Commons Sitting of 19 March 1878

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, Classes V., VI., VII.—REVENUE DE-
1590
PARTMENTS—ARMY AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY—EXCESSES, 1876–7.
Resolutions [March 18] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—(£1,537,0476s. 6d.) Consolidated Fund, 1877–8;(£12,000,000) Consolidated Fund, 1879.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Heading—? Freshwater Fish Protection* [131].
Select Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Bristol, &c.)* [112].
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  BLAKE v. THE ALBION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.—QUESTION.
  MR. PEASE,in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, asked the Secretary to the Department, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in the "Daily News" of March 13th, signed by one of the special jury in the late trial of "Blake v. The Albion Life Assurance Society;" and whether he proposes, in the interest of the vast body of insurers in this country, to give directions for a more careful supervision of the accounts of Insurance Companies, rendered in pursuance of the Act of 1870, than appears to have hitherto been the case, as shown by the extraordinary facts elicited in the course of the above-mentioned trial?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, on behalf of the Department, my attention has been called to the matter in question. The accounts and statements of Assurance Companies rendered in pursuance of the Act of 1870 are deposited at the Board of Trade, and copies of them are deposited by the Board of Trade with the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies, where they can be inspected by the public. The accounts and abstracts so deposited are laid annually before Parliament. The supervision, which rests with the Board of Trade, does not extend beyond seeing (I) that the accounts and statements required by the Act are furnished in the form prescribed by the Act; (2) that the questions put in the Schedules to the Act are categorically and completely answered; (3) that the answers given do not conflict with one another or with the statements in the accounts; and (4) that, prima facie, no serious items of liability are omitted. The Board of Trade are in no way

  1591
  responsible for the accuracy of the answers given, or the statements made by the Companies. In 1873, however—that is, shortly after the duty of receiving the accounts of Assurance Companies was imposed upon them by Parliament—the Board of Trade, finding that some of these accounts disclosed a very unsatisfactory state of matters, took the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether it was within their powers, under the Life Assurance Companies Act, to require a Company to amend its accounts, so that at least a minimum provision should be made for future management expenses before determining what the surplus of the Life Fund was. This is, of course, a vital point in ascertaining the position of a Life Assurance Company. The Law Officers advised the Board of Trade that they had no such power, and it is a curious circumstance that the specimen instance on which the case was submitted to the Law Officers was that of the Albion Assurance Company. Notwithstanding the limited powers of the Board of Trade, it has been their practice, in cases of manifestly insufficient reserve, to bring this specially to the notice of the Directors, so that in the event of any question arising at a future time, they cannot urge that they signed the accounts in ignorance. In the case of the Albion Company, a correspondence of this sort which took place with the Board of Trade in 1873—the year of their previous valuation—led to the withdrawal of a bonus which had been decided upon. In certain cases where, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, the accounts of an Assurance Company are not such as are required by the Act of 1870, they deposit the accounts under the Act of 1872, which empowers them to lay before Parliament statements purporting to be in pursuance of the Life Assurance Act of 1870.' When they think that such a case ought to be brought before Parliament and the public, they annex to the accounts the correspondence which has passed between them and the Company, and publish the two together in the annual Blue Book. This course they adopt under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, who were of opinion that the Board of Trade could not state their reasons more fairly than by setting out the correspondence, and they had determined to adopt this
  1592
  course with the accounts of the Albion Assurance Company before the action of "Blake v. The Albion Company" was tried.

  INDIA—THE PRESS LAWS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Under-Secretory of State for India, If the new Law regulating the liberty of the Press in India is correctly described in the London newspapers of the 15th inst.; and, whether he will lay a copy of that proposal upon the Table of the House?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, that the telegram from India correctly described the measures taken by the Indian Government. They had not yet received a copy of the Act at the India Office, but as soon as it was received it would be laid on the Table, together with the discussion which had arisen in the Council of the Governor General of India on the subject.

  MINES REGULATION ACT—THE BLAN-TYKE EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table the Report that Mr. Inspector Moore sent to the Lord Advocate respecting the explosion which took place in the Blantyre No. 2 Pit on the 20th of August, 1877?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, there will be no objection to the production of the Report, if the hon. Member will move for it.

  MERCANTILE AMENDMENT ACT, 1856—BILLS OF EXCHANGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. STANTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a recent decision of a County Court Judge in Northumberland, and since confirmed by Mr. Justice Denman in Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, to the effect that a bill of exchange upon which the acceptor has simply written his name is not legally accepted; and, whether, such having been held to be the law, he will take steps to remedy a state of things that must cause serious inconvenience to the large trading interests of this Country, being so entirely at variance with the established practice in dealing with such bills of exchange?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, my attention has quite recently been called to the Judgment in the Court of Appeal from Inferior Courts confirming the decision of the Judge of the County Court of Northumberland, referred to in the Question of the hon. Member. In 1856 the Mercantile Amendment Act was passed to assimilate in some particulars the laws of England and Ireland to the laws of Scotland, and by Section 6 of that Statute it is provided—
  "That no acceptee of a Bill, inland or foreign, made after December 31, 1856, shall charge any person, unless in writing on the bill, and signed by the acceptor or some person duly authorized by him."
  As by the Statute in question it was clearly intended to introduce the Scotch law into this country and Ireland, I must be permitted to make some inquiries as to what is the law of Scotland and the practice pursued in that country with regard to the mode of accepting bills before I can decide whether any and, if any, what measures shall be adopted.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CONGRESS.—QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, "Whether he can state to the House, for the information of the Country, when the proposed Congress at Berlin is likely to assemble; whether he can state, following the precedents given by Ministers in this House (as, for instance, prior to the Conference at Geneva and to the Congress at Paris), who are to be the Plenipotentiaries representing the Powers of Europe taking part in that Congress; and, whether the news circulating from Berlin is correct, that, of the Powers to be represented at the Congress, Austria, Prance, Germany, Russia, and Turkey are to be represented as First Plenipotentiaries by their Minister for Foreign Affairs; and, if this be so, to explain why the Foreign Office has chosen the English Envoy to the French Republic to represent Great Britain?
  MR. BOURKE: In reply to the first part of the Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, I have to state and to remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago stated the conditions on which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to enter a Conference or Congress. Well, if an
  1594
  agreement is arrived at with respect to these conditions, the Conference will probably meet about the end of the month. With respect to the next part of the Question of my right hon. Friend, I have to state that the Powers, with the exception of England, will be represented by their respective Chancellors or Ministers for Foreign Affairs. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: And Ministers for Foreign Affairs.] The right hon. Baronet will recollect that Prince Bismarck is Chancellor, and not Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I believe that is the title also of Count Andrassy. Her Majesty's Government have made an exception for this country as regards themselves, and they have done this for the reasons stated the other day in "another place"—that is, because our system of administration is wholly different from that of Continental States. A Minister of Foreign Affairs in this country, I need not remind the right hon. Baronet, is a Member of a Cabinet collectively responsible to Parliament for all the affairs of the Government, and cannot act on his sole authority; and if he enters a Congress of that kind, and leaves his Colleagues to settle what his instructions are to be from time to time, he abdicates his functions as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and becomes a mere agent to carry out the instructions of the Cabinet, instead of remaining at home and being a Member of the Cabinet which has to decide what should be done, and with which he should be jointly responsible. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, adhere to the announcement made in the other House of Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  THE TURKISH LOAN OF 1855.

    QUESTION.
    MR. DODSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have, under the guarantees authorized by the Act 18 and 19 Vic. c. 99, been obliged to provide the half-year's interest recently due on the Turkish Loan of 1855, and specially charged upon the Egyptian Tribute, or any part thereof; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House an Account showing the amount, if any, so provided, and any Correspondence with the French, Turkish, or Egyptian Governments upon the subject?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Turkish Government—the Porte—did not provide the dividend on the Turkish Guaranteed Loan which fell due in February, and Her Majesty's Government, as an act of courtesy to the Porte, requested the Bank of England, in the first instance, to advance the amount temporarily, in order to give an opportunity for the Turkish Government to fulfil its obligations. After a reasonable time had elapsed, and the money had not been provided, it was found necessary to exercise the powers given to the Government by the Act of 1855, and to issue the amount of the interest and the commission, together with the interest and the commission on the sum advanced by the Bank, out of the Consolidated Fund. The amount so issued was £77,448. We have communicated with the French Government on the subject, and, no doubt, shall receive shortly a communication from them as to the course that is to be pursued. I may add that a portion of the charge of the Guaranteed Loan should have been defrayed out of the Egyptian Tribute, which the Khedive is bound, under the firman of the Porte, to remit direct to the Bank of England; but up to yesterday, no remittance had been received from His Highness, though, in answer to the remonstrance of Her Majesty's Government, it has been announced that a small payment on account of the tribute due to Turkey would be forwarded at once. This is the state of affairs, and as soon as the Correspondence is in a proper state, it shall be laid before Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have communicated the facts as they occurred to the French Government, and they are about to reclaim from that Government a moiety of the sum which they have issued from the Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the declaration exchanged between the two Governments in 1855.

    THE EASTERN QUESTION—RUSSIA—THE TERMS OF PEACE.—QUESTION.
    MR. J. GOLDSMID: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government has received from either of the contracting Powers, Turkey or Russia, the Terms of Peace; and, if so, whether he can communicate them to the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir, they have not yet been received.

  INDIAN TAXATION PETITION.

    MOTION FOR PRINTING.
    MR. FAWCETTpresented a Petition, signed by 8,200 inhabitants of Bombay, both Europeans and Natives, against the proposed new taxes in India. He was informed by one who was well competent to judge that there was not a single mercantile firm in Bombay a representative of which had not signed the Petition. The petitioners objected in the strongest possible way to any increase of the salt duty upon people who had only recently recovered from a severe famine. The proposal of a licence tax from which all professional and official parties should be exempted also met with their strongest opposition. Considering the importance of the Petition, he should move that it be printed.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that, in the ordinary course, the Petition would go before the Committee on Public Petitions, and if they considered it of sufficient importance, they would recommend that it be printed. If the Committee did not take that course, it would be competent for the hon. Member to move that it be printed.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would defer his Motion till he saw what action the Committee would take.

  MOTIONS.

    SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE INDIAN PRESS LAW.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. O'DONNELL,in rising to call attention to the establishment of a censorship of the Press in Bengal and Bombay, and to move—
    "That legislation for our Indian fellow-subjects subversive of fundamental principles of the British Constitution should be adopted without this House being previously consulted upon the urgent necessity of such a course,"

    1597
    said, he was prepared by official speeches and semi-official leaders in the patronized Press for some measure from the Indian Government dealing with the subject; but he was not prepared for a measure of such arbitrary authority as that which had just been adopted by the Indian Government. It was a measure which it was quite evident was intended to open a vast field for the purpose of the total suppression, or the official editing, of all the newspapers of Bengal and Bombay, printed and published in any Native language—a measure which was not justified and not required. Provision was even made for the punishment of what fell short of sedition or libel—a most infamous proposal. He had heard of punishment for the commission of an offence; but punishment for its non-commission was left to the inventive genius of the Calcutta Government, fertile in despotic expedients. The Indian newspapers published in English, which were to be exempt from the operation of the law, were quite as outspoken as those newspapers which were published in the Native languages. In support of that view, he would refer to a passage taken from The Indian Representative, which said that Sinbad with the living incubus upon his shoulders was emblematic of India dragging itself along oppressed with the weight of the foreign Government it supported. He contended that legislation of such an exaggerated character would be useless to put a stop to even incendiary appeals against Her Majesty's Administration in India. It was confessed on all hands that the individual circulation of the Native Indian newspapers was small; but under measures of an oppressive character, they would be much more extensively read. Nothing could be easier than for the prohibited newspapers to follow the example of the Lanterne, which was freely circulated in Prance despite the precautions of the Government censors; and if circulated in that way, the influence of the able and fearless, though discontented, writers, would be greater than at present. By merely crossing the border into one of the numerous Indian States that were mixed up with our Dominions in India, the publisher of the journal prohibited by the British Government could quietly print his offensive journal, and by a thousand willing hands that journal
    1598
    could be disseminated in the very heart of the district in which this absurd and Draconian measure was instituted for the purpose of expelling him and his influence. In the worst governed portions of Europe at any time during this century there was nothing to rival this engine which had been set up in India for the suppression of freedom of opinion. Indeed, nothing like it had ever been proposed. It was unfortunate, when they were endeavouring to set their house in order in the face of Europe, so as to come forward in defence of right, and justice, and freedom, that that House should be led so far to forget its high mission as to overlook an act of tyranny which at one blow struck down the most valued privileges and rights of a population equal to that of Europe. It would open the door to a system of official terrorism over Natives, which was very undesirable, and lead to evasion, which would be more mischievous to the Government than the open sale of Native newspapers. He protested most warmly against the slur cast upon the Native languages and the embargo laid upon Native thought. Views about education in India differed very widely; but he thought it was sad to look forward to the time when 250,000,000 should have to learn to give up their Native education on behalf of a few thousand Englishmen who had come to dwell amongst them, and could only remain permanently by conciliating the goodwill of the Natives of India. Whatever might be the stringency of the strictures passed by the Native newspapers on the acts of the the Government and the Government officials, the strictures in the newspapers published in England were in no whit different from those published in the Native newspapers in India. It was admitted by the supporters of the Administration in India that the writers in the Indian newspapers disclaimed all intention of cutting off the connection between India and the Empire except as a last and extreme resource. There was not an assertion in the wildest of the Indian newspapers that could not be rivalled in the writings of both Whigs and Tories in their criticisms on the great Revolution of 1688. The Pioneer of Allahabad admitted they had never attacked the Government as a Government, they had only criticized particular measures of the Government; and that

    1599
    represented the truth of the case generally with regard to the Indian Press. That Press protested against the manner in which the Indian Government was conducted in Calcutta, in which taxation was managed, in which justice was administered, and against the tyranny of the magistrates, and demanded that the Indian people ought to participate in the work of governing India, and in doing so they were perfectly right. The sort of criticism published in the Indian papers was very much like that published in the English papers with respect to English administration. One of the Indian papers inquired why so much dissatisfaction prevailed?—and stated that the people were more happy under the Mahometan authorities than under their present rule—that injustice and oppression were more extensively practised now than at any former period—that the people were suffering under the most grinding and cruel oppression on the part of the police officials, who had given so much trouble that the Governor of Bengal had declared that the continuance of crime itself would be better than the continuance of the law under which such exaction and extortion took place. If complaints of this kind might be published in England, was it conceivable, was it permissible, that such a Draconian law should be established as that which was now applied to India? Even hon. Members of Parliament had in their places in that House denounced the salt tax, for instance, as being a cruel and grinding piece of oppression of the poorest classes of the Native community. These and such like comments had been made, and they had been published by English newspapers which circulated freely in India. Why should not Indians in India be permitted to use language such as any British subject could utter in England or Ireland with impunity, even if they did use the Native tongue? One of the Indian papers, which was severely denounced by the Calcutta Government, stated that one of the greatest sins of which it had been guilty was that it had complained of increasing maladministration in India in respect to taxation, justice, and police. It stated that the policy of the British Government was to destroy the national life and keep the people in subjection for ever. Now, was that true, or was it not true? Was it not a fair comment on the part of
    1600
    Indian politicians to say that the Indian Administration was hostile to national life in India? And he would ask what measures had recently been taken by the Government which were not of that character? He contended that, with regard to an overwhelming majority of the offences alleged against the Indian Press, they could be dealt with by the ordinary process of law, and that most of them were not offences at all. Except through a Native Press, we could learn nothing of what the Native populations of India thought of our government, and if we suppressed that Press, we must not be surprised one day to find that we had been slumbering on the edge of a pent up volcano. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "legislation for our Indian fellow-subjects subversive of fundamental principles of the British Constitution should not he adopted without this House being previously consulted upon the urgent necessity of such a course,"—(Mr. O' Donnell,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I hope the hon. Member who has made this Motion (Mr. O'Donnell) will not suppose that I shall presume to pronounce an opinion upon the use which he has thought fit to make of his right as a Member of Parliament to introduce it to the notice of the House. No doubt he has done so under a very strong sense of the urgency of the case, and I do not at all make myself a judge of his conduct in that respect; but I must say, and that in the name of the urgency and importance and difficulty of the case, I am disposed to make an appeal to him and an appeal to others not to attempt to prosecute discussion upon it at the present time. It appears to me that the matter undoubtedly is one of extreme gravity. I have rarely read an announcement affecting the proceedings of any portion of the Government of this country with greater pain than that with which I have read the recent tidings from India respecting the Order concerning the Press of that country. And that pain will, I believe, be shared by the whole of the

