Office Museum will be accessible to zoologists, as it contains types which the progress of zoology renders it desirable to consult; and, when the next sheet of the Indian Atlas will be published, some years having elapsed since the last sheet appeared?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's first Question, I have to say that the zoological collections belonging to the Secretary of State in Council are, to a certain extent, even now available to men of science, who can readily obtain permission to examine them. They examine them, however, I am sorry to say, under great difficulties, and difficulties of which I do not see the end; for even if the Secretary of State

  1981
  in Council were to erect on his property in Charles Street, as he has sometimes been advised to do, a building more worthy to contain the great museum and library which he possesses than the garrets in which they are now stowed away, nearly the whole available space would be occupied by those Indian productions which it is important to bring under the notice of the commercial classes in this country, and pure science would, I fear, come off very badly. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's second question, I have to say that the last sheets of the Indian Atlas—or, rather, quarter sheets, seven in number—were published on the 7th of September, 1870, and that another sheet (No. 114), one-half of which is new matter, will be published to-morrow.
  COLONEL SYKESasked, Whether the zoological collections were not really boxed up?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes; they are.

ARMY—WEST INDIAN, CAPE MOUNTED, AND CANADIAN RIFLE REGIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DEASEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the officers of the recently disbanded West Indian, Cape Mounted, and Royal Canadian Rifle Regiments, compulsorily placed on half-pay, and who may be desirous of retiring from the service, will receive the over-regulation sums current in their late regiments, and which they would have obtained had their regiments not been disbanded?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: In the unavoidable absence of the Secretary of State for War, I will, with the permission of the House, answer the Question that has been just put. The over-regulation price is given by the Bill to those officers who would receive it if the Bill did not pass. Every case will be decided by the Commissioners.

CASE OF THE "EPAMINONDAS."

  QUESTION.
  MR. PLIMSOLLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the committal to prison for three months by the magistrates of South Shields, on Wednesday last, of ten seamen
  1982
  for refusing to proceed to Genoa in the "Epaminondas," alleged by them to be unseaworthy, and admitted by the second mate to be making two and a-half inches of water per hour; whether it is true, as alleged, that the "Epaminondas" had grounded twice before sailing, after being loaded, requiring on the first occasion the assistance of three steam-tugs to get her off; whether it is true, as alleged, that the magistrates refused the application made on behalf of the men that the hearing should be postponed a day to enable them to obtain legal assistance; and, whether, if the facts are as stated in the Shields Paper, it is his intention to direct a re-hearing of the case?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that as the Question had been put on the Paper only that morning, it was quite impossible for him to communicate with the magistrates; but if the Question were postponed he should be happy, to put the House in possession of the answer he might receive.

EXPLOSION AT THE SOUTH WALES COLLIERY.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Coroner's Inquest, which commenced on the 5th instant and is now proceeding, to inquire into the death of Frances Bendall, caused by a Colliery explosion, which took place on the 20th February last at the South Wales Colliery, Cwmtilly near Newport, South Wales; and, if so, whether he has been informed of the fact that the Coroner before whom the said inquest is being held is a shareholder in the said Colliery Company; and whether he has taken, or is prepared to take, any steps to prevent so irregular a proceeding?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he had received a letter complaining of the conduct of a coroner who was at that moment conducting an inquest into a matter in which he was said to be personally interested. The answer that he had given was that he had no power to prevent a coroner from holding an inquest, and that any complaint of improper conduct should be brought under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, who had power to remove him if he thought proper. He (Mr. Bruce) might add that,

1983
in his opinion, wherever a coroner was personally interested in an inquiry over which he presided—he was not prepared to say it was so in the present case—it was his duty to appoint a deputy.

IRELAND—OUTRAGE IN MAYO.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN DAWSON-DAMERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question, of which he had given private Notice, Whether, in consequence of the murder which was committed in the County of Mayo on Saturday last, and the Ribandism prevailing in that county, the Government are prepared to move that it be an Instruction to the West-meath Committee to consider the state of the County of Mayo also?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Government have at present formed no intention of extending the scope of the inquiry of the Committee. It is quite true that this morning we received a Report of a very horrible, and, I fear, fatal outrage in the county of Mayo; but under any circumstances that particular outrage could not properly form part of the subject of the inquiry by the Committee, inasmuch as it may, and I hope will, become the subject of a judicial inquiry. With regard to the county of Mayo itself, I may state that though outrages have not entirely ceased, still there has been a very great and satisfactory improvement in its general condition. That improvement was alluded to by the Judge in his recent charge to the Grand Jury. Under the circumstances I do not see any reason at present for including the county of Mayo within the scope of the Westmeath Committee.

CONDUCT OF WAR ON LAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to put a Question to the hon. Member for East Surrey with regard to his Notice of Motion as to the rules for the conduct of War on Land. As it refers particularly to a proceeding which my hon. Friend wishes to urge upon the Government I am bound to say I do not think would be possible at this moment, when two of the greatest Powers of Europe are about to engage in negotiations for the settlement of definitive terms of peace, even if all difficulties were removed
  1984
  out of the way, for Her Majesty's Government to take any such step as my hon. Friend has in view. Though the question of the rules of war by land is one not unfitted to be introduced to the notice of the House at a seasonable time, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that, founded as it probably would be at this moment on the recital of facts which might be very much contested, and which would be of a character very difficult to handle without giving pain or offence on one side or on both, such a discussion might be somewhat prejudicial to the cause my hon. Friend has at heart?
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he could not think of refusing to accede to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman. He would therefore postpone the Motion until after Easter. The subject was one of the greatest importance, and he fully intended to take the greatest care in handling it.

THE MAGISTRATES OF PERSHORE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he had put into the hands of the Home Secretary a Letter from one who was present on the occasion of the trial, and had seen the depositions, and given a very different account from that furnished to the right hon. Gentleman. He wished now to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause further inquiry to be made into the facts?
  MR. BRUCEreplied that he should be very happy to cause further inquiry to be made if it would lead to any satisfactory result. But though the accuracy of his Answer the other evening had, in some particulars, been questioned, the substance of it had not—namely, that the woman pleaded "Guilty" to a charge of stealing faggots, that one of the witnesses stated that he had heard her say that she had stolen more on the previous night, and that the magistrates had passed a sentence upon her of seven days' imprisonment. The only course which he could take with respect to the magistrates, if he considered their conduct unworthy of their position, would be to report them to the Lord Chancellor, and ask to have them removed from the commission of the peace. He did not think the facts would justify any such proceeding.

OFFICIAL SALARIES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. LAMBERT, in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Salaries and Emoluments of Offices held during the pleasure of the Crown by Members of either House of Parliament voted in the annual Estimates, said, the House would recollect that last Session he brought forward a Motion touching the salary of the First Minister of the Crown, which he withdrew after consideration, thinking it would be better to move for an Inquiry into Official Salaries generally, and also for other reasons, which he need not enter into. At the time he withdrew it, he gave Notice that he would, at the earliest opportunity this Session, move for a Committee to inquire into Official Salaries. The Motion was now before the House. His reasons for bringing it forward were short and simple, and he would not take up the time of the House with lengthy statistics. The first reason he should give was, that there had been no inquiry into the subject for 20 years, when there was a Select Committee in 1850. There was an inquiry previous to that by a Committee in 1830, 20 years anterior, when, by their recommendations, salaries were materially reduced, and had, with little alteration, remained at that reduction until the present time—exactly 40 years. To show this, he must give the House a few figures, with some of the leading salaries during that period. In 1830 the salaries were—for the office of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, then united, £10,400; for the Home Office, £6,000; for the Foreign Office, £6,000; for the Colonial Office, £6,000. In 1850, the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer were separated, each having £5,000 a-year. The salary for the Home Office was reduced to £5,000, as were also the salaries for the Foreign and Colonial Offices. In 1870 the salaries of those officers remained the same. Whilst the salaries had remained stationary during the 40 years, the country had not been standing still; it had been increasing in wealth and prosperity in a manner truly astonishing. The Revenue had increased from £50,933,000 in 1831 net to £75,674,000 net in 1870, and the population from 24,392,000 in 1831 to 30,964,000 in 1871,
  1986
  estimating the decade 1861 to 1871 at the same rate of increase as the three previous decades—that is, about 7,000,000 in the 40 years, and this notwithstanding the large emigration which had taken place. As the wealth and prosperity of the country had increased, there could be no doubt that the duties and responsibilities of the holders of these salaries had also considerably increased; while, at the same time, the expenses of living had largely increased during the 40 years. Hence, the necessity for some inquiry into the subject. He proposed that the inquiry of the Committee be limited to the Salaries and Emoluments of Offices held during the pleasure of the Crown by Members of either House of Parliament, voted in the annual Estimates. He withdrew the latter part of his Motion—namely, and also the Salaries and Emoluments of Judicial Offices in the Superior Courts of Law and Equity in the United Kingdom, and into the Retiring Pensions allotted to Judges—as a Judicature Commission was now sitting, and it was unnecessary to have two inquiries on the same subject. With the permission of the House, he would read a Minute from the Report of the Committee of 1830 on this subject, which very clearly defined the principle which should be acted upon in fixing the amount of salary of public officers. The Select Committee of 1830 stated, at page 447—
  "It is impossible not to recognize in its fullest extent the principle that the people have a right to have their service done at the smallest possible expense consistent with its efficient performance. In short, all the Departments of Government should be watched with the same view to economy in general which any individual would apply to the management of his own affairs. No consideration of mere money can be set in competition with the paramount evident necessity of securing for offices of great trust and confidence the highest class of intelligence and integrity. It has been frequently observed—and the observation being founded on truth and reason should never be lost sight of, that offices in a free country should not be put beyond the means of men of moderate fortunes. If salaries should be fixed too low a monopoly would be created in the hands of the wealthy, the power of selection by the Crown would be most injuriously restricted, and the public would be deprived of the services of men of limited means, educated with a view to the pursuit of liberal professions, a class furnishing more than any other the talents and industry suited to official life. It should further be considered that the higher offices of Government require an entire devotion of the whole time and attention of those who fill them; that their own private affairs must necessarily be neglected, and that, if care should

  1987
  be taken, on the one hand, to avoid the scandal of private fortunes amassed at the public expense, it is neither for the interest nor the honour of the country, on the other hand, that they should be ruined in its service."
  He thought that some of the present salaries were too low—some might be too high. He would not trouble the House by going into the details of salaries, for that would be the duty of the Committee, should the House please to appoint it. To bear out his views he must take one single case, and he thought he could not do better than take that which was first on the list—that of the First Minister of the Crown, which was £5,000 per annum. He had been long enough in that House to see and appreciate the calls on the mental and physical powers of the First Minister of the Crown. Holding the highest official appointment under the Crown, he was the leading man in the country, and must have the greatest ability and judgment to manage the affairs of this great nation. The grave responsibility of the office was only equalled by the work it entailed. In the House of Commons, whether it was during the day, at midnight, or the small hours in the morning, there he must be either answering Questions or watching or taking part in the debates. His duties did not cease when he left the House, or when Parliament was not sitting, and his labours and responsibilities were, perhaps, the greatest that could fall to the lot of any man, whether it were the right hon. Gentleman he sat near, or the right hon. Gentleman, his Colleague, the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) who sat opposite to him. It was pretty well admitted that the sum of £5,000 was quite an inadequate remuneration for the heavy work and expenses attached to the office of Prime Minister. He, moreover, suffered indirectly by having no time to devote to his private affairs. He believed that the position of Prime Minister of this country was almost open to any individual in it who had great ability, industry, judgment, and perseverance. If, however, he should arrive at this distinguished position, he might find that the expense attached to it, if he should not have a good private fortune, so far exceed the allowance that he might be ruined by it. With the permission of the House he would now read some Minutes of Evi-
  1988
  dence of the Commitee of 1850, and there had been no inquiry into the subject since. Sir Robert Peel, in his evidence before that Committee, said—
  "In 1830 it was proposed by the Committee of that year that, when the two offices of First Lord and Chancellor of the Exchequer were united, there should be a saving in the double salary of £2,500—that is to say, that the person holding the two offices together should receive £7,500 a-year; and, in consequence of that suggestion of the Committee, I received at the rate of £7,500 a-year during the period I held office. When reappointed to office, in 1841, I determined not to undertake the double duties after my experience of them in 1834–5. The salaries of the Secretaries of State were formerly £6,000; they were reduced in 1830 to £5,000 a-year."
  In reply to the Chairman, he added—
  "Lord North, Mr. Pitt, and Lord Liverpool, when Prime Ministers, held also the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. I believe that in 1780 the emoluments of Lord North as Prime Minister were not less than £10,400 a-year. Those emoluments and advantages have ceased."
  The patronage of the Prime Minister did not in the slightest diminish the personal expenditure. He did not deny the extent of the power or value of patronage; but he did not think they ought to be considered as equivalents for salary. A salary sufficient to enable the holder of it to maintain his office with a certain degree of dignity ought to be attached to it. Again, Lord John Russell said—
  "The general principle to be kept in view certainly is that you should not narrow too much your choice of public servants. If you say you will not give a salary which shall be sufficient without the possession of a very considerable private fortune, of course you limit the choice of the most important public servants to men who have good private fortunes. I know, for my own part, I never had a debt in my life until I was First Lord of the Treasury. I have now paid it off. But it is necessary to make some outlay in taking one of these great offices unless you have large private fortune. Question.—Is it within your Lordship's knowledge that several persons have suffered materially in their private fortunes by holding office, even those who have held office for many years? Answer.—I believe that certainly is the case, and I believe that every man who has been in public office would say that it is impossible to pay the same attention to your private affairs when you are holding political office, and in consequence of that I believe it is that many persons have found their private affairs much injured. One can well understand if a man is extravagant and is high in office that he may get into great difficulties; but men who do not seem to have any taste for extravagant expenses have injured their private fortunes. Question.—With respect to the whole of those First Lords of the Treasury whom your Lordship has now enumerated, with the exception of those who had large