    1601
    Members of Her Majesty's Government, and those Members of the House who may have, or may have conceived they had, information sufficient to judge the whole case, and likewise to arrive at the conclusion that the Indian Government had acted wisely in the matter. For my own part, it appears to me that the objections which obviously apply to a measure such as that which has been adopted are so strong that I must, in common fairness and in common sense, presume that the Indian Government has seen reason of very great strength in order to induce it to resort to so extreme a proceeding. Therefore I am impressed, Sir, with the belief—and I cannot help thinking that the sentiment will generally pervade the House—that both prudence and fairness, and I would almost say decency, or, at any rate, Parliamentary propriety, require that we should wait to know what those reasons are before we proceed to discuss a matter of this kind. Taking it at its best, and supposing that the Indian Government are right, still the proceeding is one which must cause us the deepest pain. It must cause the deepest pain to all Members of this House, and particularly to those hon. Members who think with me, that the questions relating to the internal government of India, and the questions which concern the morality and justice with which we treat the people of India, are of far greater consequence, and will ultimately operate with far greater force in determining the relation between this country and India than those questions about her Frontiers and about foreign Powers on which a large number of the people of this country are so fond of dwelling. If we should arrive at the conclusion that the conduct of the Indian Government was wise—and I confess the reasons must be very strong indeed which will induce me to believe that the conduct of the Indian Government has been wise—the subject must still be a painful one, and one which should only be approached with full notice, and full time and materials for its consideration. If, on the other hand, we are to arrive at the conclusion that the measure had been unwise, do not let us suppose that our path becomes thereby a clear one, for one of the unfortunate incidents of distant government—one of the necessary and unfortunate incidents of distant
    1602
    government—is that it often happens, and has often happened in Indian matters, that even where we may think an error has been committed, any attempts to correct the error involve greater evils than even if the error were allowed to continue undisturbed. I can, as I have already said, pass no judgment on the course taken by the hon. Member, and I wish to be understood as most carefully reserving my own opinion upon every point of this case, except that I regard the matter as one of the extremest gravity; but we are not prepared for discussion at this moment. I make no doubt whatever that Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in placing us in possession of the fullest information with regard to it; and, in fact, informing us of everything they know upon a matter of the kind, as they will be anxious that we should share, as I think we are entitled to share, their responsibility in this matter. If that be so, I would represent to others, I would even entreat them—but possibly I am anticipating what will proceed from Her Majesty's Government, and if so, I do not think I am rendering any bad service to the public interest—but I would entreat them to wait the opportunity when we may be able to discuss the question with the information before us which the examination necessarily requires, especially as we cannot anticipate the reasons which may be given. We see in India that the proposition is one which has been carried through with great rapidity, as if it were a matter of extreme urgency, and that no doubt is a part of the res gestæ upon which we may have to pronounce judgment. It does not seem to me to bear on the question whether we ought to go forward with the discussion at this moment. The matter does not stand as I admit it might stand if this had been a mere project with respect to which a long interval would elapse before the authority of the Indian Government would be committed to it; but, as I understand the matter, the proceeding has been prompt, absolute, and final. If that be so, it is obvious the question of time is a question which does not press urgently upon us; and, even if it did, no urgency could be so great, in a matter of such delicacy, difficulty, and gravity as this as to call for discussion under the circumstances. I think there

    1603
    would be no evil so great in a matter of this gravity as our attempting to approach this discussion without the possession of those means which are absolutely necessary to form a judgment, in order to make that discussion satisfactory.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I confess I have been a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Donnell) bringing forward his Notice to-day, because very recently the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), put a Question to me upon the same subject—namely, whether the somewhat meagre telegram in the morning papers on the 15th instant was a correct report concerning the Bill the Indian Government recently brought in; and he further asked if I would undertake to lay the Act upon the Table of the House as soon as we received it? In reply to that Question, I willingly undertook not only to lay the Act upon the Table of the House, but also the discussions which took place thereon in the Indian Council. In the absence of the text of the Act, and the other information, it is absolutely impossible to discuss properly or fully the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; and I hardly expected that, under the circumstances, he would have brought it forward.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to make an explanation. I certainly did not ask such a Question.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I said the hon. and learned Member for Louth asked the Question; and, of course, I thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would have waited till we were in possession of these Papers. The India Office is not yet in full possession of the information. I can only concur fully in the reasons which have been so ably urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich why this discussion should not proceed. I think it is only justice that we should postpone our judgment till the facts are fully known to us. A great deal has been said of the Act recently passed, and I think it desirable that the law on the subject as it at present stands on the Indian Code should be better known. It provides that any person who by words spoken, or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, excites, or attempts to excite, feelings of disaffection to the Govern-
    1604
    ment established by law in British India, shall be punishable with transportation for life, or for any term, to which a fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added, or with a fine. This being the state of the law in India, it is only fair to the Indian Government to say that they are entitled to apply this stringent law to the editors of papers whose writings bring them within this class of offenders; and the Indian Government may, in the legislation which they have recently passed, have been anxious to mitigate the severity of the present law, and, by mitigating it, render it more suitable to be applied in putting down, with only such severity as may be necessary, seditious libels on the Administration and the Empire. It is only right that I should make this statement, because at present there seems to be an impression abroad that there is no provision, excepting the new Act, under which the editors of papers publishing seditious libels can be punished. I hope, after what has passed, the House will not proceed with the discussion.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would not continue the discussion at the present moment; but one word he must say in justice to himself, because in the telegram which reported the measure from India, the Viceroy, it appeared, stated that he (Sir George Campbell) had proposed such a measure. He must say that to the best of his belief that statement was not, properly speaking, correct. He had no recollection of having proposed such a measure. He believed he had done nothing of the kind. He certainly had expressed himself in strong language of the evils with which they had to cope in India in connection with the matter—no one could have done so more strongly; but as regarded the remedy, he thought that was a point the most difficult that could be conceived in an absolute Government co-incident with free institutions. Therefore, considering the matter as one of great difficulty, he had been very slow indeed to propose a remedy; and when he was an official in India, it was the one thing that he hesitated to deal with—in fact, so to express himself, he had rather shirked it. One part of the news from India certainly did astonish him, and that was that the Bill was passed in a

    1605
    most summary way. The question had been considered for many years, and that it should now have been passed in this extraordinarily rapid manner was to him most strange. He understood that no Notice was given of any intention to pass the measure; for that on one day, Notice was given, and on the same day it passed into law. He must therefore express his great surprise that the measure had been passed in so rapid and unprecedented a manner for reasons which had in no degree been explained.
    MR. FAWCETThoped, after what had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, that the discussion would not be continued. It was scarcely possible that the House could have to consider a more important subject; but it did appear to him that at the present moment they did not possess the requisite materials to continue the discussion. He could not imagine why the Indian Government, after 10 years' consideration, should have passed this measure so rapidly. Nothing could be more certain than that for a Bill of that kind Notice should have been given just as it would have been given in that House. It was evident, from the statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India, that the Bill had been passed by the Indian Government without consulting the authorities in England; and it was therefore the more important that the House should be placed in possession of full information before proceeding to discuss the matter.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, that considerable surprise had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, and by other hon. Gentlemen at this Star Chamber Government in India. He desired to remind hon. Members that that House, for many years past, dealt with another country in the same way that the Indian Government had dealt with India—he referred to Ireland. In 1848, in dealing with certain Press offences, the House passed an Act called the Treason Felony Act. They found, too, that in 24 hours, the British Government suspended the Habeas Corpus Act; and, in the face of Europe, England, which had the character of being the protector of civil and religious liberty, left the liberty of Ireland in the hands of a Star Chamber in the Dublin Castle for the time being; but he was not aware that either the right hon.
    1606
    Gentleman the Member for Greenwich or the hon. Member for Hackney had expressed surprise when that Act for Ireland was before the House. The people of England and of Europe would see from this discussion that this state of things was another evidence of the value of the British Constitution, and that every people except Englishmen themselves enjoyed it. He was sure this discussion would be read in Ireland with great interest, because it would show the position that India was fast arriving at as an Empire under the British Constitution.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that especially in deference to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, he bogged the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONexplained. He had not stated that the Secretary of State had not been consulted on the subject, but that he was not in possession of the text of the Act or of the discussion which had passed in regard to it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1877–8.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1877–8.

    CLASS V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES.
    (1.) £20,033, Diplomatic Services.
    MR. GOLDSMIDdesired some explanation of the two items mentioned in the explanatory Note—
    "£3,200 for the special mission of the Earl of Rosslyn to Madrid to attend the marriage of the King of Spain, and £4,500 for the Duke of Ahercorn's special mission to Rome to invest His Majesty the King of Italy with the Insignia of the Order of the Garter."
    No one could have been more desirous than himself to see this country not only well but handsomely represented in the case of the late special mission of the Duke of Abercorn to one of the most promising of European countries, one that had done much for liberty, and one for which he was sure they all anticipated a great future. He did not object, therefore, to a fair amount of libe-

    1607
    rality in the Estimate. Still, things might be done too handsomely; and though he was informed that the ceremony of investing the King of Italy with the Insignia of the Order of the Garter was an expensive one, it seemed to him that £4,500 was a very large sum to pay for the journey of the Duke of Abercorn with a retinue of some 20 or 25 persons to Rome, his stay there for a few days, and his journey home again. He did not wish to go into details; but having had, on many occasions, to conduct a large family across the Channel, and to a very considerable distance across the Continent, he knew very well the cost of ordinary travelling, though, of course, he could not say what the cost of extraordinary travelling would be. At all events, he should like to hear some explanation of it from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If the hon. Gentleman could assure him that not more had been spent than was reasonable and proper, he should be quite satisfied. He did not desire, by any means, that this country should be represented abroad in a mean or niggardly manner. Indeed, he did not think it was adequately represented on a recent occasion of great mourning in the House of Savoy. It was generally said that, for their shortcomings on the one occasion, Her Majesty's Government endeavoured to make up on the other. Now, to that principle he altogether objected. He thought Her Majesty's Government would have done better to have caused this country to be represented at the Funeral of the King of Italy by someone who could worthily have taken part in the ceremony along with the Crown Prince of Germany and the distinguished Representatives of other nations. With regard to the special mission of the Earl of Rosslyn, he would only say that some hon. Members would like to hear some explanations from the Under Seccretary of State for Foreign Affairs on that subject also.
    MR. BOURKEregretted that this country should not have been more fully represented on the occasion of the Funeral of the King of Italy, and that some disappointment should have been caused in the matter both here and in Italy. He thought it fortunate that an opportunity should so soon afterwards have occurred of showing that the friendly
    1608
    feelings between the two countries were as warm as ever; and he did not think the House would regret that that opportunity should have been taken advantage of. In regard to the ceremony in connection with the Garter, precedent had been strictly followed. The expenses af such a mission as the Duke of Abercorn's, designed, as it was, to worthily represent Her Majesty on a great occasion, and to testify to the friendly feelings existing between England and Italy, could not be estimated beforehand, and, therefore, a round sum of £4,500 was put down. The bills had not come in when the Estimate was printed; but, judging from those which had been received within the last few days, he believed the whole expenses of the mission would fall very far short of the sum mentioned in the Estimate. Probably £1,000 would be surrendered to the Exchequer. He might add that, notwithstanding the number of persons forming the suite of the Duke of Abercorn, only the expenses of four were charged upon the Estimate, and that the proper performance of the ceremonial rendered it necessary that the Ambassador should be accompanied by Garter King-at-Arms. The mission of the Earl of Rosslyn was of a peculiar character. Though there were a great many precedents for missions to invest Sovereigns with the Garter, there was an absence of such precedents for the mission to Spain. Sovereigns being usually married before they ascended the Throne, the Marriage of a King was a very rare occurrence. Moreover, there were circumstances connected with this Marriage of a special character, and of which Her Majesty's Government thought they ought to take notice. It was founded upon personal affection; and the Government thought it desirable to congratulate not only the King of Spain, but also the Spanish nation, upon an event which was likely to inaugurate a new state of things at the Spanish Court, and conduce to the best interests of Spain. Accordingly, the opportunity was taken for a warm expression of friendly feelings and congratulations, and an exchange of international courtesies. The expenses had been strictly looked into; but it was inevitable that they should be large. On arriving at Paris, the members of the mission had to provide themselves with horses and carriages, and these horses

    1609
    and carriages they had been obliged to take to Spain. He did not think that any expense had been incurred needlessly. Travelling was expensive in Spain; and it was essential to the main object of the mission that it should correspond with the ancient pomp of the Spanish Court, and with the representation of other countries on the occasion.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENexpressed satisfaction at the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had at first been somewhat staggered at the sum named in the Estimate, and he was glad to hear that it was beyond that which would actually be required. There could be but one feeling in the mind of the Committee and the country on the subject—that, although the expense, as it appeared in the Estimates, might seem great, it would have been more to be regretted if the mission had not been carried out in a manner consistent with the dignity of this country and the sincere good wishes which we entertained towards the Kingdom of Italy. He was bound to say that he, in common with many other persons in the country, felt some regret that on the death of King Victor Emmanuel some person intimately connected with Royalty was not sent to represent Her Majesty at the Funeral. He had, however, thought it undesirable to express that regret publicly in the House, being sure that no slight to Italy had been intended on that occasion; and it was gratifying to think that the Government had shown the desire which was undoubtedly entertained by this country to do all the honour it could to Italy, and to show its regard and esteem for the Italian Kingdom and people.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTobserved that he believed he was the only Member of the House of Commons who had been present at the magnificent spectacle of the Funeral of King Victor Emmanuel. He called it magnificent, for in the whole course of his life, and having witnessed many State pageants, he had never seen any which would in any way bear comparison with it. He could not help expressing his warmest admiration and respect for the noble manner in which the Italian nation had, with a spontaneous and genuine mourning, performed the last obsequies to that
    1610
    great Sovereign whom they had revered and loved. He could not deny that he had heard general regret expressed at Rome, that the British nation had not been represented in that splendid procession by one of our own Royal Family, or—as had been done by France—by one of those distinguished Generals who had deserved well of our country; but, at the same time, from what he had heard, he did not consider that those expressions of regret had in any way weakened or lessened those cordial feelings of friendship and esteem with which England was regarded by the people of Italy; and, looking at those feelings, he could not help wishing that Her Majesty's Government would cement more closely their alliance with that young and daily becoming more powerful nation, whose influences extended into every part of the Mediterranean—a quarter in which we ourselves had such important interests. With regard to the mission of the Duke of Abercorn, the high compliment thus paid by our gracious Queen to the new King of Italy, as well as the Representatives selected to convey the honour to Rome, had, he had reason to believe, given very great satisfaction to the Royal Family of Italy, and to the Italian nation, and had entirely effaced and removed any regret the Italians might have felt on the occasion of the Funeral; and he (Sir Eardley Wilmot), for one, could not for a moment grudge the expenditure of the sum found in the Estimates—in fact, if it had been much larger, he would have gladly voted for it, if it had been necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the mission.
    MR. MONK,who also disavowed any desire to see this country represented in a mean or niggardly way abroad, inquired why there was no mention in the Estimates of the mission of the Earl of Roden on the occasion of the death of Victor Emmanuel?
    MR. W. H. JAMESobserved that the heavy expense of missions was often due in great part to the lavishness of servants and subordinates, who went to the best hotels, and, as he understood, had carte blanche for whatever entertainment they pleased to have. Nothing, he thought, could be more unfortunate than that an English Embassy should imitate the vulgar extravagance of the American tourist. Simplicity would be much more becoming. So far as Italy was concerned,

    1611
    we appeared to have oscillated between the two extremes.
    MR. BOURKEexplained that the mission of the Earl of Roden did not appear in the Estimates, because it was one of personal respect on the part of Her Majesty.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,observing that there was an item of £1,500 in this Vote for expenses connected with the proposed Commercial Treaty with France, asked what the present position of the negotiations was? He did not all complain of the amount of the Vote, which appeared to him extremely reasonable.
    MR. BOURKEstated that the negotiations were broken off at the request of the French Government some time ago, and that the French Government had not since shown any readiness to reopen them, owing, as they explained, to the extremely depressed state of trade in France at the present time. He wished he could hold out some immediate prospect of the negotiations being renewed; but, unfortunately, he was unable to do so.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £2,090, Colonies, Grants in Aid.
    (3.) £400, Suez Canal (British Directors).
    MR. D. JENKINScomplained of the excessive charge made for pilotage in the Canal, and hoped the Government would call the attention of the Directors to the fact.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, the Government had had this question before them for some time. It was a difficult one to settle; but he could assure the hon. Member that the aim of the Government would be to secure the best terms possible.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £6,326, Treasury Chest.