  1989
  private estates, is it not a matter of notoriety that they all died in debt? Answer.—I believe that to be the case.
  He would ask the House if there was any ground to show that the salary of the Prime Minister should be so much less now than it was in the time of Lord Liverpool, Lord North, and Mr. Pitt, when it was £10,400 per annum? On the contrary, the duties of the office had increased with the increase of the population of this great country, and the expense of living had very much increased, as he had already shown. The following was a list of the highest judicial salaries and the annuities attached to them. Judicial salaries paid out of the Consolidated Fund — Lord Chancellor, including £4,000 as Speaker of the House of Lords, £10,000; two Judges of Appeal in Chancery, each £6,000; Master of the Bolls, £6,000; Chief Justice, Queen's Bench, £8,000; Chief Justice, Common Pleas, £7,000; Lord Chief Baron, Court of Exchequer, £7,000; total of the seven salaries, £50,000. The following annuities were paid from the Consolidated Fund for life, on retiring from office, in 1870:—Lord Chancellor, four receiving £5,000; Lord Justice of Appeal in Chancery, £3,750; Lord Chief Baron, Court of Exchequer, £3,750; Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas, £3,750; Puisne Judge, Queen's Bench, two receiving £3,500; Puisne Judge, Common Pleas, £3,500; Vice Chancellor, £3,500; total annual payment of these annuities, £41,750. He now came to the list of official salaries, and he found them to be as follows:—First Lord of Treasury and Chancellor of Exchequer, united, 1830, £10,400; First Lord of Treasury, 1850, £5,000; 1871, £5,000; Chancellor of Exchequer, 1850, £5,000; 1871, £5,000; Secretary of Home Office, 1830, £6,000; 1850, £5,000; 1871, £5,000; Secretary of Foreign Office, 1830, £6,000; 1850, £5,000; 1871, £5,000; Secretary of Colonial Office, 1830, £6,000; 1850, £5,000; 1871, £5,000. Attached to these offices was a first-class pension not exceeding £2,000 per annum, in respect of a service of not less than four years. Nothing could be further from his intention than to imply that the eminent men who held judicial offices were over-paid; but what he contended was that the Prime Minister, with a less salary than any of those he had named,
  1990
  was under-paid. The sum of £5,000 per year was quite out of character with the duties of the leading man in this country, which far exceeded those of anyone in importance and responsibility. He maintained that the dignity and independence of the office very much depended on the amount of remuneration, and if that were insufficient the Prime Minister might be embarrassed with financial difficulties which would, to a certain extent, interfere with the efficient performance of the duties of the office. Many with whom he had spoken, both in and out of this House, had strongly expressed their opinion that the salary of the Prime Minister was too low, and that as his was the highest official position in the country, it ought to have a high official salary attached to it. He believed it was very far from the wish of this House and of the people of this great nation that our leading public men, on whom the very welfare of the country so much depended, and of whom we were so justly proud, should be inadequately remunerated for their services. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Motion.
  MR. DILLWTNseconded the Motion because he thought it desirable that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the matter. He argued that some of the salaries paid to our Ministers were less than they should be; and if this were found to be the case, it would be unworthy of a great country like this to continue to underpay them. It might be shown that some of our Ministers—the Law Officers, for instance—were overpaid as well as underpaid; and he thought some information might be obtained which would be well worthy the attention of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Salaries and Emoluments of Offices held during the pleasure of the Crown by Members of either House of Parliament voted in the annual Estimates,"—(Mr. Lambert,)
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he hoped the Committee would be appointed. The economical question was, perhaps, that of the least importance in this inquiry; but the Committee might inquire whether salaries might not be reduced as well as increased, and whether some offices might not with advantage be abolished. Considering that this was an era of excessive expenditure, he hoped

  1991
  the result of the investigation of the Committee would be that if they did not recommend a reduction of the annual charge, they would not recommend an increase. He thought the opportunity might be afforded of carrying out an administrative reform of greater importance than saving a few thousands a-year. In his opinion the time had come when the salaries of all the higher officers of State should be reviewed, from this point of view, that the heads of all the Departments should be placed in a position of exact equality. Nothing was more improper or anomalous than that the President of the Poor Law Board should receive only £2,000 a-year, whilst the Secretary for the Colonies received £5,000 a-year. If the President of the Poor Law Board was sufficiently paid, the Secretary for the Colonies was enormously overpaid. If the Secretary for the Colonies was only sufficiently paid, then the President of the Poor Law Board was, to a corresponding extent, underpaid. At the present moment no Department of the State was more important, and none better tested the qualities of a statesman, than that of the President of the Poor Law Board. Not only ought he to be an accomplished financier, but to be master of the most abstruse principles of economic science. Yet the Presidency of the Poor Law Board was considered a comparatively inferior position to that of Colonial Secretary. The consequence was that if the President of the Poor Law Board, having a salary of only £2,000, did his work well, before he had been in office a couple of years he established a claim for promotion, and was removed to another office, however great the disadvantage to the administration of the Poor Law. A practical illustration of this system had just occurred. There was nothing he regretted more deeply than the removal of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) from the Poor Law Board. He was doing his work with great distinction. Had he been allowed to remain there two years longer he would probably have grappled effectually with the great problem of pauperism, and in the diminution of pauperism the country would have seen the advantage of his remaining in that office. Having, however, distinguished himself greatly in office, it was felt that he had a claim for promotion,
  1992
  and that it would be ungenerous to place a man over his head in the Cabinet. Now, if all the heads of Departments were equally paid, whether by £3,000, £4,000, or £5,000 a-year, all taking the same rank, and being, perhaps, called Secretary of State, the public service would not suffer as it now did from these constant and repeated removals. He had been told that, considering the great variety of complicated problems in the Poor Law Office and the intricate questions of administrative details arising there, it was impossible for any Minister to learn his work well, and get a sufficient grasp of the cases with which he had to deal, in less than one and a-half or two years. But the right hon. Member (Mr. GK Hardy), who gained a great reputation at the head of the Poor Law Board, and was carrying through many most useful reforms, was taken from the Department and made Home Secretary; and the Department had been sacrificed in just the same way now; so that if the head of the Poor Law Board showed himself an efficient administrator, the Board lost the value of his services.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had given the debate this turn. He (Mr. Rathbone) thought the system of treating some of the most important Departments of the State as stepping-stones to other Departments most fatal to the good management of the affairs of the country. If the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) had remained at the Poor Law Board it could hardly be doubted that there would have been an entire reform in the Poor Law system years ago. When a similar result was expected from the experience of the late President (Mr. Goschen) the country was again disappointed, for he had been removed to a Department in which all his experience would be of no use, and his place had been supplied by a Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) who had displayed the highest abilities, but his experience had been gained in other Departments, and perhaps one of his greatest successes was in the Department of the Admiralty, to which the late President of the Poor Law Board had been transferred. There was a fear—he might almost say a terror — throughout the country lest the Vice President of the Committee of

  1993
  Council should be promoted during the recent changes, and the country lose the benefit of his services at the Education Office. Last year the right hon. Member for Bradford carried a Bill for national education, which was by no means satisfactory to many of his supporters; but perhaps the most distinguishing feature of that measure was that it gave the Minister for Education enormous and despotic powers for carrying it out. But those powers were given, in a great degree, from the reliance on the idea that the right hon. Gentleman would himself carry out the provisions of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought that the expectations of the country would have been accomplished if the Education Department had been made into a first-class Department, and if the right hon. Member for Bradford had been placed at the head of it. He did not look upon these matters as being the fault of the Government, or, indeed, of any Government—it was the system that was to blame. It was easy to tell a private Member who called attention to the subject that there were admirable reasons for certain official changes; but it was impossible to persuade the country, so long as these anomalies existed, that promotion most advantageous to the public service was not frequently interfered with by Ministerial etiquette.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he had listened with some surprise to the proposal and the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lambert) who brought forward the present Motion. He had always understood that the policy of the great Liberal party was a policy of economy and retrenchment; but what had happened? Simply this, that proposals were made every day from the Liberal side of the House involving additions to the expenditure of millions one day, and at another time, as for instance to-day, of only thousands. There seemed to be a constant wish on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to incur during this present spring a vast additional expenditure of public money; but he should have thought that these Gentlemen could hardly reconcile such proposals with the speeches which he had heard them make. The hon. Member who brought the Motion, forward quoted certain figures with certain dates, and stated that the salaries of the higher Officers of State had remained stationary,
  1994
  while the wealth of the country had greatly increased. But had he shown that there had been any increase in the value of the services rendered by those Officers of State? He (Mr. G. Bentinck) would like to have some assurance on that point, for he thought there had been a great decrease in the value of the services to the public. [Mr. GLADSTONE: In quantity?] No; the right hon. Gentleman was quite right. The quantity was enormous; but the services had deteriorated in quality. And he therefore could see no reason for augmenting the salaries of the Officers of State. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert) had spoken of the enormous calls which were made on the physical powers of those officers; but he had made no distinction between those cases in which the affairs of the country were well managed and those in which they were mismanaged. Were they to increase the salaries of those who mismanaged the affairs of the country, and who could only claim a higher remuneration for doing mischief? Was that Liberal economy, and was that the way in which the affairs of the country were to be conducted in future? He believed that if the Committee now asked for were to be appointed the result would be that they would have to report to the House that on various considerations, some of which he had indicated, there ought to be a considerable reduction in the salaries of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. MUNDELLAthanked the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) for having raised the present discussion. He (Mr. Mundella) believed that many of the recent Ministerial changes had been of an undesirable character, not through the fault of the Government, but, as the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) had said, through the fault of the system. In several of the recent changes it was felt by many people that the round men had been put into the square holes, and the square men into the round holes, and he, for one, regretted that, as an absolute calamity. His right hon. Friend the late President (Mr. Goschen) had been removed, for instance, from an office which he filled with great ability to another of greater dignity and honour. He might discharge its duties with equal ability; but it was a matter of regret that he had been removed from an office in

  1995
  which he had experience, and the duties of which he performed with satisfaction. But there was another case in respect to which he was more qualified to speak, and that was as to the changes at the Board of Trade. His constituents in the Chamber of Commerce at Sheffield wished to understand the meaning of those changes, and they asked where, now, was their Trades Marks Bill? The late Secretary to the Board of Trade took two years to study that matter, and made himself thoroughly master of it; and now, in consequence of these changes, there was no prospect of a Trades Marks Bill in the present year, or in the next. He complained of the system and not of any men who might be put into places for which they were not qualified by any previous experience.
  MR. GLADSTONE. Although this discussion has been a short one, yet it has covered a rather wide field, and has deviated from an argument upon the expediency of appointing a Committee on Official Salaries into a discussion upon the principle upon which appointments are commonly made in the Government of the country, and upon such appointment as have recently taken place. It will therefore be necessary for me to notice both those subjects. With regard to the question of the Committee, I am bound to say that although I ought to approach it with some natural interest in favour of the Motion, I cannot think that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Lambert) has made out a case. It seems to me that he evidently contemplated the augmentation of salaries. I thank him for the liberal disposition which pervaded his remarks, and for the manner in which he was disposed to point those remarks to the office which I have the honour to hold; but it is my distinct opinion, quite apart from any question of precise regularity in the adjustment of salaries, there is no case for an augmentation of the salary of that office. I believe that during the whole of my political life all my activity in the matter of salaries has been directed to cutting them down, and not to raising them, in the case of other people, and if I did not hold the opinion which. I do hold as to the sufficiency of my own salary, it would come with a very bad grace from me to give the least countenance to any proposal whatever which contemplated the augmentation of that salary, for there
  1996
  would be a loss of credit and authority in attempting to apply principles of public thrift to other persons such as it would be difficult to estimate. But apart from the question of the augmentation of salaries, on which ground we should principally found our attempt to dissuade the House from pressing for this Committee, other topics have been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), and other hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Liverpool has said very kindly that he does not blame one Government more than another; but I want to know whether any Government is to blame in the matter at all? He says the system is to blame; but I deny it. What is the system upon which promotions within the sphere of Government are conducted? I can speak for myself and for others so far as I have watched them, and I say that on all occasions they may err by the infirmity of their own judgment, but not by the adoption of a bad system, for the system is to choose for every place that man who, upon the whole, is the fittest to go into it. My hon. Friend says some one acquires experience in a particular Department, and that he ought to be continued in that Department. Now, I have heard much lately about the regimental system; but we should have the regimental system with a vengeance if we are to be told that a man, having acquired experience in a particular Department, must always remain there whatever change of office may occur. No doubt there will be men with specialities who will have accurately got up the traditions of particular Departments; but I affirm that, although there is inconvenience for the moment in a transfer, still if you want to have statesmen, responsible as Members of the Cabinet for the whole of the affairs of this country, you must encounter that inconvenience and not hesitate in removing them from Department to Department, always being guided by the consideration which, upon the whole, is the best for the public service. I affirm, Sir, that the question of etiquette which has been supposed to intervene was never dreamt of in the matter, not even the just claims of promotion to which my hon. Friend alluded, and which the late President of the Poor Law Board never once thought of urging,

  1997
  but simply the consideration what, on the whole, would be best for the public interest has been the motive which has guided all these changes. But the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) made a particular charge. Now, I ask him whether it is worthy of the equitable spirit which on every other occasion I have seen him display in this House to bring the charge he has done with reference to the Presidency of the Board of Trade, and to sustain that charge by the fact that since the change he had heard nothing of the Trades Marks Bill?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I did not say so. I said my constituency had complained of the want of a Trades Marks Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONE: And that complaint has been made on the accession of my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. C. Fortescue) to the Presidency of the Board of Trade? Now, I ask my hon. Friend whether he marked the course of my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland during the last Session of Parliamen throughout the discussion of the Irish Land Bill, and, if he did, if he approved the discretion, the ability, the consideration, the firmness with which my right hon. Friend conducted himself throughout those difficult discussions—I ask him whether it is really rational to suppose that the capacity of my right hon. Friend is unequal to the task of dealing with a Trades Marks Bill? Why is this question to be brought up in the third or fourth week of the Session? Who has asked for the Trades Marks Bill? Where was it all last year? The Under Secretary for the Home Department said, my hon. Friend, took up the question, and prosecuted it with that indomitable energy which belongs to him. [Mr. MUNDELLA: I said, had mastered the question.] Well, mastered the question, and my hon. Friend spoke of the energy of the Under Secretary for the Home Department, which I admire as much as he does; but the Trades Marks Bill was never heard of before last year, and if the Trades Marks Bill was allowed to sleep during the whole of the last Session of Parliament, is it not a gross injustice to the present President of the Board of Trade to put this forward as a proof that he is unfit for the head of that Department? The truth is that in these appointments one important element is fitness for the pro-
  1998
  secution and care of the Department; but it is oftentimes necessary to take into view other considerations which dictate changes as upon the whole desirable that in that particular point of view would not be desirable. It is very easy to criticize frequent changes of Office in a Government which involve undoubtedly the frequent severance of men from the experience they have gained; but I ask those who make them to recollect the peculiar, painful, and, as far as my recollection goes, unexampled circumstances in which the present Government has been placed. During the course of nearly 40 years I can remember no case in which, separately, and one by one, over the short period of eight months, three of the most important Members of the Government have been struck down either by death or by illness. Each of those changes, in cases so important, in offices so high, necessarily entailed many other changes; and, I am not ashamed to say—justice requires it of me—considerably impoverished the resources with which the Government was originally formed. It was not therefore to be supposed that we could, in every case, fill up the gaps and join together the openings made in the Government by losses so severe, occurring at short intervals one after another under circumstances of that nature. These were not like the changes made in a Cabinet when a political schism has occurred. When such a schism occurs, the whole has to be dealt with at once, and large allowances are necessarily made for the manner in which it may be dealt with. But these changes have been successive, one after another, after a very short interval, one not connected with another, and they have unitedly created very considerable difficulty in meeting the case thus presented to view. But with respect to the appointments made—and I do not pretend to claim for the present Government any freedom from error in the judgments arrived at—they have been dictated by the same considerations which have governed the general appointments—namely, the desire to make those appointments which, on the whole, would most conduce to the benefit of the public service. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) gave an opinion which in a certain degree I am disposed to contest and to qualify. He appeared to think that there is much

  1999
  that is anomalous and unjust in the present distribution of official salaries. I am not prepared to make that admission. I own it is very difficult to make the distribution of official salaries perfectly just as between the different offices, even at one given moment of time; but it is still more difficult to make it perfectly just if it is not subject to change. It is impossible as among different offices at different periods of time, and for this reason, that the relative importance of different offices varies very considerably with circumstances. For example, reference has been made to the office of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of Council for Education. That is an office which has been constantly growing till it has reached to such a height of importance that if its importance, measured by responsibility and duty, is found to continue, it may be very natural and proper that Parliament should pay attention to the re-arrangement of that office. But in many cases there is an opposite process. Take, as one particular instance, the Presidency of the Poor Law Board. That must at all times be an important office; but it would be a great mistake to suppose that, under ordinary circumstances, it is of primary rank and responsibility. The energy and capacity of the late President (Mr. Goschen) happened to concur with a temporary exigency for dealing with that great and complicated knot of questions generally indicated by the adjustment of local taxation; and it would be difficult to overrate either the labours or responsibility attaching to that office during the time my right hon. Friend was President. But these things vary from period to period. Even the Secretaryships of State have varied very greatly in our recollections. I remember when the Colonial ranked above the Home and even the Foreign Department in difficulty and responsibility; but, on the whole, the distribution of the salaries in high political offices may justly be affirmed to correspond with what good sense would dictate. The highest paid offices are likewise almost invariably the most laborious and the most difficult and responsible, and those which are less highly paid are in ordinary times and circumstances offices of a smaller degree of responsibility, and if a change occurs in the character and scale of an office you ought to take care that that has become
  2000
  a permanent, normal, and established fact before you make any great change in the Department. These are general considerations applicable to this question, and I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield not to be so rapid in his conclusions founded on the Trades Marks Bill, but to give time and opportunity to the President of the Board of Trade, and that others may do the same in other cases. In that case I feel satisfied there will be no reason to complain of either want of disposition or want of capacity on the part of the holder of that office to discharge every duty attached to it. With regard to the immediate Motion, if the discussion had taken the turn of jealous inquisition into the emoluments of the Government, and a menacing attempt to effect sweeping reductions, we should have felt great difficulty in damping the energy and courage of the House of Commons in that direction; but as a different tone has prevailed, and as, upon the whole, the proposed Committee would rather tend to disturb the nerves of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the guardian of the public purse, than to serve any other purpose, I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to ask for the expression of the opinion of the House upon his Motion.
  MR. HERMONobserved that some hon. Members had complained that the Trades Marks Bill had been lost sight of by the Board of Trade. For his own part, he hoped they would never see that measure again. It was clear the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bright) did not approve it, for, had he done so, he had plenty of time to push it forward; and if, as had been remarked, it had been received with coldness, that was nothing more than it deserved, for a measure demanded more thought and adaptation to the circumstances of the case than were shown by that Bill. It would have plunged the commercial interests of the country into more litigation than any Bill ever introduced into the House. He hoped that any Bill which might in future be introduced on the subject would be of a different character.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had not exhibited so much moral courage as he might have been credited with, for no

  2001
  proposal would come with a bad grace from him which was consistent with abstract right and justice, and he would set a good example by advocating what ought to be rather than by defending that which is. He was of opinion that the Prime Minister deserved a much higher salary than he now received, and it was hardly fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that a proposal to increase that salary would disturb his equanimity, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be quite prepared to pay for efficiency. The democratic party in the House stood in their own light in this matter, as it was their policy to pay for services their proper value. The higher offices were practically closed against men without private means, who had not the chance of training themselves for these offices, for the sons of the aristocracy, sometimes very common-place men, took the lower grades of office, and being supposed to be fit to hold them because they could fold and docket papers and tie them up with red tape, were advanced without due regard to the higher qualities of statesmanship. If we wanted these higher qualities we must pay for them; if we wanted to get skill and aptitude and to have work well done we must pay people well. Earl Russell never found himself burdened until he became Prime Minister, and then he was oppressed with the demands that were made upon him on all sides. As no one without a fortune could take the office the salary ought to be increased.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he was of opinion that the high officers of the State were indifferently paid, and he would like to see a Committee appointed to overhaul salaries and make such augmentations as were demanded by increase of labour. In addition to the performance of their heavy public labours, these gentlemen were required to discharge social duties, in consideration of which he thought separate salaries should be allowed. The right hon. Gentleman had raised the question of appointments, and in alluding to that subject it was impossible to keep out of view some of the recent appointments which had been made. As an independent Member of the House he had seen those appointments with regret; and he was convinced that more attention ought to be paid to the previous training of public servants
  2002
  placed in the great Departments of the State. The interests of the Army and Navy of England were too important to be trifled with; and the country would not be satisfied with the removal of a Minister from a sphere in which he had rendered eminent services, and transferred to an office for which he had received no training whatever. When such a change was made, a right hon. Gentleman had to go through a process of cramming in order to become acquainted with his new Department, which must, at all events, be prejudiced during the time thus spent in the education of the Minister. In the administration of naval and military affairs all the experience that could be obtained ought to be placed at the service of the country.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Lambert) would withdraw his Motion. A man would be out of his senses if he entered upon public life with a view of making his livelihood out of it; and, indeed, it would be a calamity if there were a class of men who devoted themselves to public life with that object in view. Hitherto high public offices had been in this country generally held by men who, in seeking them, were not animated by such considerations. What had been said about the social duties of a Minister reminded him of what was stated by Sir Hamilton Seymour before the Select Committee on Official Salaries of 1850. In reply to the Chairman, he said—
  "I consider the giving of dinners an essential part of diplomacy; I have no hesitation in saying so. I have no idea of a man being a good diplomatist who does not give good dinners."
  From what had been said by the last speaker it would seem that a man could not be a good Minister unless he gave good dinners. He believed, however, that the country would be better satisfied with a Minister who gave good measures. There had been undue reserve in debating this question, for they all knew that the Prime Minister got only £5,000 a-year; but the late Sir Robert Peel stated something more which had not been mentioned—namely, that if a Prime Minister had relatives who were qualified, he could give them appointments in Church and State, and that patronage he (Mr. White) thought was a main ingredient in this question of Official Salaries. If a Prime Minister had relations whom he deemed qualified to

  2003
  perform clerical or civil duties, on what grounds, it was asked, ought they to be shut out from holding such offices. The late Sir Robert Peel, in his examination before the Select Committee on Official Salaries in 1850, said—
  "It generally has happened that a Minister has appointed some of his relations to some offices or other for which he conceived they were qualified;"
  and he admitted, in reply to Mr. Cobden, that "immense power," was in the hands of the Prime Minister, and the patronage to which he was directly or indirectly entitled amounted to several hundred thousands a-year. This patronage was an essential element which, must not be overlooked in the consideration of this question. He hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with his Motion, against which the Prime Minister had protested, for it was singularly ill-timed, especially as the Government had been lately reducing its employés of the humbler class.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid, he had not heard anything to change his views, and he could not, therefore, withdraw the Motion which he had brought before the House.
  Question put, and negatived.

POST OFFICE—(SMALL PARCELS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GRAVES, in rising to move the following Resolutions:—
  "1. That it is desirable to restore and extend those facilities for the transmission of Small Parcels by Post which the public enjoyed prior to the 1st day of October 1870. 2. That it is desirable to increase the number of Money Order Offices, especially in the rural districts, and to amend the rates charged for the transmission of Money Orders by establishing a scale of charge which shall press less heavily on the poorer classes of remitters,"
  Said, it was with some reluctance that he again troubled the House on the matter of postal administration. The large and liberal concessions made by the Government last year would have satisfied all the requirements for the time, but for the fact that, at the moment of conferring them, the equally valuable facility conferred by the pattern post in 1865 was withdrawn. When the pattern post was established, the Postmaster General, in more than one of his annual Reports announced to the public that he had established in the Post Office a new
  2004
  branch of business, which would afford unusual facilities for the extension of trade and commerce. It was an essential condition of the pattern post that no article sent through it should be of any intrinsic value; but, however easy this might appear to be in theory, in practice it was found impossible to determine what was intrinsic value. For instance, a single glove, shoe, slipper, or stocking might be sent as having no intrinsic value; but a pair of these articles could not go through the post, because an intrinsic value was supposed to exist. Again, a merchant in London could send by post a pattern or sample to a retailer living hundreds of miles away, but the retailer was not allowed to re-transmit the same article back to the merchant, or to a customer who might reside within a few miles of him. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, that these regulations soon broke down; and the pattern post drifted into what was, to all intents and purposes, a small parcels post. This proved a great advantage to the public, so far as cheapness and rapidity of transmission were concerned; and it also caused a marked development throughout the country in the manufacture and sale of small articles of trade. The Post Office took credit to itself for the facilities which had been given; and no later than the early part of last year, with a view still further to extend these facilities and to create more business, it reduced the charge for the transmission of small parcels. In October last, however, for some reason at present unexplained, the policy of the Post Office underwent a complete change. A retrograde step was taken, and the public were coolly informed that, for the future, the pattern post would be restricted to the transmission of articles which were bonâ fide patterns and samples, thus going back to the system which was found perfectly impracticable in 1865. If this change had been made in order to avoid any obstruction to the legitimate work of the Post Office, consequent on the introduction of the halfpenny stamp, the public would have admitted that to be a reasonable ground for a temporary withdrawal of the privilege. But it did not require a week to prove that the Post Office was perfectly equal to the emergency; and, if the reason which he had suggested had been the