    CLASS VI.—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PURPOSES.
    (5.)£6,000, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
    (6.)£3,000, Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
    (7.)£18,000, Commutation of Annuities.
    MR. MONKasked if this amount would complete the commutation of the
    1612
    Schomberg Annuity, or whether a further sum would be charged on the Consolidated Fund for that purpose? The amount of £18,000, charged as a Supplementary Estimate on an original Estimate of £8,000, seemed a very large one for the commutation of small annuities.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he did not think the commutation of the Schomberg Annuity would be quite completed by the amount granted under this head. As to the remainder, the sum was taken for the commutation of upwards of 70 small allowances hitherto paid from the Consolidated Fund; and the principle which had been observed in respect to those commutations was the generally accepted one—that, whenever the Treasury could purchase small annuities charged on the Fund, on satisfactory terms, they did so, though it would be obviously undesirable to take extraordinary steps to purchase them.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, SPECIAL, AND TEMPORARY OBJECTS.
    (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of Temporary Commissions."
    MAJOR NOLANinquired when the Report of the Commission on Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland would be presented?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the Commission referred to was appointed on the recommendation of a Select Committee of that House in the year 1876, and it was thought desirable that local inquiries should be made by the Commission in Ireland. The Commission was re-appointed in the year 1877, and, as the hon. and gallant Member knew, it had collected a large amount of valuable evidence as to the condition of Ireland. The Commission would meet for the purpose of considering its Report before Easter, and he hoped it would be presented very soon after Easter. As regarded the Poor Law Unions, Ireland, Commission, it had not yet concluded its labours; but its Report would be laid before the House at the earliest possible moment.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he should be glad to know whether the Report of the Poor Law Unions, Ireland, Commission would be presented before the end of June?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked for some particulars as to the number of gentlemen on each Commission, and the salaries received by them? The item for salaries to the Local Government and Taxation of Towns Commission was considerably over £4,000, and that seemed to be a very large expenditure under such a head.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, it would be seen by the Estimates that the work of the Local Government Commission had extended over two years, and the legal Commissioners were each paid five guineas for every working day.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, it seemed that the Commissioners were also allowed one guinea a-night each for subsistence, so that they would be receiving six guineas a-day each for their services. He wished to know how it was that the Commissioners were paid at such a rate? The Irish Poor Law Union Commissioners appeared to have received three guineas a-day each. When temporary Commissioners were appointed in England or Scotland, their services were given without payment; and he did not know why men could not be found to do gratuitously the work of such Commissions in Ireland. The Vote referred to their leisure time, as being occupied in the work, and he thought well-qualified men could easily be got, as in England and Scotland, to do the work, without making a charge on the public purse.
    MR. W. H. JAMESwished to know what was the evidence given before the Local Government and Taxation of Towns Commission which involved an expense of £1,000 for shorthand notes?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that out of three of the Commissioners two were gentlemen of standing at the Irish Bar, who ought to be fairly remunerated if they had to leave their professional duties to attend to the business of a Commission. Five guineas a-day did not appear to be too much to pay for such a service. One of the Commissioners did duty voluntarily, and simply with a desire to obtain information for the benefit of the public. With regard
    1614
    to the charge of £1,000 for shorthand notes, the Local Government Commission collected a great deal of evidence which it was thought necessary that a shorthand writer should take down and transcribe.
    MR. M'LARENdid not think the explanation of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was a satisfactory one. Why were the services of gentlemen of the Bar necessary at all in such a case? Would not gentlemen who were not members of the Bar have performed the duty equally well from patriotic motives? Commissioners were found to give their services gratuitously out of Ireland. It would appear as if the Members of the Local Government and Taxation of Towns Commission had found time to perform their duties after the Courts had risen.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked for the names of the Commissioners, and then it could be ascertained whether they were absent from the Courts while they were performing their duties on the Commission?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)replied, that two of the Commissioners who were barristers were—Mr. W. A. Exham, Q.C., and Mr. E. B. Lawless, Q.C. The third Commissioner was an Englishman, formerly in the service of the Local Government Board, and was not a barrister.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was most anxious to know when the Poor Law Union Commission would present its Report?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINasked for the name of the gentleman on the Local Government and Taxation of Towns Commission who did his work voluntarily?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)believed it was Mr. Livedale Corbett. He hoped the Poor Law Union Commission would conclude its labours and Report before the end of the Session, but he could not say positively.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, these Commissions appeared to be appointed in Ire-at very considerable expense to the State, and some of the remarks made during the discussion appeared to involve the principle that barristers should not give their services to the nation gratuitously. He had sat on several Royal Commissions in Scotland, on which there were bar-

    1615
    risters of high standing, who had acted zealously in the discharge of the duties entrusted to them without the slightest pecuniary consideration for the work they performed. He did not see why Irish barristers should be remunerated for acting as Commissioners simply because they were Irish barristers.
    MR. WHITWELLinquired why the expenses of these two Commissions had not been included in the ordinary Estimates for the year, instead of in the Supplemental Estimates?
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Poor Law Union Commission had been appointed on the Motion of that House on the 6th March, 1877, and therefore the sum for its expenses could not appear in the Estimates for that year. The other Commission was appointed on the recommendation of a Committee which had reported in favour of further information being obtained. He could not say why the expenses for the Commission were not included in the Estimates for the year, but would make inquiry and answer a Question on the subject if the hon. Gentleman would put one.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsupposed the Vote could not be refused, but he considered the explanation unsatisfactory and the charge extravagant. If the Commission had sat out of Ireland, such fees would not have had to be paid.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaw no reason why these heavy charges should be paid. The fact of two of these gentlemen being barristers was no reason for paying them over liberally. It was well known that a system of petting the Bar existed in Ireland; and, looking to the probability that these paid Commissioners simply employed their leisure time in doing the work of the Commission, half the remuneration asked for would be sufficient. He would move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,319.
    Motion made, and Question,
    "That the item of £4,633 for Remuneration to three Commissioners for considering the Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland, be reduced by the sum of £2,319,"—{Mr. O'Donnell,)
    —put, and negatived.
    Original Question put. and agreed to.
    (9.) £2,500, Miscellaneous Expenses.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, the amount seemed rather a large one to
    1616
    be devoted solely to meet the cost of conferring the Order of St. Michael and St. George on several Colonists, and for completing the insignia of various classes of the Order. He would suggest that an alteration might be made in the device attaching to the Order. As the Order was now conferred exclusively for Colonial service, it should, in his opinion, bear the device—"Imperl Porrecta Majestas," instead of the Ionian motto—"Auspicium melioris ævi," which had a taint of irony in it.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £11,300, Epping Forest Commission.
    MR. MONKasked why the Estimate was brought forward in the shape of a Supplementary Charge for the year ending 31st March, 1878, whereas part of the proposed Vote had been spent in previous years? Then a sum of £5,163 appeared to be set down for the expenses of the Commission during the year 1878–9, a proceeding which seemed perfectly inexplicable in a Supplementary Estimate. No doubt these expenses had been incurred through the passing of an Act of Parliament; and the preservation of Epping Forest, as an open space for the public, was an object worthy of support; but the Vote ought to have been brought forward in the ordinary Estimates for the year.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKalso desired some information as to the Vote, as he felt a difficulty in understanding what all the money was wanted for. What had Parliament done for Epping Forest? What had the Government done for it? He knew the Corporation of the City of London had spent money to preserve the Forest as an open space; but, so far as he knew, the Commissioners had been simply an obstruction. How was it this charge came into the Supplementary Estimates?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it appeared that one of the Epping Forest Commissioners was paid three guineas a-day "when employed on the business of the Commission," and two guineas extra when sitting as Chairman. What were the circumstances under which the day's fee was charged? Did a Commissioner give a whole day's work to the public service, or did he simply walk down

    1617
    to the office, and say—"Well, how are you getting on to-day; is there anything to he done?" and charge a fee for that? The system of charging so much per day seemed to be rather a dangerous one, and he should like to know whether any rules were laid down on the subject?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid he could not give any minute information upon the point referred to, but the usual rule was that the Commissioner stated himself what days he had been employed, and his statement was taken upon his authority. It was not to be supposed that any fictitious charge was made. There was no doubt that gentlemen employed on these Commissions did give a great deal of time to the work, and their disposition was rather to give more than less. The inquiry of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) arose, he thought, from a printer's error. The Papers stated that an item of £5,000 was to be taken for the financial year 1878–9, and it should have been 1877–8. The total would show that the amount was for the last-mentioned period. The Epping Forest Commission had now made its Report, which, he hoped, would be the foundation of legislation on the subject.
    MR. MONKasked whether the sum of £11,300, put down in the Estimates, covered the whole expense of the Commission from its foundation in August, 1871, to the 31st March, 1878? If that were so, it was only a reasonable charge; but if it were for the expenditure of the financial year only, it was an enormous and uncalled-for expense.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Vote showed that the bulk of expenditure had been already advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and this was an adjustment of the balances.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £6,218, Mediterranean Extension Telegraph Company.
    (12.) £640, Ashantee Expedition, Gratuities and Prize Pay.
    (13.) £5,000, Grant to Lord Cochrane.
    (14.) £5,239, Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund.
    MR. W. H. JAMESdirected attention to the amount of £333 17 s. 4d., being the charges for the preservation
    1618
    of cemeteries abroad—namely, for the Anglo-French cemetery at the Piraeus, moiety of the wages of the custodian, £16 16 s.; for the British cemeteries on the Bosphorus, salary of custodian and wages of labourers, £317 1s.4d. Both these charges were for the year 1876–7; and he would like to know in whose care the British cemeteries in the Crimea were placed, and who were responsible for their preservation?
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that the British cemeteries in the Crimea were under the care of a Russian pensioner, who had a cottage to live in, and was paid the sum of £20 a-year. His duty was to maintain the walls and keep the tombs in a proper state.
    MR. WHITWELLcalled attention to the sum charged for expenses in connection with the Dover Harbour Bill, 1874. They were brought up to the year 1878, and amounted to the considerable charge of £1,470 10 s. 7d. A great deal of interest was taken in the Dover Harbour question, and an explanation as to the largeness of the sum placed in the Estimates would, no doubt, be acceptable to the Committee and the public.
    MR. FRESHFIELD,referring to the same item, asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it was a fact that the Government, having paid that money to the Harbour Board of Dover, and gained the control of the measure by that arrangement, on the understanding that they would carry out the scheme, were not now prosecuting any improvement of Dover Harbour? If that was so, the expenditure seemed to him, under the circumstances, most impolitic and unjustifiable. He would like to know, also, from the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, whether the right hon. Gentleman considered that the present state of Dover Harbour could be regarded as satisfactory in reference to the present contingency of war?
    MR. W. H. SMITHthought his hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) could hardly expect him, without any Notice being given of the Question, to give an answer, to which considerable importance would be attached because of the character of the subject. The expenditure had been incurred in the Sessions of 1873

    1619
    and 1874. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir. Whitwell) would, doubtless, remember that, in 1873, the Dover Harbour Bill was prosecuted in that House by the late Government as far as the second reading. The Bill was taken up by the present Government on their coming into power, and was afterwards sent to a Committee up-stairs; but on consideration, it was found that the circumstances were not such as to enable the Government to proceed further with the measure. The expenditure to which hon. Members had referred, had been incurred at the instance of the late, and also of the present, Government; and they thought it would not be right to allow the cost of conducting the Bill to fall upon the Dover Harbour Trust. Therefore, the charge had been taken out of the public fund.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwanted especially to know what the money was really for, and what were the conditions upon which the Town Board of Dover entered into the Harbour question? Had any money been paid to the Board for the relinquishment of their assumed rights over Dover? He had objected to this charge on a former occasion, and had pressed for information respecting it. He maintained that the charge was one which would more properly come under the Vote for Harbours, in which case the President of the Board of Trade might be called upon to explain it, and justify it.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, as this expenditure partook of the nature of a legal charge, and not a Harbour charge proper, it came more appropriately under this Vote than it would under that for Harbours. The Bill had been withdrawn only after the fullest consideration. The expenses incurred in the preparation and prosecution of the measure were chiefly for the charges of the surveyor, solicitor, and Parliamentary agent; and, considering the national, as well as the legal, character of the undertaking, it was reasonable that the money should be paid out of the public funds.
    MR. M'LARENasked, whether the Treasury had paid any money, and, if so, to whom, for the expenses incurred by the Sheriff Clerk of Aberdeen in defending an action brought against him in his official capacity?
    MR. FORSYTHinquired whether the cemetery in the Crimea was kept up
    1620
    at the expense of the English or of the Russian Government? If at the expense of the latter, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman could inform the Committee in what condition the ground was?
    MR. DODSONasked why the salaries of the custodians of the cemeteries in the Crimea and on the Bosphorus were charged in this Vote, if the payment was a regular one?
    COLONEL STANLEYexplained that the charge for keeping the cemeteries in good order had always appeared in this Vote. He, however, acknowledged that it would more conveniently come under the Vote connected with the Foreign Office. With respect to the preservation of the cemeteries, according to the last Report, they were considered to be in a perfectly good state.
    MR. COURTNEYasked for some information respecting the International Sugar Conference, which had been held at Paris, Brussels, and the Hague. In this Vote, the item appeared of £326 16s. for the expenses of Messrs. Walpole, Le Feuvre, and Payn, in attending at the Conference. As no duty was now imposed on sugar by this country, he did not think there was any need for sending Representatives to the Conference. The labours of the Conference had not yet terminated; and, as further charges for expenses might be incurred when it re-assembled, he thought the Committee ought to be assured of the necessity of England being represented at its sittings.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) that this country had no interest in this question. The manner in which the duties were to be charged on the different classes of sugar involved the question whether bounty was, in point of fact, to be given by any foreign Government upon the sugar manufactured in their own country?—and that had been a question of considerable difficulty for many years past. Some years ago, there was, in the International Convention, a discussion, or an arrangement, as to the basis on which the sugar duty should be charged, so as to encourage fairness of treatment. The British Government had been a party to that. Of course, since the duty had been taken off, their position was in some respects different to

    1621
    what it had been before; but the Government of this country were still interested in maintaining a fair system of charge between themselves and foreign countries, as regarded the mode in which the duty was levied in France, Holland, and elsewhere, their object being to see that fair play was given to our refiners as compared with the refiners of the other countries concerned. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government felt they were doing quite right in appointing Commissioners to go to this International Convention, which was attended by the Representatives of the other Powers interested.
    MR. COURTNEYhad no doubt the sugar refiners of this country were interested, but he did not think the nation was. At all events, our interest was remote. It was purely a class interest, and he did not consider there was any necessity for the attendance of British Representatives at the Convention.
    MR. RAMSAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation of the balance—£197 17 s. 7d.—of the expenses incurred by the Sheriff Clerk of Aberdeen in defending himself in an action, and wished to know whether that action had arisen from his own default?
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, £600 had been paid in the previous year on account of these expenses incurred by the Sheriff Clerk of Aberdeen, who was made the subject of an action for an alleged illegal process. Having appealed to the House of Lords, and obtained a verdict, the Sheriff Clerk applied to the Treasury for his expenses incurred as a public officer. The Treasury agreed to pay them, as an act of grace and discretion.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought that if the payment to the Sheriff Clerk was a matter of grace and discretion, the Treasury should have left the Sheriff Clerk to pay his own expenses. With reference to the Sugar Convention, the interest of the refiners in the United Kingdom was an extensive interest, and the Government deserved credit for protecting it. If they were to act otherwise, and the trade were ruined, no doubt a just remonstrance would be addressed to them.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKmaintained that, if the sugar interest was to be protected in this way, other trades might
    1622
    claim similar consideration. It was a fallacy to adhere to these old notions, and he contended that we had nothing to do with the sugar trade, except to buy it in the cheapest market wherever we could.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURinquired whether it was intended that the various items which appeared in this Vote of "Civil Contingencies Fund" should be allotted to the Votes in respect of the different Departments to which they properly belonged, or were the items to remain where they were? The different Departments ought, in his judgment, to apply for each item under its proper head, and not in this one Vote of this Fund. Thi3 was in reality a banking fund account for all Civil Departments to draw on for money in excess of the funds voted to the regular order under the respective Votes. It stood to the Civil Department in the same relation as the Treasury Chest Fund stood to Army, Navy, Colonial, and sometimes political services. But both funds should be kept strictly to the business of lending money—the loans being repaid by the Departments borrowing applying to Parliament for additional moneys.
    MR. O'DONNELLalluded to two other items of charge—namely, £35, the amount spent by the Crown Agents for the Colonies to enable a Native of Johanna to return to his native country, and £4 8s. 8d. for expenses incurred in transmitting a manumitted female slave from Constantinople to Malta. He called attention to these charges, because he supposed the circumstances in both cases must be of an exceptional character.
    COLONEL STANLEY,replying to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Sir George Balfour), explained that the charges were laid, in the first instance, on the Civil Contingencies Fund. The Auditor General had brought them into that Fund, because there was no Vote to which they were properly chargeable. Whether they would be placed afterwards to the credit of the particular Votes concerned, he was not himself in a position to say. They would be brought under review, he believed, a second time; and he was inclined to think they would be placed under their respective Votes.
    Vote agreed to.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    (15.) £2,237, Post Office Telegraph Disallowances.
    MR. WHITWELLasked whether the following payments were to be continued or not:—Extra pay to officers of the United Kingdom Telegraph Company, £576 10s., and allowances to directors and staff of the same Company? A foot-note explained that these payments were disallowed in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Public Accounts Committee in 1876. He wished to know what had become of Votes for the expenditure incurred since 1876, and whether the amount would continue to be paid?
    LORD JOHN MANNERSexplained that there had been some error committed in the mode in which the payment was made. The payment was not a continuous one.
    MR. O'DONNELLcomplained that the telegraph clerks were paid at a lower rate in Dublin than in London, and also, he believed, in some provincial towns. This was unfair. The same work ought to be paid at the same rate, wherever it was done. The clerks in London were also paid for extra work; but in Dublin they were, in lieu of extra pay, allowed to leave their work earlier on less busy days, though they preferred to remain and receive additional pay, because they did not know how to occupy the spare time profitably elsewhere. He hoped the noble Lord the Postmaster General would, in this respect, place the Dublin telegraph clerks on the same footing with the London clerks.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSpointed out that the subject had no connection with the Vote before the Committee. He would, however, promise to deal with it when the proper Vote came under consideration.
    Vote agreed to.

    AKMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1877–8.
    (16.) £150,000, Provisions, Forage, Fuel and Light, Transport, &c.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwished to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty, how he explained the fact that whilst he claimed credit for savings in the Admiralty Votes by reason of diminished cost of provisions, the
    1624
    Army, on the contrary, found it necessary to ask for a large Supplementary Vote because of the increased price of provisions? He therefore wished to know where any saving had been effected?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Of stores.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKthought there must have been some misreport to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. This Vote seemed to assume that there was increased cost in the price of provisions. Now, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether corn was any higher last year than the year before? So far as his experience went, corn was not dearer, but cheaper. Then it was said that beef was dearer. That was not so. Sugar was not dearer, tea was not dearer, coffee was not dearer, and he would like to know what articles of provisions were dearer than in the year previous? It was desirable that the Government should give some tangible reason why the Vote was larger.
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, the chief reason for this £150,000 was the additional cost with regard to broad stuffs, and also with regard to meat. The Estimate was made just previous to the rise, and hon. Members would remember that the rise in corn naturally caused a rise in bread. As hon. Members were aware, there had been a rise in the price of meat as well. There had also been an addition to the number of soldiers borne on the Establishment. The number had been fully up to the mark, and rather larger than in former years. These were the three material causes of this increase of £150,000.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that was not a satisfactory answer at all. He did not question the additional expense of an additional number of soldiers, but this was put down to the additional cost of provisions; and he submitted again that the price of corn last year was not dearer than the year before; and, if hon. Gentlemen knew much about the price of beef, they would know that last year beef was cheaper than the year before, because American beef came into the market. He had no objection to the £150,000 for additional soldiers' rations; but that was not the reason. It was put down to high prices.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that perhaps he ought not to rise in connection with this Vote; but, inasmuch as the

    1625
    Estimates last year were prepared partly under his direction, he was bound to exonerate his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) from any charge. This he knew, that before he left the War Office a rise had taken place in the price of corn and in the price of rations abroad. At the same time there was, no doubt, considerable excess in the Estimates in the course of the year. The additions were partly owing to the growth of recruiting and other causes; and, therefore, he might frankly say that if anyone had to stand in the white sheet he must. He must say the Estimates were not perhaps as precise as they could have been.
    Mr. BATESwished to say that he sold corn at the commencement of last year at 45 s., and at the end of the year he sold some thousands of tons at 65 s.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had made inquiries, and he believed that the bread served to the soldier was made partly of seconds flour, and inferior to that which the soldier ordinarily purchased.
    Vote agreed to.

    NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1877–8.
    (17.) £35,800, Army Department (Conveyance of Troops).
    Vote agreed to.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, EXCESSES 1876–7.
    (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £12,814 6s. 5d., be granted to Her Majesty to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services and Revenue Departments, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1877, viz.:—

    Class I.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    395

    8

    5

    Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade

    675

    1

    7

    Lighthouses Abroad

    3,299

    19

    6

    Class II.

    Colonial Office

    36

    12

    6

    Household of the Lord Lieutenant, Ireland

    1

    6

    4

    Office of Public Works, Ireland

    400

    16

    5

    Class III.

    Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.

    419

    11

    10

    Land Registry Office

    23

    4

    10

    Registry House Departments, Edinburgh

    671

    13

    5

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland

    3,190

    7

    9

    County Prisons and Reformatories, Ireland

    869

    1

    11

    Miscellaneous Legal Charges, Ireland

    1,469

    6

    4

    Class IV.

    National Gallery

    97

    10

    6

    National Gallery of Ireland

    20

    17

    8

    Queen's Colleges, Ireland

    780

    1

    11

    Class V.

    Commissions for Suppression of the Slave Trade

    42

    1

    3

    Class VII.

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    421

    4

    3

    Total Amount Voted for Civil Services

    £12,814

    6

    5

    Revenue Departments

    Nil.

    Grand Total

    £12,814

    6

    5

    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he saw no earthly reason why all these charges—except, perhaps, one—should not have been submitted to the House in May last year. He considered it an essential obligation on the part of every Minister entrusted with the control of public moneys to relieve himself of all the many responsibilities connected therewith, and to obtain the authority of the House of Commons for all unauthorized outlay, immediately its occurrence became known to him.
    MAJOR NOLANdid not know whether they were required to discuss that sum of £12,000 altogether; because, if so, he should move the reduction of the Vote by £780 1s. 10 d.
    MR. W. H. SMITHremarked that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Nolan) was not quite clear as to what this particular Vote was. It was the result of careful examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the expenditure by the Public Departments of their several Votes in the year 1876. The Comptroller reported that certain Departments not only spent the Votes given to them, but exceeded them to the extent of the amounts stated in this Excess Estimate. Separate items had been carefully examined by the Public Accounts Committee upstairs, and the Public Accounts Committee had allowed these charges as having been properly incurred under the circumstances. At the earliest moment it was the duty of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury to come down to Parlia-

    1627
    ment and ask for a Vote in the year 1877–8 for the amount spent in excess of the Votes for the year 1876–7. The consideration of the House was exercised by the Committee upstairs, and when he was a Member of that Committee with an hon. Gentleman opposite, they were most careful in passing these Excess Estimates. As for himself, he was glad to see that the amounts were lower this year than they had ever been before.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas exceedingly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation he had given; but he considered there was more to be said. No doubt, the Public Accounts Committee had the important duty of detecting all omissions and commissions; but there was a primary duty to be performed by the authority who spent money which the House of Commons had not voted. The responsibility for such unauthorized expenditure was so great that the party incurring it ought to relieve himself by applying to Parliament for sanction for his assumed liability. But here they found that the Board of Trade, in the month of May, 1876, and in January, 1877, gave an order to incur expenditure at Dover, without the sanction of the House of Commons; and they perfectly well knew when they did that they were exceeding the Estimates passed by that House. They ought to have come to that House immediately the House met in February of last year and asked for an increase to the Estimates. That had nothing to do with the Committee on Public Accounts. He quite agreed that the £12,000, as compared with former excesses, was very small indeed; and he had no doubt the course pursued by the late Secretary to the Treasury had had a great effect in preventing irregularities.
    MAJOR NOLANmoved that the Vote be reduced by £780 1s. 11 d. At 2 o'clock that morning the Irish Members moved the adjournment of the debate; but they were not allowed to report Progress; and thus they were not only deprived of the opportunity of expressing their opinion, but their opinion could not be given to the country. The position of the Irish Members in that House was. this—they saw no hope that the Government would do anything whatever for Catholic Education in Ireland. Last year they did not debate the Esti-
    1628
    mates, because they had hopes that something would be done; but at present they were entirely without hope from the Government, and there was no sign of any kind or description that they intended to place Catholic youth in Ireland on a similar footing with the children of Secularists and Protestants. They could not allow that to continue, and it was their firm resolve to oppose the Vote by every means in their power without wasting time needlessly. Ireland contributed £8,000,000 a-year to Imperial taxation; £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 might be required in Ireland, and a surplus of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 was sent over to England to be devoted to English purposes. The fact was, the Irish people paid for their own education, and therefore ought to have whatever education they chose. Let them, therefore, have equal means of education, or let them have no endowments at all. Let Protestant and Secular endowments be swept away, and let them have their own education. In moving the reduction of this Vote, he wished it to be understood that he had no animosity to Secularist education. It was quite right that if anyone wished to educate his child at a Secularist University, he should have ample opportunities of educating his child, and he was quite willing that every man should have the opportunity of educating his children. But from what he knew, Irish Members would, in the future, very much object to voting money for the endowment of Secularist education, when only Secularist education was to be endowed in Ireland; and it was his intention, whenever a Vote came up which would afford him the opportunity, to protest against this system. If the Government insisted on forcing this money on Ireland, it was going against a majority of three or four to one as far as Ireland was concerned. Why the Government should force this measure of Secularist education on Ireland, against the wishes of the Irish people, he could not understand. If the Government persisted in this Vote, it would be seen that Irish feeling was so strong that they could no longer disregard it, and a couple of Sessions would not pass before they would find it convenient to abandon the present system.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Member propose to omit the item or to reduce the Vote?
    MAJOR NOLAN: Sir, I propose to reduce the Vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £12,034 4s. 6d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services and Revenue Departments, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1877."—(Major Nolan.)
    MR. CHILDERSreally would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member, and would ask him to listen to a conclusive reason against his Amendment. He was not an admirer of the Irish Queen's Colleges, and therefore did not speak from that point of view; but the fact was, that under the regulations the fees received from students, instead of going directly to the Professors, were passed as a matter of account through the Exchequer, and an estimate was made of the probable amount to be paid to those who were entitled to the money. In the present case, it appeared that a larger amount than was at first estimated had been paid into the Exchequer, and it was necessary to take a Vote to pay it out. Therefore, if the Committee rejected the Vote, the position of the thing would be this—the Exchequer would have received £700 from fees which would go into the Consolidated Fund, and would not pay over to those to whom it properly belonged. Fees which had been received from students, which were intended to be paid as a matter of account to the Professors, would thus be retained by the public. The Exchequer would retain the students' money and the Professors would lose it. He was sure that the hon. and gallant Member did not wish that.
    MAJOR NOLANwould be quite willing to vote compensation to the students if they were at all wronged; so that he did not see that the difficulty suggested need stop him on the present occasion.
    MR. O'CLERYwas of opinion that the action of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) was not action against the present Vote, but was a protest against the whole system. It was a question which they had no means of raising in public except by their action in that House. This appeared to them the most feasible way of doing it. In many of the constituencies in Ireland, one of which he had the honour to represent, there were 97 per cent of Catholics, and for the last few years not a
    1630
    single student had been sent from them to any of the Queen's Colleges. As the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had put it, if the Secularists in Ireland were so numerous as to require a separate system of education, let them pay for it. He had no hesitation in saying that the Irish Catholics would have no objection to pay as they were paying at this moment; and he was sure the Presbyterians would not object as they had one College—namely, the Queen's College, Belfast. One of these Colleges—namely, that at Galway, was so much a failure, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), when he introduced his Bill for the system of University Education in Ireland, proposed to leave it out altogether. Seeing that the action of the Irish Members was a protest against the whole system of Queen's Colleges in Ireland, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Galway would continue to resist this Vote.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. O'Clery) had not accurately understood the remarks of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). The Government were not taking money in any way. They were only in the position of trustees who had received a sum of money and wanted to repay it. If hon. Members wanted to attack the Queen's Colleges, the proper time to do that was when the Queen's Colleges came before the House. This being merely a Supplementary Vote, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not trouble the House to divide upon it.
    MR. O'DONNELLwould go so far as to say that he was disposed to go so far as to suggest that the Professors should have full compensation for the fees they had not received. When the Professors accepted their Chairs in the Queen's Colleges, they expected a large amount in fees from a numerous attendance of pupils; but they only found a thin attendance at the classes, and their Chairs, accordingly, were not remunerative to anything like the extent that for their position and attainments they had a right to expect. The present was an opportunity on which we were called upon to form an opinion one way or the other. The Government might be the trustees; but the Irish Members of that House were in no respect the trustees for the Queen's

    1631
    University. The Representatives of the Irish Party had opposed the Grant to Queen's Colleges and to the Queen's University in Ireland from the commencement, and they would continue to put their opposition in a practical shape in every possible way and on every occasion when the question came within their ken. They would seize every opportunity of marking their sense of these anti-national and most prejudicial institutions.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he should be glad if his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) could see his way not to press his Motion to a division. There was no man who would more persistently than himself oppose grants of public money to the Queen's University; but he did not look upon this Vote in the light of a grant. It was simply a Vote for the purpose of handing to the Professors certain moneys which had been voluntarily paid into the Exchequer on their behalf by the students. The Professors were entitled to certain fees from the students, and an arrangement was made whereby these fees instead of being paid directly to the Professors were paid into the General Fund for the purpose of equal distribution. The money having been thus paid into the Exchequer for a particular purpose, all that was now sought was that the Exchequer should not be allowed to retain this money; but that it should be handed over to the persons for whose use it was paid. It was in no sense a grant, nor was the principle for which Irish Members contended so strenuously the other night at all involved. Indeed, the pressing to a division the Amendment would very much weaken the opposition to the Queen's College Votes. He appealed, therefore, to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) not to persevere in his effort to throw out this Vote. If, however, he did so, he (Mr. Meldon) would vote with him, because the outside public would not draw the distinction between the Votes, and it was very important that the Irish people should know that the Irish Representatives were determined not to allow this system of education, so abhorent to them, to continue. He should be sorry, further, if a Vote was taken on the matter, as a Vote of the kind was apt to be misconstrued out-of-doors by people who could not distin-
    1632
    guish between the amount now asked and the motive and meaning of its payment, and a sum actually asked to be voted as a grant from the country to the University.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he could not withdraw from a position which was perfectly logical. If they started upon the common basis that the Queen's Colleges were not for the education of the majority of the population of Ireland, then they were perfectly right in objecting to the Vote. The effect of the process contemplated by the Vote was simply to make the Government trustees of the money paid by the students, and it was to this quasi-trusteeship to which we objected so strongly. He should not object to the money being returned to the students, who could deal with it as they thought fit; but he certainly could not sanction the system of trusteeship on the part of the Government which the Vote would set up and perpetuate.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 294: Majority 283.—(Div. List, No. 57.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    SUPPLY.—REPORT.
    Resolutions [18th March] reported.
    First Twenty-nine Resolutions agreed to.
    The last Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions."
    MR. O'DONNELLagain objected to the granting of money to an institution which, as he had stated on the previous evening, tended to lower the standard of intermediate education in Ireland.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped, that after the long discussion which had already been taken on the Vote, and the number of divisions to which that discussion had led, the hon. Gentleman would accept the decision at which the House had arrived, and would not put hon. Members to the trouble of dividing again for the eighth time.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, there was no occupant of the Treasury bench from whom an appeal was entitled to greater consideration than from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He regretted, however, that the Irish Members generally could not accede to it, for the fact was, they felt themselves constrained to challenge every item in the Vote in connection with the Queen's University. Consequently, the matter must be pressed to a division. He trusted the House would not misunderstand him. They felt it their duty to oppose to the last, and they were pledged to resist in every possible way the Vote.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 16: Majority 221.—(Div. List, No. 58.)
    And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
    The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