  2005
  one which influenced the authorities, so soon as it was found that no hindrance was caused to the ordinary postal business by the introduction of the halfpenny cards, he thought the pattern post should have been restored. He did not know of any alteration which could have caused more disturbance to the whole daily current of our commercial and social intercourse. The Post Office had established a system upon which certain trades of very great importance to the industry of the country had sprung up; but no sooner had these trades began to develop themselves than that which was their main support was suddenly withdrawn. He maintained that the public were entitled to regard the use of the pattern post in the manner which had existed for so many years, as in some degree a prescriptive right; and he did not think the Post Office was justified in withdrawing the arrangement without stronger grounds than any yet stated. He could hardly do justice to his case without reading a few representative extracts from documents which had been forwarded to him. The first was from a Petition which had been presented from the Liverpool Tradesmen's Guild. It stated that, in the opinion of the petitioners, the privilege enjoyed by the public had created an entirely new traffic in very small articles; the facilities given by the post were highly advantageous to the public, and much valued; but the new regulations had caused injury to business, inconvenience to the public, and, they believed, loss to the Revenue. A Petition from the Guardian Society also stated that the new restrictions had, to a large extent, nullified the advantages intended to be conferred by the halfpenny postage. A memorial adopted at a meeting of seedsmen in London, set forth that the privilege which had been withdrawn had been a great boon to both buyer and seller, and had tended to develop the production of seeds. It was impossible for the postal authorities or themselves to tell what orders were for samples, or which for sowing; the result was indescribable annoyance to all concerned. A statement from Coventry showed how advantageous the post had been to manufacturers, and declared that the stringent rule now imposed had deprived them of a cheap and rapid means of delivering small articles at remote parts of the country,
  2006
  while it had led to the dismissal of many employés who had been compelled to seek engagements elsewhere. Then, as to the transmission of articles connected with science, he had a communication from a microscopical society, which stated that the society had received its death blow, because, under the new restrictions as to the pattern post, they could not send by post their prepared subjects. He had also a letter—one of many—from an indigent gentlewoman, who eked out a small pittance by fancy needlework, but now she could no longer send her work by post, and her small profit would be absorbed if she paid railway charges; and he had another letter from a person in similar circumstances, who complained that she could not get silk and other articles necessary for her work by post. The new regulation was that the articles which passed through the Post Office must be bonâ fide samples; and all articles having a saleable value were excluded. He would ask the House to consider how the new regulation was enforced. If any hon. Member sent for a small article to be supplied to him, he would find that in nine cases out of ten it would come through the post with the words "sample" or "pattern" marked legibly upon it. He had, to test the matter, sent orders to metropolitan tradesmen and others, and though the articles required were all for private use and of intrinsic value, the packages were all marked "patterns," with a 1d. postage in place of 1d., 6d., or 8d. There was, in fact, a systematic evasion of the Post Office regulations most demoralizing in the results. The Post Office officials themselves were unable to lay down any uniform rule as to what had or had not an intrinsic value, or was a bonâ fide pattern or sample. For instance, he had in his hand two envelopes which had received the approval of the Post Office as patterns, yet whilst one of these envelopes passed through the Post Office, the other was overcharged, upon the ground that it was not in conformity with the Post Office regulations, though it had actually been approved by the postal authorities themselves. A druggist at Brighton complained that he had been prevented from sending small boxes of pills through the post. He had written first to the Post Office to know whether he could send them, and, having received a favourable answer, he issued

  2007
  circulars that he would send the article post free all over the country. Now, however, the article was prevented passing through the post, and his trade was seriously injured. He had also a letter from a cripple, who got his living by knitting stockings; and when he had received an order, it had been his practice to send the first stocking to his customer through the post to see whether it would suit. After the new regulation he sent a stocking to a customer by post, and the customer was charged 2s. 8d. extra postage. On another occasion, the local postmaster returned the sample because the sender's was not a recognized place of business. These anomalies must continue so long as the present absurd regulations existed. Again, this system must produce great confusion, and it must, in the Post Office itself, create a serious hindrance to the rapid manipulation of letters, upon which the success of the Post Office so materially depended. Now what was the object attained by all this? So far as he could gather, of all the letters transmitted through the Post Office by inland post, over nine-tenths were sent by 1d. stamp, they being within the weight that would, be carried for that amount, thus showing that the residue of letters over ½ oz., and patterns only realized 10 per cent of the gross inland postage. He hoped that some system would be devised by which all distinctions between articles should be done away with, so that, over and within a certain weight, all articles, be they letters, patterns, parcels, closed or open, it mattered not which, should be carried at one uniform rate; for he believed that until some such system were adopted the public would not be satisfied, and the Post Office would not be free from the unceasing system of espionage necessitated by existing prohibitions. There seemed to be a fear, on the part of some of the officials, lest the Post Office should undertake extra work; but Sir Rowland Hill, in his evidence before the Committee, when asked whether he was not afraid that the Post Office would undertake more than it could manage, said—"We are not afraid of that; the more work we get the more profit we make." He (Mr. Graves) believed that that opinion was as good now as it was when it was first uttered: if the work was excessive for the existing staff, increase it; let the remuneration of postal officials—
  2008
  the carriers especially—be in keeping with the increased requirements, and there need be no fear of the ability of the Post Office to fulfil every duty demanded of it. In looking into the history of the Post Office, he was much struck with the fact that over 200 years ago our ancestors were in the enjoyment of what we were now asking—namely, a parcel post, and it was a curious fact that in 1690 the then head of the Post Office was removed from his office for stopping parcels. He did not wish the present Postmaster General to be dealt with in that way. In a memorial which was presented to the King, it was stated that the Postmaster General forbad the taking of any band-box except very small ones, and stopped all parcels above 1lb. which formerly went by the 1d. post. There was another curious fact, as to the use that was made of the Post Office in and since those days. He found that among the articles sent were 15 couples of hounds to the King of the Romans, and these were sent with a free pass. There were also some parcels of cloth for clothing colonels; two servant maids, who were going out as laundresses to Lord Ambassador Methuen; two cows, and divers other things, the last being four flitches of bacon. Those facts were to be found in the Report of the Postmaster General for the year 1855, which would well repay perusal. One word on a point which, had some considerable bearing on this question—namely, the effect of his proposal on the railways. He had always considered that it was an advantage to the railways that the Post Office should carry small parcels, because this system enabled traders to send the pioneers of larger quantities of goods that must go by railways. Be that as it might, he held it to be essential to the restoration and extension of the parcel system that the active co-operation of the railways should be secured; that we should not, as now, be dependent on one or two trains in the day to convey these parcels, but that every train going out of a station should be placed at the disposal of the Post Office. He believed that could be done, and that the railway interest would offer every facility should fair and reasonable proposals be made by the Postmaster General. On the other hand, the public would not permit such an opportunity to be spoilt if inadequate terms were offered

  2009
  by the postal authorities. The House would observe that he had divided his Motion into two sections. He would at once state his views on the money-order question, which he found to be so much associated with the parcel post, that he could not separate the two. In 1839 the utility of a money-order branch of the Post Office was first recognized by the Department. It was expressly stated by the Postmaster General in one of his Reports, to have been established for the purpose of enabling the poor to transmit money from one part of the country to another, and allusion was made to the Irish reapers going back to Ireland, who used to send their money through the money-order offices from town to town, that they might see that it was safe as they passed along. This money-order system in the first year turned over a sum of £300,000, and last year something like 10,000,000 of orders, and £20,000,000 sterling passed through the Post Office. From inquiries made at some of the large provincial offices, he found that more than two-thirds of the whole amount was transmitted in orders of £2 and under. Now, the charge for an order for any sum under £2 was 3d., and it was not to be wondered at that such a charge should lead people to resort to other means of making remittances. They sent coin, contrary to regulation, in registered letters, and very large quantities of postage stamps were sent in payment of small sums. The Post Office authorities had systematically, year after year, asked the public to desist from sending coin and stamps, because of the temptation that the practice offered to the employés. In 1864 the registration fee was lowered with a view to stop the robberies which had become so frequent; and in 1865 the Postmaster General said that the result of the combined measures of reducing the fee and prohibiting the sending of coin had been satisfactory; that the number of applications for missing letters containing coin had fallen from 6,000 to 2,000 per annum; but, on the other hand, the good effect of this had been neutralized by the practice of transmitting postage stamps through the post; the applications for missing letters with postage stamps having increased in exactly the same proportion as the others had decreased. In the previous year when the Postmaster General was asked to reduce the charge for money-orders he
  2010
  refused to do so, because the 3d. charged was not sufficient to pay the costs; and he pointed out in his annual Report that many facilities for the transmission of small sums were afforded by postage stamps; so that the Post Office recommended the very thing that next year they appealed to the public in earnest terms to assist them in preventing. What he (Mr. Graves) suggested, was that they should try the results of reduction, and a large extension of money-order offices throughout the country—the rural districts especially. If a money-order for 10 s or £1 would be given for 1d.—if a simple system was established which everyone could remember, such as a penny in the pound for an order—he believed we should hear no more of robberies of letters, and the Postmaster General would have no occasion to make further appeals to the public to assist him in preventing them. He regretted that some Returns which he had moved for had not been as yet put into the hands of Members; but it appeared that in 1860, after which year the Post Office ceased to give any Returns of the profits from money-orders, there was a gain of £28,000; and from a calculation he had made it would probably now amount to between £40,000 and £50,000, which was not a bad result upon £176,000 receipts. For his own part, he did not care whether there was a profit or a loss upon a particular part of the work done by the Post Office. He contended that the Post Office had no right to say that in one department there might be a loss, and therefore they would do nothing to foster it. The Post Office should be looked upon as a whole, and should give to the starved districts facilities which per se would not be profitable. Upon the same principle he would reduce the charge for small orders, even although there should be a loss upon that particular transaction. He could send his money by a cheque and a 1d. stamp all over the country; why should not Government, in the interest of the poorer classes, assist them in doing the same, where it could be done without loss? The Committee of 1838 said that the speedy conveyance of letters was the primary consideration, and revenue of minor importance, and that the Post Office should be looked upon not only as a source of revenue, but as a means by which a price was paid by the public for a parti
  2011
  cular service. Since he had given Notice of his Motion he had received many communications asking for an extension of the money-order system, and in many places it was complained that there were no facilities for the inhabitants obtaining money-orders. In urging the Government to make this concession, he was aware he was raising a question of revenue at the very moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded it as of more than ordinary importance. The same argument was used, against him last year, or the year before, when he asked for a reduction of a halfpenny on the newspaper stamp. The whole history of the Post Office went to show that whenever it gave increased facilities the public took advantage of them; that the loss of revenue at the outset was soon more than recouped, and that a new business was established. So it would be, he firmly believed, in the present instance, and he had no doubt we should have the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating in aonther year, as he expected he would be able to do in the present one, when introducing his Estimates, that he was able to inform the House that no loss had been incurred by those concessions which the Government had so wisely and liberally made. Most men who had been in Switzerland knew what the parcel post was there, and how far it was in advance of the parcel post of this country. Those who had been in Belgium knew what the parcel and money-order posts were there, In France they seemed to have got greatly ahead of us, as money-orders up to 15 francs were granted for a charge of 10 centimes, and for sums of 1,000 francs the Post Office was responsible for a charge of 1 per cent. The French Postmaster General, in 1868 or 1869, called upon the Government to adopt vigorous measures to improve the system in France; and he reminded the Government that the Post Office was a system which was meant to serve the interests of the country, and that it should have no limits but these interests. He also recommended, in the same Report, that the profits from the Post Office should be given up for two or three years, to develop all the various branches of the Post Office work. Comparing the facilities in France with the facilities afforded in this country, it was a curious fact that in France there were 43,000 letter-boxes,
  2012
  which were emptied, at least, once every day in the year, while in this country we had 18,000 only. France had, also, a complete rural service by which letters were taken to every house in the smallest hamlet of the country; while in England, in country places, people had to send miles to the post office for their letters. Within the last few years travelling letter-boxes had also been established in France, and there were 500 of these travelling letterboxes going on wheels up and down the country, so that people were able to post their letters as the box passed by. He had shown the necessity of amending the parcels post system, and it would be for the interest of the money-order system also that the charge should be reduced and the system largely extended. In advancing these two propositions he had endeavoured to disassociate from them every other issue. Hereafter it was possible that it might be desirable there should be a discussion on the Post Office itself, and the principles on which it was managed. But, for the present, he would rest satisfied with laying before the House the two simple propositions, to which he had called attention. They were, to his mind, great blots on the Post Office system. He believed by their removal confidence would be reposed in the institution, and if they were removed there was no reason whatever why the Post Office should not have before it a long career of great usefulness, and that it would confer benefits on the people of this country, which, in the words of the Postmaster General of France, had no limits but the limits of the public requirements. The propositions which he had brought forward, he regarded as moderate. The Government would, he hoped, accept them in that light, and he now submitted them to the House, feeling satisfied that he had with him not only the sympathy of the country, but the judgment of the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolutions.
  MR. AKROYDseconded the Motion, observing that the Halifax Chamber of Commerce had come to a unanimous opinion in favour of the restoration of the pattern post. There was no doubt that the traders in this country who dealt in small articles would be benefited by the restoration; he would even venture to say that there was not a household among the middle and upper classes the

  2013
  ladies of which would not like to be able to send small parcels by post. Although, he might add, we in England had been the first to introduce a system of cheap postage, we had since remained comparatively stationary, while the continental nations had gone on improving upon our system, and the adoption of the Motion of his hon. Friend would, he felt sure, be hailed with satisfaction on all sides throughout the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is desirable to restore and extend those facilities for the transmission of Small Parcels by Post which the public enjoyed prior to the 1st day of October 1870."—(Mr. Graves.)
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he fully appreciated the importance of the two questions which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) in the course of his temperate and able speech. He trusted he should be able to show him that the Government were not indifferent to the considerations which he had advanced, and that he would be satisfied with the proposals which he was about to lay before the House. Before, however, he proceeded to explain those proposals he must venture to comment on the comparison which had been drawn by his hon. Friend between our postal system and that of foreign countries. His hon. Friend had alluded to the importance of establishing some understanding between the Post Office and the railways; but he must remind him that the relations which prevailed among us between the Post Office and the railways were very different from those which existed abroad. In the case of France, for instance, except for special trains, the Post Office had not to pay one halfpenny to the railways. In Belgium many of the important railways belonged to the State, and no payment was therefore made to them; while on most of the other lines there was a gratuitous conveyance of mails stipulated for when the lines were conceded, the total payments last year having amounted to only £1,307. Again, in North Germany there was no payment made except for heavy parcels carried by State railways, and for all parcels by private railways. It was clear, therefore, that there was a wide distinction between our position in that respect and that of foreign countries, and yet in very important cases
  2014
  our Post Office charges were less than those of France, Belgium, and North Germany. His hon. Friend very properly remarked that the greater portion of the postal revenue was connected with the sending of penny letters. Now, in the case of France the charge for letters was double the charge in this country; in that of Belgium the same; while in North Germany the scale of charge was one and one-third. Indeed, in the very instance of the pattern post the present charge in this country was lower than that in France, Belgium, or North Germany. The difference between the rates was — in those countries 3d. was charged for 10 ounces, whereas with us 12 ounces were sent for 3d. In the next place, he must take exception to the hon. Gentleman's history of the rise and progress of the pattern post. The Post Office had never relaxed the essential condition which had been established, that nothing should be sent by pattern post except patterns. He quite admitted that the rules of the Post Office in that respect had been evaded to a considerable extent, and that it was quite impossible to distinguish between patterns and other articles. Take the case of the seedsmen. Suppose a sorter had to decide between an ounce of picotee seed and half a pound of grass seed. The latter might be a sample; but he would, perhaps, decide that it was not a sample, while he would pass the other, which might be no sample. Such a distinction, therefore, must be absolutely given up. If the transmission of patterns by post was to be maintained it was absolutely necessary that parcels should go by post. But it was very important, indeed, in a matter of this sort to arrive at some system which contained within it the elements of finality. In politics unsettled questions were the cause of grave mischiefs, and in commercial affairs, also, they had the worst possible effect; for people did not know where they stood, and could not make the necessary calculations for carrying on their business when the conditions on which the business depended were being constantly altered. In considering this question he would put aside altogether the question of newspapers, books, and trade circulars, which involved considerations of a different order. Newspapers and books were carried at a low rate, for the sake

  2015
  of the education and general information of the people; and, with, regard to trade circulars and halfpenny cards, experience showed that they had not supplanted in any great degree the letter post; but that a great number of announcements hitherto sent by hand, or not sent at all, were now conveyed through the Post Office, the general increase in the number of letters being not diminished by the concession, in obtaining which his hon. Friend took so important a part. Putting aside, therefore, these branches of the service, it appeared to him, with reference to the pattern post, that there was no ground for any distinction between closed and open parcels, and that parcels of whatever sort should be sent either closed or open as the sender desired. Among other results such a change would have the important advantage of diminishing the work of officers in the Post Office, because it would render unnecessary an examination to determine to which class each article belonged. In this way the change would produce economy; and it was also founded on reason and common sense, for if any system were desired containing the elements of finality the present absurd distinction must be abolished, and closed and open parcels must be allowed to go henceforth at the same rate. Now, the next point that they had to consider was, what should the limit of the weight of parcels be? He had consulted a number of persons from different parts of the country, having had the advantage of receiving a deputation representing the greater number of the most important manufacturing towns in the North of England, and the general opinion was that if the limit of weight were fixed at 12 oz. the public would be satisfied. There was no great desire to send any larger parcels by the Post Office. [An hon. MEMBER: Yes, up to a pound.] If the House went with him, as he thought it generally did on these two points, the next matter for consideration was one of vital importance—what should be the initial charge? There could be very little difference of opinion among Gentlemen who really paid any attention to this subject. The mainspring of our whole postal system was the penny letter. Ninety-five per cent of the letters sent were penny letters, and 90 per cent of the postal revenue was derived from the same source. In the year 1863 the
  2016
  number of these letters sent through the Post Office was, in round numbers, 600,000,000, and that number had increased now to 800,000,000. The increase had contributed somewhere about £800,000 a year to the Revenue. It was by means of this initial penny that the Post Office had been able to supply distant districts, establish new modes of conveyance, and make experiments with regard, to the pattern or parcel post. The efficiency of the Post Office depended on the maintenance of that initial penny. If they retained it, their system would work satisfactorily, whatever they did; but, if they were to abandon it, they would abandon at once £1,500,000 a-year. The Post Office, instead of being a revenue department, would become merely a spending department; there would be all those difficulties which were experienced by other spending departments in the attempt to carry out any public advantage which cost money, and the Post Office, instead of every year conferring greater blessing upon the people, would cease its career of progress and become a saving and niggardly instead of a liberal and generous department. He therefore submitted that the initial amount should be a penny. He would give the rates founded on that principle which he should ask the House to adopt. For parcels and letters of all sorts, closed or open, making no distinction between them, the charge would be—
  "Not exceeding 1 oz., 1d.; above 1 oz., but not exceeding 2 oz., 1½d.; above 2 oz., but not exceeding 4. oz., 2d.; above 4 oz., but not exceeding 6 oz., 2½d.; above 6 oz., but not exceeding 8 oz., 3d.; above 8 oz., but not exceeding 10 oz., 3½d.; above 10 oz., but not exceeding 12 oz., 4d. 12 oz. to be the limit of weight for letters.
  The present rate of letter postage was, for letters not exceeding ½ oz., 1d.; above ½ oz., but not exceeding 1 oz., 2d.; 1 oz., 3d.; 2 oz., 4d.; and so on. By the present pattern post, the charge for 12 oz. was 3d.; under the arrangement he proposed it would be 4d. Therefore, those whom his hon. Friend represented would make a sacrifice to this extent; but, on the other hand, they would gain the advantage of having their parcels closed or open as they pleased. The postage upon letters would be considerably reduced, and upon the whole the advantage to the public, by the proposal he now made, would be considerably greater than that which would be got if they

  2017
  were to relax the present rates and accept the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. The plan of the Government was a sufficient answer to the supposition that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be likely to interpose an obstacle in the way of the munificence of the Post Office, because under the plan of his hon. Friend the loss to the Exchequer would be less than that which would arise from the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. But the advantage of the proposal made on the part of the Government was that it was founded upon a sound principle, and that, containing within it the elements of finality, they might hope that the public would be satisfied, and that no future changes would be called for. Perhaps the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) might say the plan proposed involved inconsistencies; but it was impossible to avoid inconsistency in any plan. Would the noble Lord, for instance, propose that the postage on The Times should be at the same rate as a letter? Then instead of a halfpenny The Times would be charged 1s. Or, would he propose that there should be any distinction between the postage on a parcel or letter from London to Hampstead, and that on a parcel or letter from the Orkneys to the Channel Islands? There must be such inconsistencies, and the object was to have as few as possible, and to adopt a system which, upon the whole, should be logical, definite, and precise. These, he thought, were the characteristics of the proposal before the House. With regard to what had been stated by his hon. Friend in respect to the co-operation of the railway companies, he had to observe that nothing would be more agreeable to him than to come to some arrangement with the railway companies. It would be necessary for him, he believed, to introduce a Bill in regard to the alterations now proposed, and before that time the railway companies would have had the opportunity of considering the subject, or some arrangement might have been possibly arrived at between them and the Government. He should most willingly co-operate in any such understanding, which, he thought, would be beneficial both to the public and to the companies, and it would then become possible, that, not only two or three trains, but all of them, might be utilized for the conveyance of letters. With respect
  2018
  to the question of money-orders he confessed he felt very much with his hon. Friend. He admitted that the main object of those orders was to benefit the poorer classes, and it was distinctly stated at the time they were first established that revenue was not their principal object. His hon. Friend had somewhat understated the profit derived from money-orders by putting it at £45,000. [Mr. GRAVES: Between £40,000 and £50,000.] He believed, in fact, that the profit on the £20,000,000 of orders annually issued was about £55,000 a year. The Money Order Office had entirely out-shot its original purpose, and had become a great banking concern for retail tradesmen. Take, as an example, the excess of payments over receipts in places were articles in general use were largely manufactured. In Birmingham the orders exceeded the issues by about £250,000 a-year, and how largely orders were sent on business was shown by the fact, that in London about 35 per cent of them were paid through bankers. In King Street, Covent Garden, 35 per cent of the amount sent for money-orders was sent by persons connected with Covent Garden Market, and in other parts of London the proportion was about the same; in some it was even rather higher. He was informed that the average cost of money-orders to the Post Office was about 3d. The money-orders for sums not exceeding £1, amounted to £4,271,000; not exceeding £2, to £2,743,000; and the whole amount of all the orders was £9,967,000. Now, it was quite clear that if the precise proposition of his hon. Friend were adopted, there would be not only an immediate and considerable loss of revenue, but that the more money-order business the Post Office did the greater would the loss become. If the rate were fixed at 1d. per pound, the Post Office, instead of gaining about £55,000 annually, would lose about £5,000 a-year, and would lose more and more in proportion as the business was extended. The proposal, therefore, he should be disposed to make would be to substitute the following for the present rates:—For sums under 10 s., 1d.; for 10 s., and under £1, 2d.; for £1, and under £2, 3d.; for £2, and under £3, 4d.; for £3, and under £4, 5d.; for £4, and under £5, 6d.; for £5, and under £6, 7d.; for £6, and under £7, 8d.; for £7, and under £8, 9d.; for £8, and

  2019
  under £9,. 10 d.; for £9, and under £10, 11 d.; and for £10 orders, 1s. That proposal would accomplish one of the objects of his hon. Friend, and would confer on the poor a very great benefit. Moreover, it would, he thought, tend to produce, as his hon. Friend said, the great benefit of putting a stop to the most fertile source of demoralization and theft among the employés of the Post Office, which arose from the transmission of postage stamps. No doubt the quotations that they had heard that night from his hon. Friend proved the inconsistency of the Post Office in that respect in former times; but it was found that a very great proportion of cases of theft arose from the transmission of postage stamps, and not only did it injuriously affect the morality of the letter-carriers, but it was also doubly detrimental to the public, because it had generally happened that, where cases of theft had been brought home, the accused person was found to have abstracted and destroyed a large number of letters in the hope that they might contain stamps. He also proposed that postmasters should not in future be allowed to purchase stamps. He did not know whether that would have much effect; but, at any rate, it would help to free them from any participation in a system calculated to place temptation in the way of the servants of the Post Office. He was afraid that the statement he had made must have been felt by the House to be dry; but it affected the interests of multitudes of their fellow-countrymen, and if they could arrive at a just solution of the questions he had dealt with, they would not only contribute to the comfort of the wealthy, but would, by facilitating the exchange of the productions of industry, improve the condition of those who live by their daily toil.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, it had not been his intention to trouble the House with any remarks; but after the pointed challenge thrown out by the Postmaster General he felt obliged to say a few words. He congratulated the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) on the triumph he had gained, and he also congratulated the Postmaster General on the statement he had made of his views, and on the abolition of the distinction between open and closed parcels; but, on behalf of the society which he represented, and which had spent much time
  2020
  and money in the prosecution of the subject, he could not subscribe to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman that his present proposals had the merit of finality. They were a great step in advance; but he hoped some day to be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to extend a little further the boons he was about to confer on the community. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to grudge the exceptional privilege enjoyed by The Times and other newspapers; but that privilege ought not to be grudged, because the Press of this country must be looked upon as a most useful and cheap means of assisting education. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the expediency of considering whether he could not make arrangents to extend to periodicals published once a fortnight the same privilege as that given to newspapers.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he believed the scheme, as a whole, would afford great facilities, and would, meet the approbation of the country. Thanks were, he thought, peculiarly due to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose hand was plainly visible in these new arrangements. No doubt, there must be a material disturbance in the receipts of the Post Office for some time. There would also be a certain amount of expense in despatching heavy parcels by the post. He hoped there would be no delay in the delivery of ordinary letters in consequence of an increase in the heavier parcels. Letters ought to be delivered at the earliest possible moment. He hoped this point would receive the attention of the Postmaster General. With regard to railways, no doubt the Government did not occupy the same position that foreign Governments did; at the same time they possessed a very powerful lever in the enormous surplus revenue of the Post Office. They had in this case a very good object, and might make a very serious impression on the railway companies. It would be highly desirable if postal facilities were given at the railway stations, which might be done at a very small cost. Only a few days ago he was staying at the house of a friend, about 18 miles from London, which was seven miles from the nearest post town, while three railway stations were within a radius of three miles. Many other anomalies also existed, which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman

  2021
  would exert himself to discover and redress. If he did so, he was quite confident he would give universal satisfaction to the country.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEexpressed the hope that the proposals of the Government would be brought into operation, at the earliest possible date. He also directed the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that in London the pillar letter-boxes were often not large enough to hold the number of letters required to be posted in them on Sundays.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he did not expect to hear anything about finality as applicable to any scheme emanating from the Post Office Department, which, as a system of progress and extension, was peculiarly beneficent to the country at large. He was not quite satisfied with the plan now proposed. He regretted that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) for Post Office money-orders of small amounts had not been adopted. It would have been a great convenience, especially to the poorer classes. The expense of a money-order must be very small, certainly not more than 1d., and the increase in the number granted must have been so great that any loss of revenue would have been easily made up. He hoped before the plan actually came into operation some modification would be made in it with respect to Post Office money-orders. It also occurred to him that the limit of parcels should have been fixed at 16 oz., instead of 12 oz., because that was an ordinary standard of commerce, and it would be extremely convenient if the Post Office undertook to carry parcels of that weight for 6d. There was another subject mentioned in the Resolution of the hon. Member for Liverpool which had not been alluded to by the Postmaster General—an increase of money-order offices. He believed the more those offices were disseminated the more would the income of the Department be increased. He congratulated his right hon. Friend on the plan he had proposed, as far as it went.
  MR. EYKYNsaid, he would avail himself of this opportunity of urging on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of considering how soon he could enable them to obtain cheaper telegrams than they could at present. That was a subject in which mercantile men took a very deep interest. He hoped there would
  2022
  be such an expression of opinion on this matter as would lead to a reduction to that level which was promised previous to the transfer of the telegraphs from the companies to the Post Office.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he hoped money-order offices would be increased in the rural districts. In many parts of the country it was impossible to obtain those facilities which were required in this respect, and he hoped some assurance would be given that the subject would not be lost sight of. With regard to the limit of the weight of parcels, he thought there was nothing to complain of. Parcels over 12 oz. came fairly within the scope of railways, and there was a danger, if the limit in weight were further extended, of seriously adding to the labours of the already overworked and underpaid letter-carriers.
  An hon. MEMBER asked the Postmaster General, whether he could fix the date when the alterations would come into operation?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that it was not yet possible to assign the precise date. With, regard to the other points that had been raised he hoped that some increase would be made in the number of rural money-order offices; it had been decided to reduce the amount of guarantee now required for money-order offices. In respect to the price of telegrams the difficulty was really a physical one. There was not room for increased business in the present buildings, neither were the clerks sufficiently trained to manage it with efficiency. The reduction in the tariff must, therefore, be postponed.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, after the assurances which had been given, and the information which had been communicated on the part of the Government, he should be wanting in appreciation if he cavilled about the minor details of their scheme, though he could have wished a lower and simpler scale for money-orders had been adopted. He tendered them his thanks for the enlightened concessions they had made, and congratulated the Postmaster General not only on the nature of the announcements he had made, but also on the tone and spirit in which he had made them. It augured well for the future of the Post Office that the right hon. Gentleman thoroughly appreciated the responsibilities of his post. He was satisfied, as he believed the country

  2023
  would be satisfied, with the scheme of the Government, considered as a whole, and he therefore asked permission to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, there was another Notice on the Paper in his name of a Motion in reference to postal administration; but it would be more convenient to discuss the matter on another occasion, and he would not, therefore, propose it now.

LAND TRANSFER.—OBSERVATIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. G. B. GREGORY, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Royal Commissioners on the operation of the Land Transfer Act, and to move "That it is expedient to afford further facilities for the declaration of title through the office of Land Registry," said, that the matter was one of considerable importance, and well worthy of the consideration of the House. In the year 1857 a Commission was appointed to consider the whole question of the transfer of land and the registration of titles, and they reported that there ought to be throughout the country a compulsory registration of title, but they felt the difficulty inherent in such a scheme—namely, that it would be impossible to compel the registration of antecedent titles—and they proposed for the future to start with the registration of the conveyance on any transfer that might take place; but the effect was this—that a long period of time must elapse before a title could be acquired by means of such legislation; and therefore, in 1859, Lord Cairns, who was then Solicitor General, brought in two Bills—one for the establishment of a Landed Estates Court, and the other for the establishment of a Land Registry, and he proposed to give the Landed Estates Court the power of declaring titles, and it was a matter of great regret that that Bill did not receive the sanction of the Legislature. They had heard that land was prevented from being distributed by entails and settlements; but he believed that the great reason why it was not more distributed was the difficulty and the expense of investigating titles. There was, in fact, large quantities of land in the
  2024
  market, but parties were deterred from purchasing for those reasons. In 1862, the subject was again renewed, and two Bills were brought in, and passed, by one of which power was given to the Court of Chancery to grant a declaration of title, but that Act had become a dead letter. The other Act, which was in more active operation, was that by which a land registry was established to register titles. But that Act was not compulsory. A person was empowered to register his land, and thus acquired an indefeasible title, and could put the property into the market. But the grant of a certificate of title was subject to three conditions which fettered the operation of the Act. These conditions were that a title must be shown to be indefeasible; that the boundaries of land must be mathematically defined; and notice given to every adjoining occupier, and to the party to whom he paid rent, and that all subsequent dealings with the land must also be registered. With regard to the indefeasible title, it was required that it should be for a period of 60 years, and the title had to be traced through the whole of that period, showing that all charges on the land had been met and had been duly and legally released; that all deeds had been properly executed, and all pedigrees and derivations of title had to be shown by legal evidence. Of course, there were many things in a title which must be matters of inference and of presumption rather than of proof; and he entered into the details of a particular case to illustrate the difficulty of satisfying all the conditions imposed. In actual practice minute points were not regarded; but what was done was this. A party desiring to sell had his title investigated by his counsel or solicitor, and if there appeared to be any small defects, they were guarded against by special contract, or by conditions of sale, and one usually adopted and most efficacious in its operation was to throw on the purchaser the expense of clearing up of any defect. The effect of this was that minute points were waived or disregarded. The second condition of registration was that the boundaries of estates should be clearly defined, and notice of the intention to register was to be given to all adjoining landowners, and to all occupying tenants, a regulation that frequently entailed considerable expense and trou.

  2025
  ble By rendering such notice imperative persons were encouraged — and, indeed, almost compelled—to make adverse claims, and to revive those which had been long dormant. The third requirement was that all subsequent dealings with the land should be registered and pass through the office. In the case of the subdivision of land for building purposes, it was a great hardship upon poor people who bought a plot of land for £20 or £30 that they should be compelled to pay an additional sum of £3 or £4 as the expense of registration. In 1867 a Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the operation of this Act, and in 1868 they presented a Report, which consisted of two parts—findings and recommendations. As regarded the findings the Commissioners did not differ; but with respect to the recommendations they differed considerably. In dealing with the question of marketable and indefeasible titles, they stated that what the purchaser required was not an indefeasible title, but such a title as would make him reasonably secure, and so little did they want an indefeasible title that they would overlook certain blots and defects. There was considerable difference of opinion as to the remedy to be applied. The Commissioners suggested that they should register the first conveyance—start with that as the root of the title, and that the register and title should take effect from that date. But there was this great difficulty — that no remedy could by this be applied to the existing state of things, and, until after the lapse of 30 or 40 years, the delay, expense, and trouble to which people were now subject, must continue. The question was whether some remedy could not be applied which would be more immediate in its action, and more beneficent in its operation, and by which the delay, trouble, and expense of continued investigation of titles might be saved as at present. Before offering property for sale a vendor always had his title investigated, but this by no means bound the vendor, who had to look into the matter again, and the second investigation was money absolutely thrown away. But no solicitor could give it up. He was responsible for any defect which might appear as to the title, and could waive nothing. What he would suggest was this. There was an office of land registry in operation,
  2026
  and power was given to grant certificates of indefeasible title. Let that office certify such titles as were ordinarily given. Let them grant a certificate that a man possessed a good title, subject to conditions and qualifications. Let the title be good so far as it was certified; but let them make certain reservations, and the man taking the certificate could then go into the market and say—"Here is my title certified so far—you shall have any defects removed at your own expense, or you may waive them if you do not choose to go to that expense." If this proposal were adopted, the large sums which were now spent in investigating titles would be saved, and the transfer of land would be rendered far easier than it was at present. The hon. Gentlemen concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. WREN HOSKYNS, in seconding the Motion, said, he felt obliged to the hon. and learned Member who had introduced the question, than which one more important could hardly be brought before the House. He (Mr. Wren Hoskyns) had for a long time taken a deep interest in this subject, having watched the effect of the existing law during the period to which his hon. and learned Friend had directed the attention of the House. In the Report of the last Commission which sat on that subject, the Commissioners expressed their opinion that before any successful effort could be completed for the transfer of land, there must be a revision of the law of real property altogether. The difficulty which really applied to the transfer of land arose in consequence of the length of title that must be examined into; and so long as the title must be of that length, it was almost impossible to place on the register a title which could be a matter of easy commercial transfer between man and man. Why was it necessary to go back 60 years to get a title? Because so much power was given to landowners to make charges on the land that lasted over a great number of years; and, of course, there must be a correlative power to look into those charges when they endeavoured to make a title. It was a national misfortune that there were so few owners of land in England. Although we had no proper statistics on the subject, yet he believed there was scarcely a continental country in which the ownership of land was con-

  2027
  fined to so small a number of persons as was the case here. Such extensive improvements had been made in the land laws of Prussia, Bavaria, Austria, and even Russia, in this century, that we lagged behind almost every other European country in respect to the extension of the advantages, and, he might say, the blessings of the ownership of land to the general community. In England a man might go into an auction-room and bid for a piece of land, and the moment he had done so he found, himself pledged to something equivalent to a positive lawsuit, which might extend over six months or two years before he could realize actual proprietorship. It was a disgrace to a civilized State that there should not be a power of acquiring a portion of the land of the country on terms a little easier than was the case here at present. The attempt to register the muniments of title to land could only have the effect of burdening the register and making it more difficult to examine it. What was wanted was that the results should be registered; and that, he feared, could not be accomplished unless they made up their minds to have a greater number of fee-simple titles to land. There now existed so many estates for life, extending to the next generation, before the actual ownership of the land was decided by the fee-simple. It had been said that it ought to be as easy to buy land as to buy a horse; but how would it be possible to buy a horse if the ownership of the one half of it was in one century and that of the other half was in another century, as was the case with land? The real impediment to the transfer of land was the immense period over which the ownership extended. Our middle classes were accustomed to invest their money where they could at once obtain what they purchased — where there were no delays, no unknown costs, no wearisome forms that disgusted them with their bargain before it was completed; and as to our lower classes, they found the purchase of land to be utterly hopeless. In other countries the acquisition of land was an object attainable by the whole community. All the great political economists said that the accumulation of wealth might make a nation, or part of a nation, rich; but that it was the distribution of wealth which made a nation happy and defended it from an army of
  2028
  pauperism, crime, and other evils to which society was liable. Let them apply the doctrine of Adam Smith to this matter, and they would find that in regard to land they now almost bade defiance to the principles continually appealed to as those which conduced to the happiness and prosperity of a nation. That subject of the transfer of land was made too much of a lawyer's question. They ought, first, to make the article itself transferable, and then its transfer would not be so difficult. The common charge against the Code Napoleon was that it subdivided the land to excess, prescribing so much and leaving so little scope to testamentary power; but in this country we almost imitated the mistakes of that code in a still more dangerous degree, though in a different way, because we cut up the ownership of land into so many different, deferred, and complicated interests, breaking up the true interest into such a great variety of small estates. The hopes built upon Lord Westbury's Act had been disappointed owing to that state of things. Lord Cairns' admirable intentions in regard to that subject were frustrated by the dissolution of Parliament, and Lord Campbell, Lord Brougham, the present Lord Chancellor, and, indeed, almost all the Law Lords had, in turn, attempted to give facilities for simplifying that question; but he was sorry to say he believed that none of those efforts would be successful until they first consented to go into the whole subject of the law of real property. That work was begun in Prussia in 1807, and completed in the middle of this century, and it had nearly doubled the value of land in that country, increasing the national happiness in a manner seldom witnessed in any State. The recent successes of the patriot soldiers of Prussia might be accounted for in no small degree by the fact that a large part of the Prussian Army went from homes which they owned in fee-simple to fight in a foreign country, and had those homes to return to when the war was over. He was not one of those persons who thought that the landed proprietors of this country were to be reproached as the authors of the present state of things; on the contrary, he believed they were oftener the victims. Many men of their class had expressed a most liberal desire to see the transfer of land facilitated in