  MOTIONS.
    AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. ANDERSON,in rising to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which the Postmaster General has re-established a monopoly in the American Mail Service, at nearly double the rates recently paid by us, or still paid by the American Government, and to move—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, the time for monopoly in the American Mail Service has passed, and that the recent change made by the Government, after a period of freedom, in reestablishing monopoly and subsidizing favoured Companies by paying them nearly double the rates paid by the American Government and lately paid by ourselves, is wrong in principle and prejudicial to the public service;"
      said, he would go back a few years and give a very brief narration of the circumstances attending this matter. Even in 1859 and 1860 a Committee of that House thought this mail service required no subsidy. In 1866, when the late Lord Stanley of Alderley was Postmaster General, he went the length of aiming at a daily service to New York, an amount of progress we had not reached to this day. In 1868 the contracts previously existing with the Cunard Company came to an end, and there was
      1634
      a question about the renewal of these. The Conservative Government was just on the eve of going out, and it made a new arrangement with the Cunard and Inman Lines, the Cunard for two services per week getting £70,000, and the Inman £35,000 for one, the Cunard and Inman Companies having at that time formed a combination, and offered exactly identical terms to the Government. When the Conservative Government went out, they left this new contract not completed, and there arose a question with the new Government whether it should be ratified or not. It had to lie a month on the Table of the House, and there was a debate upon it; and a Committee was moved for by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), and appointed, and it considered the question. In the end the House ratified the contract—or rather submitted to, than agreed to it, as there was a strong feeling that it was not altogether right, as it was thought that the time had passed away for subsidies to be given. He (Mr. Anderson) himself voted for the contract, because he thought it was hardly fair for a new Government to upset what the previous Government had done, and on that ground alone he voted for the subsidy; for, in fact, he disapproved of subsidies. That contract came to an end in 1876; and so strong was the feeling in the House against subsidies, that the present Government never thought of renewing it; but, on the contrary, in September 1878, addressed a Circular to the Steamship Companies, which he would read—
      "General Post Office, London,
      "26th September, 1870.
      "Gentlemen—The several contracts now in force for the conveyance of mails from this country to the United States will expire on the 31st December next, and it is not intended to enter into any new contract for the service. The Postmaster General proposes, from the commencement of next year, to forward the American mails on certain fixed days in each week, by the most efficient vessels sailing on those days, and to remunerate the owners by a payment per voyage based upon the amount of the correspondence carried on such voyage. The payment will be at the rate of two shillings and fourpence per pound for the letters, and two-pence per pound for the newspapers, printed papers, and patterns or samples contained in each mail. A similar arrangement for the transmission of mails to this country has been in operation in the United States for the last two years, and the rates which are proposed to be paid by this department for the correspondence

      1635
      conveyed in the opposite direction are the equivalent in British money of the rates now paid by the American Post Office, and of the rates for sea transit fixed by the Post Union Treaty. The Postmaster General desires to make widely known the arrangements that are contemplated, and in carrying them into effect, he hopes to receive the cordial support of all companies and firms running steam vessels from this country to the United States."
      The Postmaster General in that Circular hoped to receive the cordial support of all the Companies and Firms running steam vessels from this country to the United States. He (Mr. Anderson) called the attention of the House to the fact that the Postmaster General had received the cordial support of most of the Companies; but two of the Companies, and those two he had now favoured with a subsidy, refused to give him the cordial support which he desired to obtain. Those that did support him were the Cunard, the Anchor, the Guion, the Allan, the North German Lloyds, the French Transatlantic and the Hamburg American—all these Companies came forward and contracted with the Government upon what he would call free-trade service, which was the right principle to go upon. The Government then had a perfectly straight course before them. They did what the House had long wanted to be done; and he now censured them for the abandonment of that course which they themselves initiated, and the going back to the old system of monopoly. The two Companies which refused to give cordial support were the Inman and the White Star; but when they had been left out in the cold for a time the Inman came in, and afterwards the White Star also came in, to the extent of agreeing to take the mails on alternate Thursdays with the Inman. The free-trade system was in operation for about a year, and there had been few, if any, complaints of its operation. They paid only £28,000 instead of £105,000 for the year's services. The Postmaster General got lists of the vessels, and selected those he thought best for the service, entering into monthly contracts. The country had had the satisfaction of having the mail service performed as well as before, while paying no more for it than the American Government had been for some years paying for the homeward service. The Cunard Company, however, was not content with the arrangement. They hungered after the good
      1636
      old times when they prospered under a subsidy, and they set about intriguing in order to bring those good old times back again. At last they succeeded. They got the Inman and White Star Lines to enter into a firm combination with them; and when they got that, they went to the Government and put pressure upon the Postmaster General for a new arrangement. In fact, acting as trades unions did, they struck against the work they were previously doing, and endeavoured to make their employers give in. The Government had a clear course to adopt, which was to have told them to go about their business; but they did not follow it, and it was an undignified course for the Government to have yielded to a trades union combination of this sort. Not only had it been undignified, but it had proved the worst course which they could have taken; because, by encouraging and fostering such a trades union, they were simply encouraging and fostering their enemies, and strengthening them in a continuance of their opposition. By encouraging a free-service system, however, the Government would have been rendering themselves by degrees more independent of particular individuals or of particular Companies, and might ultimately have arrived at a better service for the public. There might, perhaps, have been a little inconvenience for a time, but it would have been only for a short time. When the three Companies which he had mentioned combined together, they asked for double rates, and the Government became frightened. They certainly recognized the fact that three powerful Companies had combined in opposition to them; but, instead of declining all negotiation, they yielded so far as to negotiate, and thereby showed their weakness; and the result of that negotiation had been that, instead of the country being put in a better, it had been placed in a worse position. No doubt, the Government had come out of it with a slightly lower rate for letters, the rates asked forbeing4s. 8d. per lb. and 4d. per lb. for newspapers and other things, while 4s. for letters had been accepted; but they had come out of it with a far worse consequence—the establishment of monopoly. In fact, they had given the Companies a monopoly which they had not at first asked for. All rival Lines had been excluded. The Post-

      1637
      master General had ungratefully thrown over those who had formerly supported him, and favoured and subsidized those who had opposed him. He (Mr. Anderson) did not blame the Cunard, the In-man, or the White Star Company for this. They were mere trading Companies, whose business it was to make their ships pay, and get as much money as they could; but he did blame Her Majesty's Government for yielding to them. He did not charge the Government with jobbery. He believed they were entirely free from any charge of that description in this matter; but he charged them with weakness in acting as they had done in yielding to a trades union. No doubt, as he had indicated, the three Companies referred to were powerful Companies. The White Star and Inman Line steamers were unquestionably the fastest that now crossed the Atlantic. Those of the Cunard Line were for a great many years the fastest; but they had been falling behind, while their neighbours had been pushing ahead, and the Cunard Company now lived pretty much on the prestige of its old glory. It had certainly been a safe line, and by its steamers our mails had been well carried. But, at the same time, no necessity existed for any monopoly, and that was best seen by what the American Government had done under exactly similar circumstances. About eight years ago that Government was paying subsidies to the Inman, Cunard, and North German Lloyds; but when the contracts were about to expire, it said it would no longer continue the subsidies, but would have a weight scale. The three Companies refused to carry the mails on those terms; but the American Government turned them adrift, and, in strong contrast to the invertebrate condition of the English Government, which yielded at once to a trades union, showed that it had backbone enough to put aside the combination. The subsidized Companies found themselves out in the cold, and in a short time were only too glad to come in at the rates which they had previously refused. The contract expired in some three years, and then the Inman Company tendered to the American Government on that Government's own terms, and its tender was accepted. Then the Cunard also sought to do the same; but
      1638
      the American Government refused them, because that Company had declined to support the Government at a time of difficulty; and it was not until the American Government gave up every kind of selection, and adopted an entirely free service, that the Cunard Company were permitted to take American mails. Since then the Inman, the White Star, and the Cunard Companies all had for about three years accepted those terms with perfectly free trade, and they were now actually accepting from the American Government the exact terms which they refused to accept from the British Government. It would have been quite easy for our own Government to have stood out against combination, and there never was a better time for them to have resisted. The transport trade on the Atlantic had never been so depressed as it was now, and all the other Lines which were running across that ocean—and there were plenty of them—would be only too happy to accept the terms which had been paid during the past year, and had so expressed themselves, notwithstanding a letter published that morning. He had just received a telegram from the Guion Company, saying they were perfectly ready to call at Queenstown and perform the same service they had hitherto done upon the same terms. The old rates were, in reality, splendid tonnage rates; and it should be remembered that no sorting room was provided, the letter bags were simply placed. on board, and left to lie there until their arrival; therefore they gave no more trouble than other goods. Yet other goods were taken across the Atlantic at from 7s. 6d. to 30 s. or 40 s. per ton; and even in good times the rates were only about from 30 s. to 60 s. a ton. But, at 2d. per lb., the allowance for newspapers, &c, the tonnage was £18 13 s.; and at 2s. 4d., the allowance for letters, it was £261 per ton. These were immense rates compared to those on goods. What figures did the new rates produce? Fourpence per lb. paid for newspapers amounted to £37 6s. per ton, and 4s. 6d. for letters to £448 per ton. £448 for a ton of one kind of goods, and 7s. 6d. for a ton of another kind! It was, therefore, quite credible that the other Companies would be delighted to take the Post Office letters at the old rate when the three

      1639
      combining Companies refused to take them except at the higher rate. What was the reason assigned for that higher rate? It might be gathered from what had been stated by Mr. John Burns, the chief partner in the Cunard Company, who had written as if he were doing a great service to the Government in taking their mails at all, and this at a time when numbers of steamers were actually laid up for want of freight. He said this arrangement with other two Companies, for getting double the rates which were obtained for bringing the letters homeward, was "unique for its efficiency and economy." He (Mr. Anderson) had never doubted the efficiency of the service, but he thought its economy might be doubted. The writer of the letter said also—
      "It does not follow that because the rates for homeward mails are insufficient, those for the outward mails should likewise be so."
      In other words, he asked this Government to pay for the shortcomings of the American Government; and, because he chose to do the work cheaply for the American Government, he laid on an extra price for the English Government, and considered that that made the service unique for its efficiency and economy. Then he talked of specie; but he (Mr. Anderson) was told that it would be easy for anyone to arrange for specie to be carried in those vessels at 2s.6d. for £100 sterling. When that was reduced to tonnage, it amounted to £134 a-ton. Therefore, he would be carrying specie—which he said was the very highest thing—at £134 a-ton, while he asked for English letters £448 a-ton. Well, the only reason that really was assigned for making this extra charge was for calling at Queenstown; but that was a perfectly hollow claim, because the vessels called at Queenstown with the homeward mails. But there was a claim made on the ground of delay, and undoubtedly there was a delay in calling at Queenstown—said to be from six to nine hours; but if it were counted from the beginning of the year to the end, it would not be so much as that, and he was certain it could be made a great deal less if the shipowners chose. It arose, in a great measure, from the steamer leaving Liverpool at an unnecessarily early hour, as passengers knew to their annoyance. During the
      1640
      whole of the summer and for half the winter sailings it might easily be avoided; for it would be easy to leave Liverpool by the afternoon tides, and then the delay at Queenstown would be nothing worth speaking of. But this rule as to delay applied equally to the Anchor, State, and Guion Lines, which last Line, as he had said, was quite willing to continue the service at the old rates, calling at Queenstown. He would now proceed to show what service the Government could have had at its disposal if it had had the firmness to throw over the combination and trust to other Lines and free competition. The North German Lloyd's called at Southampton every Tuesday, and its average sailings from that port were from 10 to 11 days—equivalent to 9 to 10 days from Queenstown—and it was, therefore, a quick Line. The Anchor line sailed from Southampton every Thursday. It had been sailing in summer only, but was quite willing to sail in winter if an arrangement could be made; and that was a fast Line. The National Line sailed from Liverpool every Wednesday, and from Queenstown every Thursday; its average sailings were from 10 to 11 days. The State Line sailed from Glasgow, calling at Larne, and its average sailings were from 10 to 11 days. The Guion Line sailed from Liverpool on Saturday, and from Queenstown on Sunday, and its average was from 9 to 10 days—quite as good as the Cunard, but not so good as the Inman or White Star. The Anchor sailed from Glasgow on Saturday, and Moville on Sunday, and its average was also from 9 to 10 days. The French Transatlantic Line sailed from Plymouth, and' also the Hamburg and American, and these could be arranged with; but, as they did not now have mails, they had discontinued calling at Queenstown. The Government might have had from these Companies, irrespective of the Cunard, Inman, and White Star Companies, two sailings a-week from Southampton, two from Queenstown, and two from the North of Ireland. Now, as to speed, the average of the White Star steamers was from 8 to 9 days; of the Inman, from 8 to 10 days; and that of the Cunard, 9 to 10 days; the last being the same as the Anchor, and not quite so good as the Guion Line was at present. This he might be expected to prove. He had the average sailings of the Cunard

      1641
      and Guion lines from the 9th of last December, weekly—-the sailing from Queenstown and the arrival at New York. The sailing of the 9th December was in favour of the Guion by 23¾ hours; December 16, in favour of the Guion by 15¾hours; December 23, in favour of the Guion by 52 hours; December 30, in favour of the Guion by 12½ hours; January 6, in favour of the Cunard by 36J- hours; January 13, in favour of the Guion by 31¾ hours; January 20, in favour of the Cunard by 3¼ hours; January 27, in favour of the Guion by 4½ hours; February 3, in favour of the Guion by 14¼ hours; February 10, in favour of the Cunard by 34¾ hours; February 17, in favour of the Guion by 19 hours; February 24, in favour of the Guion by 16½ hours; March 3, in favour of the Guion by 38 hours. The total average of these 13 voyages was in favour of the Guion by l¾ hours, and the Guion was one of the lines which the Postmaster General had thrown over as a slow Line, and had refused to take any contract at all from it. Taking the sailings of the Anchor Line as against the Cunard from December 15, there was an average of 6½ hours per voyage in favour of the Anchor Line. He admitted that that was a small thing, which a few hours' further delay at Queens-town might account for, and therefore in his statement he had coupled the Anchor Line with the Cunard. But, undoubtedly, the Guion Line was faster than the Cunard Line, and had been going ahead. There was another point, and that was the gross injustice done to Scotland and the North of Ireland by the present arrangement. Scotland had the Anchor line sailing from Glasgow every Saturday, and from Moville every Sunday. Shippers of goods by an Anchor steamer could send their letters by the steamer, and the letters and invoices arrived along with the goods; but now they might go on shipping goods by the steamer, but were obliged to send letters by Queenstown, and the goods would arrive at New York before the invoices. This would not only be the case when there was perfect regularity in the mails; but it was not unusual for the Scotch mails to fail to catch the London mail at Warrington, and, when that was the case, the Glasgow and Scotch letters were actually two or three days later in getting away. Therefore, it was a very
      1642
      uncalled-for proceeding that the Postmaster General had adopted in making such an arrangement; for, by taking the mails from the Anchor Line, the Government had inflicted a great injustice on Scotland, which would not have been inflicted but for the arrangement of a monopoly. He would not himself enter into the Irish grievance, as the hon. Member for Londonderry wished to do that, but it was quite as great; because, while it had been worth the while of the Anchor Line to call at Moville for mails and passengers, it had ceased to be worth their while to call for passengers only, as it would not be worth their while to call for mails only. They had, therefore, discontinued calling at Moville altogether; and thus a great injustice had been done to the North of Ireland. If the Postmaster General had resisted the combination of the three Companies, as he undoubtedly ought to have done, he might have undergone some slight inconvenience for a short time, but for a short time only; and then he would have been independent of any combination that could have been made against him, as the other Companies would have gone on improving their lines. But he had been retrograde in his policy, and had gone back to an exploded system from which the country had been free for a year. He should feel justified in pressing his Motion to a division, unless the Postmaster General could give an assurance to the House that he had it in contemplation to throw over the present arrangement and to revert to the system of free competition. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
      MR. CHARLES LEWIS,in seconding the Motion, said, that the alteration which had been made ought to rest on strong grounds in order to be justified. The American Government was still continuing the rates of the past three or four years, so that it was carrying on the service for nearly half the prices which were being paid by this country for the outward bound mails. He could understand the conduct of the Government if there had been a combination on the part of all the available lines; but when the lines in combination were only three out of eight or 10, it became necessary for the Government to explain the extraordinary compact which had been entered