  2029
  England, and the great subdivision of the interest in land put an end to by fee-simple ownership becoming more common. In Denmark, he thought, and also in Russia, there was a practice of retaining under the system of entails land which belonged to ancient families who were looked up to with honour by the State; and in those cases exceptional entails were made. He did not see why a similar means might not be used in this country for escaping from the great difficulty of any attempt to abolish or interfere with the right and practice of entail. He hoped, in conclusion, that the whole subject of Land Transfer would receive the attention of the House, inasmuch as it was a proper one for early legislation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to afford further facilities for the declaration of title through the Office of Land Registry."—(Mr. George Gregory.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had, on a former occasion, when this subject was discussed, stated that it was under the consideration of the Government, and he had now to add that a Bill had been prepared to deal with it; but it was doubtful whether the state of Public Business would permit its introduction during the present Session. He had, however, the authority of the Lord Chancellor for saying that if the Bill were not brought forward, this Session it should be introduced early in the next one. When that measure was introduced it was inevitable that the question would have to be discussed at great length, and under those circumstances he should refrain from going into it in detail now. He quite agreed that the transfer of land should be made more easy and simple, and he had no doubt that that result could be arrived at; but he was by no means certain that land could be made as easy of transfer as capital, as there were such inherent differences in the subject-matter which could not be removed. The Act of 1862 had, no doubt, turned out a failure, mainly because it dealt with indefeasible titles, which were very difficult to obtain, while practical merchantable titles were not so difficult to obtain. The Commission had suggested that the existing registry might be utilized, and that by the establishment of an additional registry the trans-
  2030
  fer of land with an ordinary title might be facilitated. That was the object of the Bill which had been prepared, and was now in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. But he would go into the question at length when the Government Bill was introduced, and in the meantime he trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would not think it necessary to press his abstract Resolution.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, that after the assurance just given by the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government would deal with the question at as early a time as possible, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRIVATE CHAPELS BILL— [BILL 37.]
(Mr. Salt, Mr. Dimsdale, Mr. Morrison.)
PRIVATE CHAPELS BILL— [BILL 37.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. SALTsaid, that not having had the opportunity of explaining the provisions of the Bill on moving the second reading, he proposed to do so now. Of late years several measures had been passed which interfered with the ecclesiastical law relating to the rights and powers of incumbents within their parishes—for instance, in the cases of prisons, public schools, and unions, the rights of the incumbent to the spiritual authority within his parish had been superseded. But these were not the only cases in which relief was desirable. As the law at present stood—except in the cases before noticed—the Bishop could not license any clergyman to perform ecclesiastical duties within any parish without the consent of the incumbent. This Bill, however, proposed to enable the Bishop of the diocese to license a minister to any private chapel, or any chapel belonging to any school, college, hospital, asylum, or other public institution; who being so licensed should be authorized to administer the sacraments, and perform all such offices and services of the Church as should be named in the license; but the solemnization of matrimony was excepted from the Bishop's power. By the second clause, any minister so licensed was exempted from control or interference on the part of the incumbent of the parish; but the entire cure of souls throughout the parish, save within the walls of the chapel, was re-

  2031
  served to the incumbent. Objections had been raised to the inclusion of private chapels within the provisions of the Bill, and in Committee he would move the omission of that part of the Bill, with a view to bring up other clauses on the Report. He had been anxious to ascertain whether the provisions of this measure would be acceptable to the clergy, and before introducing it he wrote to several clergymen of his acquaintance in order to ascertain their opinions as to whether it would make any undue invasion of their privileges, and to elicit their criticisms. Without an exception he received answers favourable to the Bill In fact the Bill only sought to give the sanction of law to the custom which had hitherto prevailed in the majority of cases, for chaplains were generally appointed to public institutions, and even in private families, without objection, while in those few cases in which the incumbent of the parish had raised any objection, and had used his powers of interference in an arbitrary manner, a change in the law was desirable in the interests of religion and education. He had been told that he was making an attack by this Bill on the parochial system; but this Bill contained the very essence and spirit of the parochial system. Anybody acquainted with the history of this country knew that private chapels had been the foundation of parish churches, and even in the last half-century there had been repeated instances of districts carved out of parishes on account of the growth of population. The whole course of modern legislation for the extension of the Church teaching was founded upon the same principle. That would be a very narrow view of the parochial system according to which the privileges of the particular person placed over the district were, under no circumstances or conditions whatever, to" be interfered with; and if such a view were to prevail, in fact, the parochial system would stand self-condemned. He moved that the House went into Committee on this Bill.
  MR. MONKsaid, that when he first read the Bill he could not clearly ascertain what object the proposers had in view. The Bill was somewhat vaguely drawn; but now, as the hon. Member had explained its provisions, it would appear that their object was to extend the parochial system by an invasion of
  2032
  the rights of the incumbent of the parish. There was at present power to set up chapels and chapelries in overgrown parishes under the existing Church Buildings Acts. It appeared to him the Bill was intended to empower the owners of private chapels to appoint ministers to them without the consent of the incumbent of the parish, which was a step towards disestablishing incumbents, if not also a step towards the disestablishment of the Church. That might not be the view taken of it by the promoters of the Bill; but it certainly was the view taken by some hon. Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House. With the omission of the words "any private chapel" from the Bill he was willing to accept it as a Bill to enable the Bishop to appoint a minister to exercise spiritual functions in the chapel attached to any college, public school, hospital, &c.; but if it was intended to enable the owners of private chapels to obtain the appointment of a minister in opposition to the wishes of the incumbent, he should oppose its further progress.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  On Motion of Mr. MONK, words relating to private Chapels in Clause 1 struck out.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday.

TRADES UNIONS BILL— [BILL 28.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
TRADES UNIONS BILL— [BILL 28.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Bruce.)
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that in making a few remarks on this Bill he wished, in the first place, to disclaim any hostility to the principle of trades unions, or even of strikes. Few who had paid attention to the subject could have failed to perceive that the proportion between wages and profits was very seldom thought of in settling the amount of wages. The political economist might say that a man was not bound to give above the market price for a day's work more than for a coat or a hat, that there

  2033
  was no reason why he should offer higher wages than the lowest that a workman would take, and that if these were not enough to keep body and soul together, so much the worse for the workman, who had nothing more valuable to sell. The case of clerks in many shops and smaller mercantile houses, and of the lace makers in the south of Devon, occurred to him as instances in which, from very different causes, there was no sort of proportion between the profits of the principals and the wages of the workpeople, though in both cases the work was good, and might be much more highly paid. In the former case the enormous supply, compared with the demand, was the cause of low pay; and in the latter the wretched condition of the people and the bondage to which they were reduced by what was practically the truck system. In neither of these cases could there be resistance without combination. The employers could go elsewhere or wait. The labour of the employed—his only saleable property—would not keep. It was like meat or fish, which in hot weather must be rapidly disposed of. Assistance from without alone could place the contracting parties on equal conditions, for he was only speaking of cases in which the employers could well afford to pay more. Trades unions, enabling workpeople to make better terms with their employers, had put an end to starving wages in many trades. No one could expect people to go on receiving such wages with satisfaction. No one could find fault with strikes aimed against injustice and wrong. What were co-operative stores but combination against overcharge and adulteration? But there was another side to the question. It was when the so-called leaders of the workpeople, men who had attained their position perhaps by that all-powerful weapon among the masses, "the gift of the gab," men who delighted in warfare, from which they derived, if not pecuniary benefits, a position of power and consequence. When they sought to abolish the difference between good and bad workmen, and to induce people who were perfectly satisfied with their position and their wages to join in strikes, he was sure that the clear intellect of Mr. Justice Hannen, whom the right hon. Gentleman had quoted on bringing in his Bill, would not fail to
  2034
  see that such proceedings were not only injurious to the particular employer, but to the public. He had seen a somewhat fine distinction drawn in a recent publication—namely, this, that if the strike was in a trade in which we had foreign competitors it was injurious to the public, because it might drive the trade entirely out of the country; but if it was in a home trade, such as the various building trades, then it was a mere question between master and man. But what did an hon. Member complain of last year? That the doors and window frames of the new St. Thomas's Hospital came ready made from abroad, where, in consequence of disputes and strikes in that portion of the building trade, they could be obtained cheaper and better than at home. So much was this question one of degree that it was very difficult to say when the action of a trade union ceased to be beneficial, and became contrary to public policy. But the fault he found with the Bill was that while it did not seem to diminish the chances of disagreement between workmen and employers, it appeared to recognize acts which no one could doubt were contrary to public policy. As far as he understood the Bill, there would be no objection whatever to grant a certificate of registry, with all its advantages, to such unions as those of the Manchester bricklayers and masons, among whose rules he found the following:—
  "That no master bricklayer shall have more than three apprentices; that all workmen should be paid the same wages, without reference to their ability or industry."
  Let them imagine such regulations emanating from the Inns of Court or Colleges of Surgeons or Physicians? Yet they represented callings which were equally overstocked. Another rule stated that no bricks should be carried in wheelbarrows, which reminded him of the negroes on an estate in Jamaica, who, when wheelbarrows were introduced from England, resented the innovation so much that they carried them on their heads as they had done their old baskets. Bricklayers' labourers were not by another rule to go up one ladder and down another—an edict only to be compared with that in the Arabian Nights, which condemned to death the pastry cook who had made cream tarts without pepper. Again it was ordered—

  2035
  "That every bricklayer should have an attendant whether he wanted him or not, and that no stones should be shaped in the quarry,"
  but that a quantity of the useless superfluous mass must be brought at increased expense to the workshop. Let the House imagine such a rule enforced with reference, for instance, to the building of the Wolf Bock Lighthouse off the coast of Cornwall. He should be sorry to think that any encouragement, however indirect, was given by the Bill to rules so arbitrary, capricious, and mischievous, and though no agreement to obey such rules could be legally enforced, yet he feared that there would be many other ways of enforcing them within the letter of the law, which would continue to work mischief till the slow progress of true education convinced the upholders of such rules that they were running in the very teeth of their own best interests.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, in answer to the objection of his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Cave), as to the nature of some of the rules of the unions, that the object of this Bill was to give the privilege of combination, including the right to strikes, to workpeople, and whether the rules of the unions were objectionable or not did not really matter. There was to be a free right of combination so long as the rules were made public. Of course, if there was anything absolutely illegal in the rules, it would be detected by the registrar, who would refuse to register them. The Bill seemed to him to be an extremely good one in almost every respect. It abolished all the laws which had produced bad results in bygone times, and it gave to societies that right of combination, which it would be admitted they deserved, by the manner in which they had behaved for many years past. It was true that some combinations had done acts, and had made rules, that had caused very serious evils in various parts of the country; but such unions were very few, and in general trades unions had been very beneficial. The great argument from the workmens' point of view for such combinations was, that wherever they had been broken down through strikes not being successful, the result had been that the condition of the workpeople had fallen very low. This was the case 30 years ago in the East End of London with the tailors' union; and ever since this branch of labour had been in a deplorable con-
  2036
  dition, the wages not being sufficient to support the men in decency. Anyone who perused the evidence given before the Commission must come to the conclusion that trades unions had become so powerful and so well organized that it would be useless to contend any longer against their having a right to that legal position which the Bill proposed to give them. He said on a previous occasion that the only feature of the Bill which was objectionable was that it threatened to perpetuate the evil which had arisen from the construction which had been placed by the Courts upon the words "molestation" and "obstruction" in the Act of Geo. IV. The words had been so construed as to make criminal acts which were not cognizable by the ordinary criminal law; for instance, such acts as calling out in the street to men passing; or such an act as a man, employed to represent the union, telling the master that "there would be a row" if a certain course of action were followed. Since the passing of that Act, there had been a great number of cases in which workpeople had been imprisoned in consequence of the interpretation put upon those words "molestation" and "obstruction;" but in no instance had the Act been brought to bear upon combinations of employers, and the consequence was that the feeling against those clauses of the Act had been for many years exceedingly strong among working men. When he found that this Bill would perpetuate the clauses relating to molestation and obstruction he thought it to be an error, and that the better policy would have been to remove these words, which were extremely difficult of definition, and to pass the Bill without defining what these phrases were to mean. If, however, those words were to be retained, he was bound to admit that the 3rd clause was as successful an attempt to define them as was likely to be made; for it confined their meaning practically to two offences, those of picketing and rattening. These were the two offences dealt with by the clause. His objection to it was, that it made acts penal in one case which you could not suppress in the other. When a strike occurred, the first object of the employer was to prevent his workmen from getting other employment, while the object of the workmen was to prevent him from filling their places. The

  2037
  only way by which the men could effect this object was, to watch and warn other workpeople from furnishing the labour which the employers required. This was the offence of picketing; but if picketing were employed by the men, on the other hand what did the employers do? They sent a list of their workmen to other employers in the neighbourhood with notice that their works were closed, and requesting that their workmen might not be employed in other works in the neighbourhood. Now, this black list was the exact counterpart of picketing as practised by the men. He would give one instance of the use of these black lists, as they were called. Some three years ago there was a strike by the joiners at Manchester, and a circular was produced in evidence before the Trade Union Commissioners, signed by the secretary of the Masters' Union, convening a meeting of employers, "to take what steps may be thought necessary to prevent the men on strike from getting employment in other towns." His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Jessel) was of opinion that words might be inserted in this Bill enforcing penalties against the masters for the issue of a black list, just as against the workmen for picketing. He feared, however, that this was impossible; and, therefore, the Bill was a one-sided enactment, making penal on the side of the men the very act which could not be made penal on the side of the employers. It was far better that this clause should be removed from the Bill. Another reason that he had for objecting to this clause was that it was bringing them back to the old difficulties as to the law of conspiracy. It was proposed to give to two magistrates a jurisdiction in these matters, which had never before been confided to such a tribunal. In the districts where strikes were most common, and where there were great works in the neighbourhood of which trades unions were powerful, the local magistracy was filled with persons of the same class as the employers—persons deeply interested in these questions—and it would be a very unfortunate piece of legislation to give jurisdiction to such persons under such circumstances. He thought if such jurisdiction were conferred upon magistrates, it should be given to stipendiary magistrates. There was this further objection—that they were seeking to in-
  2038
  troduce into a special Act, applying specially to trades unions, general provisions which, if they had any bearing at all, should apply to every person in the community. This Bill was applicable, not only to members of trades unions, but to all persons who did certain acts. If these offences were to be made penal for every person who committed them, he thought the Government Bill was not the place to introduce such a clause as this. It would be far better if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department were to put these offences into a separate Act, where they would be dealt with as offences entirely apart from trades unionism, and which should declare that whoever committed them, whether he was a member of a trades union or not, would be subject to certain penalties. All the best men connected with trades unions felt that such offences as rattening, dogging, and hustling men in the streets, should, be made penal. With respect to the other clauses, he looked upon them as satisfactory, and he thought that the Bill did all that was necessary. In the 15th clause, subsection 6, it was enacted that—
  "The Board of Trade may from time to time make regulations respecting registry under this Act, and respecting the seal (if any) to be used for the purpose of such registry, and the forms to be used for such registry, and the inspection of documents kept by the registrar under this Act, and respecting the fees, if any, to be paid on registry not exceeding the fees specified in the second schedule to this Act, and generally for carrying this Act into effect."
  That was a very wide clause, and it should be distinctly understood that such words would be inserted as would be necessary to make it quite clear that the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade was simply with respect to the regulations of the registry, and not with respect to the rules which were to be submitted to it for registration. In the 19th clause there was another question as to registration, which was of some little importance—namely, under what class of societies trades unions were to be registered—whether under the Friendly Societies' Act or the Joint-stock Companies Act. It appeared to him that the proper thing would be to register the unions under the Friendly Societies' Act, as the Joint-stock Acts were framed for the purposes of commercial associations, and were worked by a machinery which was inapplicable to such unions. He thought this

  2039
  Bill would do away with almost all the difficulties, and heartburnings, and jealousies which had been so prevalent among members of trades unions in consequence of the legislation of past years, and which was regarded by them as extremely one-sided and penal. The existence of these unions as legal associations would greatly help the system of arbitration which had done so much to settle disputes between the employer and the employed, and reserving his opinion on the 3rd clause, he should give his hearty support to the Bill, which, he believed, would work extremely well.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, hon. Members were perfectly agreed as to the general principle of the Bill and ready to support it on the second reading, although there were many who would wish to make alterations in its clauses; but when the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) said they should recognize all kinds of combinations not for illegal purposes, he forgot that their recognition legalized. The law could legalize combinations for all purposes. The real principle at which they had arrived was that, for the purpose of mutual aid, combinations of all sorts should be promoted by the law on condition that there was nothing in the proceedings to militate against the public interest, and nothing of either violence or fraud. This was a principle which they had largely adopted in promoting friendly societies, which had formerly been treated as conspiracies, and the category of friendly societies had been gradually enlarged, while the principle of mutual aid on which they were based had been admitted to be of general application. The old objection to friendly societies was found to be a false one, and the law had restricted the public from entering into many very useful combinations. The principle of these societies had now been recognized, not only for benefit purposes, but also for trade co-operation. Employers of labour were in themselves a great combination, and there ought to be a countervailing power permitted to the employed to guard their own interests. It was to be hoped that this measure would lead, not only to co-operation on each side, but to a great deal of co-operation between these two parties and to the constitution of joint boards of conciliation. The best way to proceed was for the two to act
  2040
  together; but, at all events, the law should not be such as to render the one side powerful and the other weak. His own objection to the Bill generally was that it seemed to needlessly complicate the subject. If we had recognized the general principle of combinations for mutual aid, why not act upon it, in the case of trades unions, so as to bring them, as far as possible, under the principle? It seemed to him to be a great fault to make a new law for every case, as they had made a separate Factory Act for every trade. Uniformity in the application of principle was one of the law's chief merits; and want of uniformity was, in itself, an evil. What was there to prevent trades unions, so far as their operation was for benefit purposes capable of calculation, from being brought under the Friendly Societies' Acts; all benefit societies might be brought under one principle, and the law should give them its protection, and allow them to sue and be sued, provided they would submit to the conditions that would prevent their militating against the general good. Trades unions had two purposes—they were trade societies, and they were benefit societies. In the latter respect there could be no reason why they should not come under the Friendly Societies' Acts. The trade department was not equally capable of calculation. But what reason had been assigned why these trade societies should not also be brought under the general principle of legalized combinations which had been so widely extended of late years for various purposes? He believed he might state, on the high authority of the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, that all such societies should be brought under the law. The two objections made against this Bill had been on account of the 3rd clause, the penal clause, and on account of the terms of registration. There were special crimes which had sprung out of trades unions; but it is said these could have been brought under the general criminal law. He did not himself see any stigma attached to trades unions by dealing with their abuses in the Act which legalized them, any more than similarly dealing with public-house abuses in Licensing Acts stigmatized that trade. But if such an objection were seriously felt it might be easily met. If the special acts were added to the category of crimes in a

  2041
  separate Bill, the whole difficulty would be got rid of at once. The present Bill had grown up during years of struggle, and inquiry, and mutual concessions, for it was desirable to secure the result with goodwill. If what he had suggested should be carried out, he trusted that care would be taken that the Act touching the crimes would be passed before the Royal Assent was given to the Trades Unions Bill, as however partial the abuses of trades unions might be, still it would not be safe to legalize their use without security against such possible abuse.
  MR JESSELsaid, he could not admit that the Bill was directed to any such general alteration of the law as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) supposed. The object of the Bill was one which he believed the whole House approved—namely, to eliminate one single element of illegality from the constitution of trades unions, this element being that they were unlawful, simply because they were in restraint of trade, and the moment they eliminated this they made them lawful, with the special exception provided by the Act. He entirely agreed with the remarks made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) as to special class legislation; but he wished to point out to the House that this legislation was not fairly obnoxious to the charge of being class legislation. Class legislation was the conferring of special privileges on a single class of the community, or enacting special prohibitions against a single class as distinguished from all others. But it was not class legislation to prohibit offences by any member of the community merely because such offences were committed usually by one class only. There was in our criminal legislation an enactment which prohibited the possession of house-breaking implements by any member of the community. This might be said to be class legislation as regarded burglars, because no other members of the community carried about with them housebreaking implements. But this was not class legislation; and if we prohibited the offences which had been described as "rattening" and "picketing," it was no answer to say that here was class legislation, because they were not offences likely to be committed except by handicraftsmen. The complaints of the working classes, on the ground of the prohi-
  2042
  bitory enactments included in the Bill, were not well founded. He thought the working classes had great cause to be grateful to the Government for defining the offences for which they were to be punished. On this question Common Law Judges had differed in opinion, and it might be concluded that they always would differ when it was considered that they had to look back to ancient decisions and from them to educe principles applicable to the present state of things. Though we might be agreed as to a principle, it was difficult to agree as to its application to a totally different state of circumstances from that which formerly existed. If we simply abolished the combination laws, and left the matter to be dealt with by the common law, we should transfer that accurate definition of crime, which ought to be the province of legislation, to the Judges, and we should leave whole classes in utter uncertainty as to what their duties and obligations were. Whether the definitions given in the Bill were accurate, or whether they admitted of improvement was, of course, a question for Committee; but the working classes would wish to see the offences, whatever they might be, accurately and carefully defined. He wished to call attention to the 5th clause, which introduced a new principle as regarded contracts; for this was the first attempt, so far as he knew, to make a legal contract not enforceable by law. It was an illogical proposition, a contradiction in terms, to call that a contract which could not be enforced; there was nothing of the kind in our law at present, and it would be extremely objectionable to enact such a thing. It had lately been often enacted that certain persons, such as women and children under the Factory Acts, should not be at liberty to contract, and this had been extended to the case of some tenant-farmers in Ireland; but always on the ground that they were not competent to contract, and that it was for their own benefit that the power should be withdrawn; but this was the first time it had been proposed that men, fully competent to enter into a contract which was unobjectionable, should not be allowed to enforce it. It was an intelligible proposition that certain contracts were opposed to public policy and that they should be invalid, but the proposition of the Bill was not this. It tad been said they were to assimilate

  2043
  trades unions to clubs, so that members were to be entitled to pay their subscriptions or leave them alone as they liked; but members of clubs could be compelled to pay their subscriptions unless they gave notice of their intention to withdraw. We were every day telling the labouring classes that they were capable of managing their own affairs, and were we to refuse them the recognition of contracts which were not obnoxious to the general law of the country? He would suggest for the consideration of the Government that it would be better to declare that certain contracts which were mischievous in themselves, and which were contrary to the general policy of the law, should be invalid. That was a well-known principle, and such invalidity need not draw with it consequences which had been found inconvenient. The 13th clause said that an auditor appointed by the managers of a trade union should decide what sums were properly expended and what were not; and as the clause stood, if the managing body thought that any application of funds towards a strike was not desirable, the auditor appointed by them could disallow the payment, although it might have been made in accordance with the rules, and the unfortunate treasurer would have to pay the money out of his own pocket—this should be altered. As to contract, it would be simpler and wiser to declare that such and such a contract should be invalid; but such invalidity should not prevent the calling the treasurer to account, or any other special object which it was desirable to accomplish, and that could be done without infringing the general policy of the law. Without entering further into the discussion of details, he should only record his opinion that the working classes would be glad to find that it would no longer be several statutes, but one short code, that would tell them what they could not do, and what they could do, in accordance with law.
  MR. HERMONsaid, that when the Bill was introduced he had promised it his support, and he saw no reason now for withdrawing it. He could not agree that trades unions were unmitigated blessings, either to the working classes or to the country at large. He believed that combinations, both of masters and men, were equally objectionable. Representing a constituency whose chief employment
  2044
  was daily labour, he had consulted both the employers and the employed on it, and from neither of them had he received any objection to the Bill. Therefore, he felt bound to consider that they supported it, and he should do the same. He was glad that the Bill contained legal protection to the funds of the trades unions. He regretted that this Bill did not attempt to constitute some legal Court to which disputes between employers and workmen might be referred, although, at the same time, he saw that there might be great difficulty in making the decisions of such a Court binding upon the parties interested. If a little mutual forbearance were exercised at the commencement of strikes, matters might easily be managed. He was sorry to have heard what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) with reference to the black list; all he could say was that he was in happy ignorance of that part of the subject.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had no reason to be dissatisfied with the Bill, which he regarded as being a good measure. He did not like the 3rd clause, however, which covered matters which might, he thought, be met by common law; and, coupled with Clause 21, it was very objectionable. By the latter, magistrates who were employers might sit on the bench, judging disputes between men and employers, and having to interpret the very peculiar clauses about molestation and obstruction; and the disqualification of masters in the same trade as that with which the case was connected sitting in judgment was not enough. For his own part, he would prefer stipendiary magistrates; and, where there were no such judges, he should be inclined to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Potter).
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought it might be desirable that he should briefly explain the scope and object of the Bill. It was not a measure which dealt with trades unions only, inasmuch as it proposed to deal with the whole law of combination, whether entered into by trades unions, or any other body of individuals. In pursuit of combination, persons might be guilty of certain acts, in themselves objectionable, which the common law, or any existing statute, did not touch, and which

  2045
  could be dealt with now only by expensive and uncertain means. The 3rd clause would provide for that which had hitherto been left to vagueness and uncertainty, and the definition of which had been enforced in different ways by different Judges, sometimes extremely harshly and unfairly. The Government had endeavoured to limit carefully what acts only should be criminal; what acts should be deemed to constitute "molestation" and "obstruction;" and for none others in pursuit of combination should persons be punishable. It might or might not be successful legislation; but it was, at all events, clear and intelligible. The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) objected that, while combination was rendered lawful, there was no legal sanction given for enforcement of their engagements. He (the Solicitor General) concurred in the dictum of Mr. Justice Crompton to the effect that, if such agreements were enforceable at law, they should be also enforceable in equity. And what would be the consequence? The Court of Chancery would be called upon to enforce strikes; actions maintainable for breaches of contract not to work; and all manner of litigation which lawyers would look upon as profitable, but which the country at large would not long stand. Then it must be remembered that in this Bill they were dealing with a subject which stood by itself; and, though its provisions were not to be judged by lawyers, or by logic, it would abide the test of common sense. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he believed the Bill to be an honest attempt to settle a long-disputed question; and considered it, on the whole, to be a satisfactory
  2046
  measure. The chief objection to it was the 3rd clause; and, with respect to it, there were many offences there made penal which he would have been glad to see punished under the criminal law of the country. He hoped that the clause would be omitted from the Bill.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, he thought the 3rd clause ought to be omitted; it was so difficult to define what "molestation" was.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that while they secured to the fullest extent the civil rights of the trades unions, it was necessary also to protect the workmen themselves against intimidation and molestation. There were certain offences described by these terms which were not met by the criminal law; and it seemed to him that the Government, in dealing with them in the manner proposed, had taken a course which would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 23rd March.

  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. LUSH, Bill to amend the Medical Act, 1858, ordered to be brought in by Dr. LUSH, Mr. MUNDELLA, and Dr. BREWER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 72.]

  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRADY, Bill to amend the Medical Act of 1858, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRADY, Mr. HAVILANS-BURKE, and Mr. MURPHY.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.