      1643
      into. He could not understand what had induced the Government to enter on a policy totally different from that which they adopted in 1876. In that year they conceived the plan of throwing open competition among all the lines, only regulated by speed and efficiency. A year later they conceived the plan of submitting to a combination of three of the leading Companies at nearly double the rates paid by the American Government for similar service, and which Her Majesty's Government themselves paid in 1877. The present arrangement was inconvenient as regarded both Scotland and the North of Ireland, especially in a commercial point of view. The result of the arrangement had been that the weekly inward American mail service of the Anchor Line from America to Ireland had been continued, while the outward service of the same Line from Ireland to America had been discontinued, involving a direct disadvantage to the North of Ireland in the way of commerce, passenger traffic, and prestige of trade. Yet, the average number of American bags carried by the Anchor Line from the North of Ireland was six on every voyage, the average from Glasgow being 10. It was most unfortunate that anything should have been done which would have the effect of checking in the slightest degree the feeble and failing trade of Ireland. He admitted fully the merits of the three Companies to whom the monopoly had been given; but he wished to remind the House that they were only three out of eight or 10 Companies, all of whom might be described as first-class lines, and who, he contended, would have given almost equally good service for a far less sum than that which the contracting Companies had obtained. On the whole, therefore, believing that some explanation of this matter further than that which had been given should be made, he begged to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That, in the opinion of this House, the time for monopoly in the American Mail Service has passed, and the recent change made by the Government, after a period of freedom, in re-establishing monopoly and subsidizing favoured Companies by paying them nearly double the rates paid by the American Government, and lately paid by ourselves, is wrong in principle and prejudicial to the public service."—(Mr. Anderson.)
      MR. BAXTERsaid, he had hoped that he had heard a long time ago the last of this vexed question of oceanic postal subsidies. The subject was one to which he had paid much attention many years ago, when it was the fashion to give the Cunard Company a fresh contract four or five years before their old one had expired. He need not allude to the discreditable disclosures relating to the Galwayjob—[Major NOLAN: Oh, oh!]—The hon. and gallant Member did not know, as he was not then a Member of the House, that it was more closely connected with that system than many hon. Members supposed. He (Mr. Baxter) had always protested against that system; but he had never taken up the ground in that House that subsidies might not in certain circumstances be advantageous to the public service. He admitted at once that there might be circumstances, there being no competition and scarcely any sea navigation, where subsidies might be given to stimulate navigation. But the position which he had always taken, and which he took now, was this—that wherever there were many powerful steamers belonging to different Companies plying with the utmost regularity and with great speed on any ocean, and carrying goods and passengers, it was a waste of public money to pay any of those Companies a large sum of money as a subsidy. It was a great advantage to get rapid and regular communication, and, from a personal point of view, he desired that every assistance should be given in order to facilitate its attainment; but, as a Member of that House and a Representative of the ratepayers, it was his duty to see that the service—and he was speaking not of this particular service, but on general grounds—should be performed with the utmost economy consistent with efficiency. He contended that this new arrangement between these Companies and the Post Office was nothing more nor less than a subsidy given for services, and that on the North Atlantic Ocean, where there was more competition than on any ocean in the world. The noble Lord the Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) took the true course last year, and had he only had the courage to continue in it, he would have established this Atlantic mail service on a proper footing, and have done great service to the taxpayers of this country. But, as

      1645
      the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had said, he had yielded to nothing more or less than a trades union. He (Mr. Baxter) did not wish to say a word against any of the great Companies who had got that monopoly. The Cunard, White Star, and Inman Companies were splendidly managed, and their combination on this occasion had been eminently successful. It was a combination for their own interests. Almost alone in that House he stood up more than 20 years ago against the Cunard Company getting a monopoly of the mail service. It was supposed at the time that he had an interest in the Inman Company, and it was even mentioned in the House; but when the Inman joined with the Cunard, he opposed the monopoly to two Companies, as strongly as he had before opposed the monopoly to one, and as strongly as he now did the monopoly to three. These three Companies had been successful with their persuasions with the Postmaster General; but they might depend upon it, it would, only be for a time. The people of this country would never go on paying for the carriage of mails across the Atlantic very nearly double what the American Government was paying. He went further, and said he believed the American Government at this moment were paying too much. They had heard a good deal about the Steamship Companies undertaking to start at a certain time, and to perform the voyage at a certain speed; but these representations were sheer nonsense. They would do all these things altogether irrespective of their grants for the mail bags. But he felt perfectly confident, as he had said over and over again, in and out of office, that there was nothing to prevent the American mail service being at this moment conducted for the mere freight of the letter bags. A few years ago one of these Companies had it in contemplation to offer to Her Majesty's Government to do this; and he was confident that the Cunard Company, rather than loose the mails, would carry them for the mere honour of the thing, as was now done between Belfast and Greenock. In fact, the Post Office authorities were now, and had always been, too soft, lax, and squeezable in this matter of contracts. The Companies had too much influence with them, and made representations to the Post Office authorities which business men knew to
      1646
      be quite fallacious. He quite acknowledged that the present Postmaster General wished to do the proper thing, both as regarded the Post Office and the general public, and had dealt as fairly as possible with all parties; but, as the hon. Member for Glasgow had said, and he (Mr. Baxter) concurred with him, if the Postmaster General were manly enough to stand up against any combination, there would be, in the first instance, not only a little, but a good deal, of inconvenience to the public service. But he believed it was the duty of the Postmaster General to do so, and all that was required was a little firmness. As to the Queenstown matter, that was a mere question of detail; and the House might depend on it that it had nothing to do with the placing of the service on a free and proper basis. The fact was, this system of subsidizing had existed 25 years longer on the North Atlantic than it ever ought to have done, and it had demoralized all the parties concerned. This was the last effort to keep it up; and he felt perfectly certain that whatever might be the fate of the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and whatever the answer they would get from the noble Lord the Postmaster General, sooner or later, and the sooner the better, the Post Office authorities would have to take up a determined stand in the interests of the public, and let these Companies, not only in the North Atlantic but in the other oceans, knew once for all that the days of monopoly and high charges, which he begged the House to keep in mind meant high postage, were at an end.
      MR. MAC IVERsaid, he did not wish to defend all the details of these contracts, and he agreed with the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion (Mr. Anderson) that the good services of the Anchor Line from Glasgow had not received the consideration they deserved. Pour years or more had elapsed since his connection with the Cunard Company ceased, and he had now no interest either in that, or in any other Company in the trade. Still, he had been for 17 years behind the scenes, and might be permitted to give the result of what had occurred in his time, without in any degree unduly favouring the Company in which he was once interested. The hon. Member for Glasgow had, in his opinion, made a most unwar-

      1647
      rantable attack on the Government. The very troubles of which the hon. Member complained were traceable to mistakes which had arisen at Glasgow, and among the hon. Gentleman's own friends. There had boon no unreasonable combination between the three Companies in question. Those steamers which were really fit to carry mails across the Atlantic in a satisfactory manner were in very few hands. Indeed, he knew the materials did not exist in British steamers that would enable our Post Office to establish a satisfactory mail service which did not include these three Companies. He agreed, however, that the contracts should be extended further, so as to include the Anchor Line, and that the Government should be at liberty to employ any fast vessels as they were built from time to time. The hon. Member for Glasgow, who compared the passages of the Guion steamers with those' of the Cunard steamers, omitted to mention that he was not comparing them with the passages made by the fast steamers of the Cunard Line. Before he had a seat in that House, the American Government were endeavouring to act on the principle which the hon. Member for Glasgow justified. The mails then came principally by the Guion steamers, and goods constantly came by fast steamers some days before the arrival of the letters announcing that they had been despatched. In Liverpool, Manchester, and every great trading centre, the complaints about the delay of the mails were at that period loud and deep. The Government could not employ almost exclusively foreign steamers already subsidized by their own Governments, such as would satisfy the legitimate requirements of the British Postal Service; while with regard to the large question of principle, nobody in the possession of steamers which were fit to carry the mails would conduct any satisfactory postal service unless they were compensated for the work in some way or other. Of course, the owners of more or less inferior vessels would always be glad to carry the mails at a cheaper rate on account of the character which would be given to their ships by being so employed. It was not, however, a question of carrying tons of letters at once, as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. Letters were not carried by the ton. If there was any
      1648
      large quantity conveyed, no doubt the payment might reasonably be reduced. Mail-carrying, whether across the Atlantic or elsewhere, must always be more or less in the nature of a monopoly. The public would rather pay a reasonable sum for an efficient mail service than a low sum for an irregular and unreliable service. Surely, in regard to inland mails, it would not be argued that anybody who happened to possess a wheelbarrow might—if he would only offer to do it cheap—be entrusted with the conveyance of letters? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) and the hon. Gentleman who preceded him (Mr. Charles Lewis) had spoken as if this mail-carrying was a hugely profitable business. During the many years he was concerned with it, he found that the profits were more than absorbed in the expenses of the service expected to be performed. He did not think the Companies had at all acted unfairly. Who among hon. Members would undertake to build steamers of a class superior to those required for ordinary traffic, and go to the expense of a detention at Queenstown without due compensation? Nor did he see that the Post Office were to blame except, perhaps, for having negotiated too exclusively with one gentleman. The position of matters, in a word, was this—the Government required something better than a mere trading service, and that something they could only expect to obtain by paying for it. He thought it not unreasonable that there should be some closer association between the mail service and the Royal Navy.
      MR. T. DICKSONthought the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) still remained unanswered. It seemed to him most unbusinesslike that the service performed by one Company every week from Londonderry at a cost of 2s. 4d. per lb. should have been handed over to another Company at 4s. per lb., especially when no fault was found with the steamers of the first. The noble Lord the Postmaster General seemed to have ignored the commercial interests of the North of Ireland altogether, and to have studied only the interests of the Companies. Such conduct had created great surprise, and had given rise to inconvenience to the merchants of the North of Ireland. He asked the House, by its

      1649
      vote on the Motion, to show that the North of Ireland was worthy of a mail service, and that its commercial interests should not be sacrificed to that of shipowners.
      MAJOR NOLANcontended that the endeavour of the borough and county of Galway, as well as of the Representatives of Irish constituencies generally, to secure for that part of Ireland the advantage to which it was entitled by its position of being made a point of communication between Great Britain and America, was by no means deserving of being called "the Galway job," as it had been by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). It was the opinion of the Irish Members that there should be one post in Ireland in direct mail communication with America; but by subsidizing English Companies all Irish ports were shut out.
      MR. PULESTONpointed out that when the late arrangement for the conveyance of the mails between this country and America was abolished, it had been reduced to a state of perfect chaos. It was consequently found that some different arrangement was demanded by the great commercial interests of the country, and it had to be made with some Company. The facts, were, indeed overwhelming in support of the view that the service under that system was so bad that it could not possibly, consistently with duo regard to the commercial relations between the two countries, be suffered to remain unchanged. He had known letters to have been, not once or twice, but frequently, delayed 15 or 16 days before the new arrangement was entered into, and it was quite clear, from experience, that if we wanted to have a thing well done, we must pay for the advantage. He thought that we should scarcely have had the great fleets of grand steamships in this country had it not been for the fostering care of the Government in their early history; and the new contract which had been entered into would be very bad indeed if it did not prove a great improvement upon the former hap-hazard arrangement. He was opposed to the system extolled by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).
      MR. MACDONALDargued that to give a subsidy as in the present instance was to confer a monopoly, which, he
      1650
      contended, the Government should avoid doing, either directly or indirectly. He had, he added, himself crossed the Atlantic five times, and on throe occasions the Anchor Line steamer, in which he had taken his passage, had got into port before the Cunard, although the former did not carry the mails, and had no such inducement to arrive at her destination quickly as the latter. On one of the occasions, the Scottish Rifle Team in going out took the Cunard steamer. The Anchor Line steamer was in port 48 hours before. The weather was alike for both. He felt some stern light when they were so unpatriotic as to go out of the country to travel by another line. Again, the accommodation afforded to the West of Scotland was a great injury to the trading community, and he begged of the House to mark their disapprobation of the transaction. He looked upon the present system as one of the worst forms of trade combinations—a combination backed by power and money; and he trusted the House, by a vote on the Motion, would crush out the monopoly and subsidies to any Line of steamships whatever. There ought to be a fair field and no favour. If a body of working men made a combination to crush out any fellow-labourer, the result would, no doubt, be three months with hard labour.
      SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that unlike the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), he had never crossed the Atlantic, and could not, in consequence, speak from experience; but he was aware that many of the Companies had carried the mails punctually and quickly, and that the old system had, on the whole, worked well. He thought that the noble Lord the Postmaster General had' treated the Anchor Line rather shabbily. There could be no doubt that the Anchor steamers were very fine vessels, and had done their work remarkably well; and he (Sir Andrew Lusk) did not think it was right to get rid of an old servant in the way which had been done. There was great prestige in carrying the mails, and honour was a thing which was valued in commercial as well as in other departments of life. What did gentlemen want to get into Parliament for? They exposed themselves to much abuse, and. sacrificed a great deal of time; and honour was one of the things for which

      1651
      they wished to enter that House. He did not think that a Line which did their work so admirably as the Anchor Line should have been jostled aside in that way.
      SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that strong representations having been made to him from the North of Ireland relative to the injury and injustice done to the trade and commerce of those districts through the act of the Government in concentrating the mails for North America at Queenstown, he had listened with attention for some arguments in favour of the course pursued by the noble Lord the Postmaster General'; and he should anxiously await the explanation about to be given by his noble Friend (Lord John Manners). The arguments already adduced in support of the new system appeared to him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) to condemn it, especially those brought forward by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mae Iver), whose speech had been directed to the several heads of speed, efficiency, and economy. He would take those three heads separately—and, as regarded speed, it had been disposed of by the hon. Member for. Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), who had crossed the Atlantic to America from Glasgow in one of the steamers of the Anchor Line, and had actually arrived at New York 24 hours before one of the favoured Cunard steamers had put in an appearance. Other testimony to the same effect had been given. Then, as regarded efficiency, he had in his hand the copy of a letter from the Postmaster General of the United States, written from Washington, in which he had testified to the thorough efficiency of the Anchor steamers, and to the great regularity with which they had performed their voyages from Glasgow to New York. As regarded the third head of economy, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had fully shown that, whereas the cost of letters before the late change was 2s. 4d. per lb., and 4d. per lb. for newspapers, it was now 4s. per lb. for letters, and 8d. per lb. for newspapers—quite double the cost for the latter, and very nearly double for the former; and if efficiency and cheapness went together, he considered they ought to lean always to the side of economy. Now, in the case so ably presented to them by the hon. Member for
      1652
      Glasgow, there were three principal features. First, the question of monopoly, as exemplified in the three Companies favoured by the Post Office; secondly, the case of Glasgow; and, thirdly, that of Londonderry and the North of Ireland. As regarded the first, it had been so fully disposed of by the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), that he thought he need not trouble the House with any further remarks on that. The axiom was as old as our first copy-books, where was to be found the text, "Monopolies are odious;" and he quite concurred with the right hon. Member for Montrose, that nothing was so prejudicial to the interests of trade and commerce as monopoly, and nothing so favourable to their advancement and healthy state as free and fair competition. As regarded Glasgow, it did seem hard that a community so flourishing, and scarcely second to any in the Kingdom as regarded its trade and manufactures, should suddenly be deprived of an advantage only lately conferred upon it, and of which it had shown itself worthy in every way. It had been left out in the cold, while other cities had been taken into special favour. And what were the facts of the case? That at 7.15 P.M. every Saturday evening the box used to be closed at the Glasgow Post Office for making up the American mail; whereas now, under the new regime, it was closed at 5.15 P.M.—two hours earlier than before—whicli was a disadvantage to the houses of business in Glasgow. Then the Anchor Line of steamers left Glasgow that night with the mails, and on Sunday morning entered Lough Foyle, calling at Moville for the Londonderry and North Irish letters and passengers, and proceeding thence straight away to New York, where they arrived almost always before the Liverpool steamers, which had called at Queenstown. The last point in the argument was Londonderry, and the inhabitants of that city and district complained that they had been unduly deprived of the advantage of the Glasgow steamers calling at Moville, inasmuch as the mail service having been taken from the Anchor Line, the steamers of that Company now sailed direct to New York without touching at Londonderry. Thus the passengers from the North of Ireland, who wished to cross the Atlantic, were now obliged to go by rail to Dub-

      1653
      lin and Queenstown, and there embark, which entailed upon them considerable inconvenience and expense. He had in his hand the copy of a Memorial addressed to the Postmaster General by the Harbour Commissioners of Londonderry, complaining of the great check to the trade and commerce of that part of Ireland, which had begun rapidly to develop themselves under the advantages of the Anchor Line, making Moville a point of departure for America, but which the removal of the mails to Queenstown had injuriously affected. The memorialists represented that, in view of the Glasgow steamers calling in Lough Foyle, they had made a large outlay in improvements in the harbour of Londonderry, by the erection of lighthouses and the formation of docks and quays. All these improvements had been made with a view to the mails from the North of Ireland continuing to be shipped from Londonderry. Under these circumstances, however much he should regret not being able to support the Government, he considered the case presented by the hon. Member for Glasgow and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) so overwhelmingly strong that, unless it could be successfully met by his noble Friend the Postmaster General, he should feel constrained, however reluctantly, to give his vote in favour of the Resolution.
      SIR FREDERICK PERKINSprotested strongly against the injustice done to the North German Lloyd's Company, whose ships sailed from a port in which he was interested, by the withdrawal, without any sufficient reason, of the confidence which the Government had reposed in them. The vessels of that Company were as numerous, as well manned and officered, and their power and speed were as good, as those of the three Companies on whom the favour of the Post Office authorities was now concentrated. They had carried the mails many years, doing their work regularly and well; and they had, moreover, been the means of breaking down a system of monopoly. It was, therefore, most unfair, and he might say unjust, on the part of that, or any other, Government, suddenly to take away this service from them, and give it to others, without any legitimate reason; while, at the same time, by that arbitrary proceeding, additional expense was thrown upon the country. He
      1654
      hoped the noble Lord the Postmaster General would be able to give some legitimate reason for the proceeding, and that it had not been withdrawn from mere whim or fancy.
      MR. J. P. CORRYthought it right, as the Representative of the largest constituency in the North of Ireland, to say that the people of Belfast did not complain of what the Government had done. It would, however, cause great inconvenience to the people of Ireland if the mail steamers going to and from America did not call at Queenstown. He believed that the present arrangement was as good as any that could possibly be made by the Post Office.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the question before the House was, no doubt, a very important one, and he had no complaint to make of the tone or the form in which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had proposed his Resolution; although he supposed he must regard it as tantamount to a Vote of Censure. The hon. Gentleman had traced the history of the question from the beginning; but he had given the kernel of the matter in a sentence that he had read from the Circular which the Post Office had issued on the termination of the old contract. The purport of that sentence was, that the Postmaster General appealed to all the great steam shipping Companies, entertaining a hope and a belief that he would receive from them a cordial support in the introduction of the proposed new system. That was really the gist of the whole business. If he had received, and continued to receive, the cordial support which he had asked for, that system would have gone on, and there would have been no reason for departing from it, or for the Motion before the House. But it was precisely because he did not obtain that amount of assistance from some of the Companies—without which it could hardly be expected to possess anything like permanency—that after a certain number of months' trial the new system really collapsed. He most heartily reciprocated everything which had been said in favour of those Companies which had come forward at the first and which had continued up to the last to render him a cordial support; and he had therefore heard with regret from the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew

      1655
      Lusk) that he had cast a slur on any one of those Companies. He appreciated most fully the services which the North German Lloyd's Line, the Guion Line, and the Anchor Line had rendered. They had all rendered most efficient services. If he had had to consider his own feelings, or the feelings of the Government, he should have continued to avail himself of the services of those Companies and let everything take its chance; but he had to consider not what was the conduct of this or that Company, or what might have been agreeable to the Government or to the Postmaster General for the time being, but what was for the general convenience and the utility of the public of the three Kingdoms. He had to consider what was for the convenience of the great commercial and manufacturing classes of the three Kingdoms, when the three principal supports of the system then in practice gave way under it. Therefore, while agreeing, so far as the principle went, and with the remarks made upon it by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baxter), and the hon. Member for Glasgow, he had to consider whether the correspondence of those classes with America should run the risk of being disarranged for the sake of maintaining a theory. Consequently, when the Companies, to which so much reference had been made, gave notice in October that after November they would no longer continue to carry mails on the terms which had been agreed upon—namely, from month to month—he had to re-consider the whole question simply for the convenience of the public, and he came, reluctantly, to the conclusion that it was necessary to abandon that system, and enter into relations with three of the most powerful and most capable of existing Companies for the conveyance of the mails from this country to the United States for the limited period of 12 months. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose called the arrangement a subsidy or a contract he (Lord John Manners) demurred, as it was neither the one nor the other, but simply a payment for services rendered for the carriage of the mails for that period, and the Government could give six months to terminate the arrangement, and this debate would, no doubt, be taken into consideration by the Government when the proper
      1656
      time for giving notice arrived. By the admission of the hon. Member for Glasgow one of the three Companies with which the existing arrangement had been made was the fastest and another was the safest Line in the Kingdom. That was a very material admission.
      MR. ANDERSON: I did not say that. I said two of them—the White Star and Inman—were the fastest, and the Cunard might be called the safest
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, if the hon. Gentleman admitted that two were the fastest, and the other the safest in the whole Kingdom, he thought that was a very satisfactory admission to make, and it showed that the existing arrangement could not have been made from any favouritism or backstair influence at the Post Office as had been suggested. The Government were anxious to carry into effect the new system. He must decline to give any pledge to the hon. Gentleman as to what course the Government might be disposed to adopt at the end of the limited period of 12 months. He thought the House would be of opinion that a question of such great practical importance ought not to be hampered beforehand by some theoretical principle, but ought to be dealt with on the broad grounds of speed, punctuality, and certainty. When the time arrived for the expiration of this temporary arrangement, he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government and the Department over which he had the honour to preside would be most anxious to take the whole of this subject into their consideration; and if they should see a fair chance of re-establishing the system which had been tried as a mere experiment, they would be most happy to take every possible step in that direction: but it was not wise to enter upon an experiment of that sort without a very good chance of its having a lasting success. He must maintain he had not abandoned the previous system—it had abandoned him.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 117: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 59.)

    ENDOWED SCHOOLS (LEEDS POORS ESTATE).

      MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
      MR. BARRAN,in rising to move—
      "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Poors Estate, in the parish of Leeds, in the county of York,"
      said, the estate in question was one of three ancient charities managed by the same body, the two others being the Highway Estate and the Free Grammar School Estate. In 1825 their several incomes were found by a Commission of Inquiry to be, Highway Estate, £818; Poors Estate, £153; and Free Grammar School Estate, £1,595; but, owing to the increase in the value of property, the income of the Poors Estate was now six times greater than it was at that time. For many generations the money of this Estate had been distributed in overcoats and petticoats to the poor; but the Endowed Schools Commissioners, in the scheme they had sanctioned for dealing with it, proposed that £700 should be applied to the maintenance of scholarships in the Leeds Grammar School, and an exhibition at one of the Universities, and that the remaining £270 should be given in doles as heretofore. Now, the Poors Estate was what its name implied, a charity for the benefit of the poor; but one-half of the £700, which it was proposed to devote to educational purposes, would be for the benefit of the well-to-do. During the past year, although the scheme had not yet passed the House of Commons, no fewer than 24 of the new scholarships had been awarded, some of them to scholars in the Leeds Grammar School, amongst whom was the son of the head master—a gentleman receiving £1,300 a-year—a clergyman's son, and also the son of a surgeon in large practice. Now this, to his mind, was unbecoming, if not illegal; and if such things were done in the green tree, what would be done in the dry when, the House having sanctioned the present scheme, the Trustees would have full power in their own hands? Surely, it was rather a risky thing, to say the least of it, to entrust them with the power which it was now proposed they should have. He objected to the scheme, also, on the ground that the
      1658
      Grammar School was enjoying advantages beyond the average of such institutions. The interest derived by the school from its investments was about £3,400, and the fees paid by the scholars yielded £2,400 a-year more. Although it was called a free grammar school, it charged pretty highly for the education it gave. The minimum fee was 10 guineas, which, in round numbers, would represent a total number of 240 scholars, and these 240 scholars cost £24 17s. 6d. per head. Now, he put it to the House whether they would like to entrust this scheme to men who sanctioned such an expenditure as that? He entreated the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) to consider whether, before this scheme was carried out, the Leeds Grammar School, the Leeds Poors Estate, and the Highway Estate trusts should not be inquired into with a view to the framing of a more comprehensive and more beneficial scheme. Meanwhile, he begged to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty in the terms of his Notice.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Poors Estate, in the parish of Leeds, in the county of York."—{Mr. Burran.)
      MR. W. BECKETT-DENISON,in opposing the Motion, begged the House to remember that the question before them was simply the administration of the Leeds Poors Estate. The funds of this estate were about £1,000 a-year, but up till a few years ago they only amounted to £270. No records existed as to the trust under which these funds were originally left by the pious founder; but for the last 200 years or so, the money had been applied to the distribution of clothing to the poor of Leeds at Christmas. A few years ago it was suggested that it should be devoted rather to improving the education of the poorer classes, and the matter was brought before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), then at the head of the Education Department. The new scheme received great consideration from the Trustees, and the main features of it obtained the approval of the Commissioners, and also, he believed, of the right hon. Gentleman himself. However, it was dropped, and was not re-

      1659
      vived till about a year and a-half ago, when the funds of the Poor's Estate had increased to the extent named. The Trustees decided that they should continue to apply the original £270 to the distribution of clothing to the poor at Christmas, and that the remaining £700 should be devoted to educational purposes. Sixteen senior scholarships were accordingly founded. One-half were applicable to boys educated, in the first instance, in the elementary schools of Leeds; but there was no indication as to how the remainder, representing a sum of £320, were to be applied. They were, accordingly, open to all boys who might choose to compete for them. In addition, there were 16 junior scholarships, open partly to boys educated at the elementary schools of Leeds, partly to all other natives of Leeds; and a University exhibition, also confined, in the first instance, to boys educated for a certain number of years in the elementary schools of Leeds. The 30th section of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 provided that where doles had been applied to educational purposes regard should be had, in the first instance, to the class of life of those who had been accustomed to receive the doles or—and the "or" here was of importance—to the area from which they came. Now, the Trustees thought that in laying down this scheme they were acting with considerable liberality and with full regard to the class of life of those who had been accustomed to receive the doles. It was rather insinuated in some quarters that the Governors of the school—who, he might say, were no less anxious to promote the cause of education than his hon. Friend—had laid down a standard of examination so high as to prevent children educated in the elementary schools from obtaining the scholarships. Well, the scheme had been in operation about a year and a-half; and the House would probably be interested to know that, according to the head master's report, 14 of the boys from the elementary schools had sent up the best Latin. That, surely, showed that the boys of the elementary schools were perfectly able to take care of themselves, and that the standard of examination was not so high as to debar them from the scholarships. The hon. Member objected to £320 of the £700 being applicable to others than the particular class receiving the doles. But everyone
      1660
      connected with large towns knew that there was a section of the middle class who were in quite as much need of assistance in the matter of education as the lower classes—poor clergymen, for instance, and poor shopkeepers—who had a great struggle for existence. These were not the people who received or accepted doles; but no one could deny that their children had as much claim to assistance as the children of artizans themselves. He had lived in Leeds for many years, and he could certainly say that no class more needed help than the lower middle class there. The hon. Member objected to the Grammar School because of its fees; but those fees were in consideration of education given in addition to the education of the foundation. With regard to the 16 senior fellowships, he rather agreed with the hon. Member in thinking that they should all be limited to natives of Leeds, seeing that the fund was originally intended for the poor of Leeds. He believed the Trustees would agree to make that alteration in the scheme, so as to bring it into harmony with the section. They were all gentlemen connected with Leeds, and who had long lived there; and he could say for them, as he could for himself, that there were none more anxious to promote education in the town. As soon as the state of the funds would allow them, they would willingly take into consideration the case of girls also; but at present there was no girls' school at Leeds to which scholarships could be granted. There was a body called the Leeds Educational Council which, in the course of last year, did offer four or five scholarships for girls, and a certain number of girls came up for examination; but he was sorry to say not one of them reached the required standard. That was a misfortune, however, which he hoped the girls by-and-bye would remedy; and he was quite sure there was no body more anxious for their improvement than the Trustees.
      MR. STANSFELDfully acknowledged that the Trustees had throughout been actuated by the best motives; but, at the same time, he thought the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran) had made out a case to which there was no reply. As to the funds of the old trust, although there were no records as to the purposes for which they were originally intended, they might be regarded from usage as

      1661
      being applicable to the poor of Leeds, without distinction of sex. The Trustees had prepared a scheme, by which they declared it, in their opinion, to be advisable that the system of doles should in part cease; and by which they proposed to apply some £700—by far the larger portion of the trust—to the advancement of education. Now, it seemed to him the money expended for education ought to be expended for the use and enjoyment of the class of persons who had from time immemorial been receiving the benefit of the doles. A system of educational endowment was unquestionably superior to a system of doles, and to that extent the scheme of the Trustees was commendable; but the question was, whether the fund might not be still better and more equitably administered in view of its original objects? His own opinion was that it ought to be devoted to the poor, regardless of sex. Now, the last speaker had not attempted to deny that about one-half of the £700 was to be applied to scholarships for which children of all classes, but only of one sex, were allowed to compete; so that the fund was not applied to educational purposes for the benefit of the class for which it was originally intended. The question was not merely one of justice but one of law. He entirely dissented from the hon. Member's reading of the 30th section, that the Trustees might apply the whole or larger part of the fund for the educational benefit of persons within the locality of Leeds, and that they might entirely ignore the educational interests of persons of the class which had been benefited by the immemorial distribution of that fund. The hon. Member had held out two promises. In the first place, he proposed to confine the scholarships to residents in Leeds. Well, that was not a promise of any value. What he (Mr. Stansfeld) and his hon. Friend (Mr. Barran) cared for was that they should be confined and appropriated to the class for which they were originally intended—namely, to the poor of Leeds, regardless of sex. The hon. Member had promised, in the second place, that as soon as the state of their funds permitted it, the Trustees would do something for girls. He (Mr. Stansfeld) did not know what value could be attached to that promise; but he had been given to understand that the estate had arrived at its maximum
      1662
      value, and that there was no probability of any considerable increase to come. In that case, the promise could not be of much value. He could not admit, under these circumstances, that the Trustees, whatever their motives or intentions might have been, had, in the words of the 30th section, paid "due regard"—which ought to be interpreted as "full regard"—to the interests of those for whoso benefit the trust was intended; and he, for one, would support the Motion.
      MR. WHEELHOUSEpointed out that what had been done in this matter was a voluntary effort on the part of the Trustees of the Leeds Poors Estate, which was the only estate that the House was dealing with at this moment. There had been a voluntary effort on the part of the Trustees to lay before Parliament a scheme which should have the advantage of being of some use, especially to the classes for whom the charity was originally intended. Supposing the plan were rejected to-night, it would simply have to go back to the Trustees; and the House did not know whether they would present any other scheme for the acceptance of Parliament. That was the position in which the matter now stood. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) about the mischievous effect of these doles. They were told that the poorer classes were not sufficiently looked after in this particular scheme; but he thought the hon. Gentleman who said that entertained something like a desire to ignore the old-fashioned element of doles, and the advantages they conferred on the poor. He (Mr. Wheelhouse) confessed he was not one of those who considered doles to be mischievous. On the contrary, he thought they had been of great use in times past, and he trusted that no proceeding on the part of the House would ever be supposed to shut the door against the granting or bequest of doles if the donor thought fit to give them. There ought to be no mistake between the two sides of the House as to the issue now raised. This opposition came from the Dissenting element of Leeds. ["No!"] He knew that that was the truth, and he was anxious that the House should know it. The Grammar School and the Leeds Trust, which had to apply this particular dole, had hitherto been—as he trusted it would be for years to come—in the hands of

      1663
      persons who were attached to the Established Church. He was as anxious as anyone could be for the education of the girls; but as far as this plan was concerned, there was no recognized educational institution which would be sufficient for the education of girls in the circumstances in which girls were now placed in Leeds. He was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Halifax assert that the Trust Estate might have already reached its maximum value. Why, the estate had been increasing in value for many years; and to suppose that it would stop at its present value was the idlest idea in the world. Possibly there might be a chance hereafter of the girls of Leeds having an incorporated school of some kind or other; and when the estate had still further increased in value a new scheme might be formed in case such a course were deemed necessary. An attempt had been made to throw discredit on the scheme because it was supposed not to be in favour of the poor. He asserted, however, that from beginning to end it was, practically, a "poor" scheme. It was, of course, an educational scheme as distinguished from a dole scheme; but that it was a poor scheme, no one who took the trouble to read it through could deny for a moment. The House had been told, somewhat artistically, in the first instance, that the main object of the scheme was to provide something for the upper classes. In point of fact, the scheme proposed that 16 senior scholarships should be awarded, four in each year, and each of the yearly value of £20, and tenable for four years. These scholarships were to be competed for, in the first instance, by boys who had for not less than three consecutive years attended some public elementary school in the town of Leeds. Did this mean that the scholarships were intended for boys of the higher class? He apprehended that it did not. If we took the term applicable some time ago to the Education Act, passed under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), public elementary schools meant schools for children who were supposed to be collected in some measure from the streets and brought in for education. Therefore, it was obvious that the scheme was not intended for the higher class of
      1664
      boys. The next part of the scheme provided that 16 junior open scholarships should be awarded, four in each year, and each of the yearly value of £10 10 s., tenable for four years. These scholarships were to be competed for, in the first instance, by boys who were natives of Leeds, or of persons residing there, or by boys residing in Leeds with persons who stood towards them in loco parentium. Surely there could be but one opinion that every boy in Leeds under 16 years of age, whatever might be his status, could come in and compete for these scholarships. It was possible that a boy belonging to a higher class in life might have had a better preliminary education than a boy who came in from a board school; but he maintained that the language of the scheme implied that all the boys in Leeds were placed, so far as they could be placed, in exactly the same position, whatever their previous rank might have been. The scheme could not convert a peasant boy into the son of a Peer. That was, of course, impossible, and they must take the impossibilities of this world with the possibilities, instead of talking nonsense about them.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      MR. WHEELHOUSEobserved that under the scheme eight junior scholarships were to be awarded, four in each year, and each of the annual value of £20, tenable for two years. Those scholarships were to be competed for, in the first instance, by boys who had for not less than three consecutive years attended some public elementary school, or schools in the borough of Leeds, and who had passed the examination of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in the highest standard for the time being recognized by the regulations of the Education Department for the examination of pupil teachers. Was there anything that could be more fairly laid down for the poor of the borough of Leeds? Those scholarships were to be, in the first instance, for the benefit of those natives of Leeds who from their antecedent education might be assumed to belong to the very poorest class in the borough. Another proposition in the scheme laid down was that no boy

      1665
      should hold more than one of the said scholarships at the same time, and that provision, he thought, would be deemed equitable and reasonable by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In order to complete the scheme, there was a provision for an exhibition of the annual value of £50, tenable for four years, at some University in the United Kingdom. That provision, it should be observed, was not confined to Oxford, Cam-bridge,[and Durham; but left the choice open to the London University and to Dissenting Colleges, as well as to Universities which were attached, more or less, to the Church of England. In that case, likewise, a preference was actually given to the children of the poor. He did not know what the Public Elementary Education Act was intended to do, unless it was to provide for the education of the very class of children who would be primarily benefited by that provision. Such were the propositions which the Governors laid down, and again he must call the attention of the House to the fact that this scheme was voluntarily propounded by the Trustees. They had laid it on the Table to be accepted or rejected, as the House might think fit. If the House chose that night to reject it, the chances were that no such scheme would be proposed for many a long year to come. For his own part, he was not anxious that anything should interfere with the present system of doles to any unnecessary extent. He did not entertain the now utilitarian notions which some persons held with regard to them. His idea was that the wishes of the "pious founder" ought, under all circumstances, to be complied with, as far as was practicable; and he considered that there had frequently been, both in the House of Commons and elsewhere, an ignoring of the intentions of the "pious founder" in favour of some new-fangled ideas, which he would have been the first to repudiate. He hoped that in the future they would have less of this kind of legislation. For these reasons, he supported the present scheme most cordially, leaving to future times, when the fund should have increased, the task of providing for the education of the girls of Leeds.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not remember either this scheme or any other scheme from Leeds coming before him when he was connected
      1666
      with the Education Department. Most certainly this scheme could not have come officially under his notice; and, indeed, he had no recollection of seeing anything in regard to the scheme until it was brought before him within the last few weeks. It was quite true that the House was not in the same position with respect to this scheme as it would be in the case of a scheme for an endowed school. As regarded the latter, legislation was compulsory; whereas, in regard to this scheme, legislation was, to some extent, voluntary. His hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Wheel-house) ought not, however, to dwell too strongly on this circumstance; because, if he did so, he would not be supported by his own constituents. He regretted to hear his hon. and learned Friend threaten the House—for it really amounted to a threat—that if they did not accept the scheme as it was brought forward, the funds should still be devoted to the old system of doles, whether that system were good or bad. He knew something about Leeds, and he knew that the educational feeling there was very strong. That feeling was not confined to one class or party; and he was quite sure that if the House wore to come to the conclusion that this was not the best scheme which could be produced, the Trustees of the Grammar School, who were also the Trustees of the Poors Estate, would not think of acting like the dog in the manger, and saying that nothing could be done. They could not follow the advice of his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken; and if they did so, they would have the public opinion of Leeds against them, and they would greatly injure the successful Grammar School of which they were the Trustees. He was sorry that the House should have to debate the scheme, and for this reason—Leeds stood very high for its educational activity, and he regretted that there should be a dispute in that House in regard to any educational proposal emanating from Leeds. The House was placed in this position without blame being attributable to the Trustees or to anybody else. If the Trustees had to frame a scheme for Leeds with the full knowledge that there existed the greatest earnestness and desire on the part of the working classes to gain the advantages of education, he thought a better scheme would be presented;

      1667
      and he confessed that, in his belief, it would conduce greatly to the interests of Leeds education and of the Grammar School if the present scheme were sent back for re-consideration with a view to another scheme being presented to the House next year. There were two or three points to which, he thought, the Trustees would agree. In the first place, he believed they would feel that it was undesirable to pledge the scheme to £270 a-year for loans. Again, if they were not prepared to do something for the education of girls at the present moment, he thought they would leave in the scheme a power of dealing with this subject at some future time. In his opinion, the scheme, though, no doubt, quite unintentionally, infringed the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The 30th section of the Endowed Schools Act said that certain endowments might be applied to educational purposes. There was a Proviso that in any scheme relating to such endowment due regard should be had to the educational requirements of the same class of persons who enjoyed the benefits of the original charity, or of persons residing in the same locality. His contention was that the word "or" was never intended to apply to such a case as was now under the consideration of the House. This scheme, however, did neither one thing nor the other. Of the 16 senior scholarships, one-half were to be given to boys who had attended public elementary schools in Leeds; but the other half might be given to boys outside, not only of those schools, but of the borough of Leeds. He was surprised at what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) concerning the 16 junior open scholarships. His hon. and learned Friend spoke in favour of giving to the poor gratuitous education. Well, here was an endowment which, for 200 years, had been devoted to the benefit of the poor, and yet his hon. Friend said one great recommendation of the scheme was, that certain scholarships were to be given to persons in any rank of life. That really was not the object of the charity, and he did not think it ought to be the result of the scheme. He would appeal to the gentlemen who were connected with the Grammar School. It had been a very successful school, but it ranked as a higher-grade school, and it was managed rather exclusively. In
      1668
      fact, the school was upon what might be called its good behaviour, and it would be a most graceful act if the Trustees made use of the whole of this fund to meet a great educational want at Leeds. He had been alluded to as having been Chairman of the Educational Council at Leeds. That he felt to be a high honour, and it had brought him into personal contact with the educational activity of the borough. One very great want was a ladder from the public elementary schools to the Universities. There were not very many boys, in proportion to the whole population, to whom it was desirable to give a high-class education; but, still, there were some, and in a population of 300,000 there would be a good many; and he believed that Leeds, though before other towns in educational matters, did not possess as many academical exhibitions as other towns. The Trustees might have provided almost a sufficient number of exhibitions to meet the whole wants of the borough. He thought the House would confer a great benefit on the Grammar School by sending the scheme back for consideration; and he believed that in future years the Trustees would be glad to have been able to earn that estimation among their fellow-townsmen which it was desirable they should possess.
      VISCOUNT SANDON: I desire, in the first place, to express my regret to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran) if he has been subjected to any inconvenience in moving in this matter by reason of my unavoidable absence from the House. I am glad, however, that he has to-night had an opportunity for a full discussion. In the observations which the hon. Member addressed to the House, he did not make any attack on the action of the Government in this matter. I noticed that circumstance with great satisfaction, because it relieves me from a considerable part of my task in answering him. This is one of a class of subjects—such as doles, apprenticeship fees, the relief of poor persons by means of loans, and so forth—which cannot be compulsorily dealt with by any Government Department, whether it be the Charity Commissioners or the Education Department. The power of dealing with these matters has been left absolutely in the hands of the Trustees of the endowments. Therefore, the Government has no option in the matter,

      1669
      and we have to accept, with gratitude, any scheme, if we really think it is a good one, which the Trustees bring before us. I will just state how this scheme came before the Government; and, first, I may remark that it is not for the Government to consider whether schemes of this kind are abstractedly the very best that could be presented, although, of course, we should be perfectly wrong in passing any scheme which we did not regard as a good and a sound one. When this scheme was brought before us it came from the Charity Commissioners, with a note saying that no opposition had been started to the scheme from the locality—a fact, in itself, of considerable importance. After a while memorials were presented to us on the subject. And here I beg to assure the hon. Member for Leeds that these memorials were not treated by us with the least disrespect. The usual acknowledgment of their receipt was sent; but I will tell the hon. Member how it was that we did not think it worth while to enter into an argument with the gentlemen who forwarded the memorials. We considered whether or not we ought to regard the scheme as being, in general terms, a good scheme, and we found that, when carefully examined, it assumed very noble proportions. There were funds in Leeds which had only of late been developed, and which, it was stated, could be applied to the dole purposes. We found that out of these funds it was proposed to make provision for 40 scholarships of different kinds for Leeds. Well, that, I venture to say, is a very noble scheme in itself. In addition to this, there was to be an exhibition to a University of £ 50 per annum. Seventeen of these endowments, which were of a considerable nature, were divided into different classes, but they were all open to the whole of Leeds. But 17 were tied up to the public elementary schools, with which we are principally connected in the Education Department, the others being open to the whole town of Leeds, and eight of them to outsiders. Therefore, we thought that we had before us a very noble plan for the advancement of the education of Leeds. We looked into the different provisions, and scanned the words with regard to the exhibitions and the public elementary scholars; and we were assured by the Endowed Schools Commissioners that
      1670
      the scheme, in the first instance, tied the exhibitions, as far as they could be tied, to that particular class. If, as the hon. Member supposes might be the case, the Trustees were to endeavour to establish a preliminary prohibitive examination, the Commissioners would at once interfere and put a stop to any such unjustifiable prohibition. As I say, we considered the scheme to be generally a good one. We saw that it would be open to all the boys of Leeds, without question of religious denomination, an opportunity of deriving educational advantage from these noble endowments. We also thought it wise to look as to the precedents relating to the action of former Governments in matters of this kind. We found that during the time when my two right hon. Friends were responsible for the conduct of this Department of the Government, it had been the habit of the Education Department to allot this sort of dole endowments not entirely to the class of people who had been accustomed to receive the doles. It was the custom to divide the endowments between the middle classes and the poorer classes who used to receive the doles. For example, there was the case of Chesterfield. At Hkley, again, the charity consisted of doles, but the money was applied to the Grammar School, pure and simple. Then we found the famous case of Wigan, where £6,000 odd were applied to the Grammar School, and about two-thirds were given to boys in elementary schools. Again, at Stamford, large sums were taken away from the poor to whom they formerly belonged. In fact, we found that in the present instance the Commissioners had been following exactly the precedent which had been established for a very long time previously. We felt satisfied that the scheme itself was a very useful and a very noble one; and one, moreover, which followed on the lines sanctioned by our Predecessors. After receiving the memorials against the scheme, a letter was sent to us by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. It stated that it was the deliberate and unanimous determination of the Trustees to refuse their assent to any radical change or modification in the scheme, which had been the result of many years' consideration. The subject, it was said, had been fully discussed in the town during the last few years, and yet no

      1671
      disapproval of the scheme had been expressed until within the last few weeks. At the same time, the Chairman added that the Board would be willing to consider the question of the educational interests of the girls when the income of the estate should have increased. With regard to the girls, I may mention that the inhabitants of Leeds, who memorialized us on the subject, withdrew their memorial because they were afraid of imperilling the scheme. The Lord President of the Council and myself had to consider whether or not, by stopping the scheme, we should be justified in imperilling so great a gain to the town. We were told categorically by the Trustees that they would not change the scheme at all, and we thought we were not justified in preventing so great a change. I think the House will agree that the position we took up was a proper one. Whether the scheme was the very best that could be devised I do not say; but considering the danger there was of losing this noble scheme, I think the House will be of opinion that we did right in passing it. There is a special clause at the end of the scheme, making provision for any alterations which may be hereafter thought necessary. The Charity Commissioners may, in their ordinary jurisdiction, provide such alterations as are not inconsistent with the Endowed Schools Act. This will not require the action of the Education Department; and I hope that if, after mature consideration, the Trustees think it desirable to make a change, they will not hesitate to approach the Commissioners for the purpose.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, the speech of the noble Viscount conveyed to his mind the idea that the Government were not very fond of this scheme. Any scheme in reference to this subject must be originated by the Trustees. Now, it was quite true that the noble Viscount characterized this as a noble scheme; but that admission must be taken in connection with the letter from the Trustees, saying that they had made up their minds not to alter it. This must suggest that the Government had sent a communication to the Trustees expressing some dissatisfaction with the scheme. Surely in a scheme of this kind, some attention ought to be paid to the case of the girls. The original charity was devoted to both sexes; whereas, in this scheme, no pro-
      1672
      vision whatever was made for the education of girls. The University examinations were held at Leeds, and exhibitions might have been given to girls educated there. He trusted the House would pay no attention to the threat of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Wheelhouse). If the House were dissatisfied with the scheme, he believed the Trustees would try to make it more in accordance with the views which had been expressed that night.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 101: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 60.)

      WAYS AND MEANS.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      (1.) Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1877 and 1878, the sum of £1,537,047 6s. 5d. he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
      (2.) Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, the sum of £12,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.

      FRESHWATER FISH PROTECTION BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Bill for the Protection of Freshwater Fish, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. JAMES DUFF, Mr. MICHAEL BASS, and Mr. SPENCER STANHOPE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 131.]
      House adjourned at half after One o'clock.