Commons Sitting of 11 August 1882

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Haddington Burghs, v. Sir David Wedderhurn, baronet, Manor of Northstead.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, Votes 1 and 2; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS; SUPPLEMENTARY, Classes I. and V.
Resolutions [August 10] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£34,357,774, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [August 10] reported—Ordered—First Reading—India (Home Charges Arrears)* [272].
Second Reading—Ancient Monuments* [263]; Fishery Board (Scotland) [240].
Select Committee—Report—Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) [No. 353].
Committee—Report— Married Women's Property [191]; Citation Amendment (Scotland) [267]; Merchant Shipping (Colonial Inquiries) [235].
Committee—Report— Third Reading—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) [265];
1498
Passenger Vessels Licensing (Scotland)* [234]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [250], and passed.
Considered as amended—Public Works Loans* [269].
Third Reading— Royal Irish Constabulary* [264]; Expiring Laws Continuance* [266], and passed.
Withdrawn—Registry of Deeds (Middlesex)* [22]; Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment* [84].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  STANDING ORDERS.

    RESOLUTION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th August] on New Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 173:—
    "That, in the case of any Bill promoted by a Municipal Corporation or Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, Town Commissioners, or other local authority or public body having powers of local government or rating, the Committee on the Bill shall consider the Clauses of the Bill with reference to the following matters:—

    (a.) Whether the Bill gives powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations in conflict with or excess of the provisions or powers of the general law;

    (b.) Whether the Bill gives powers which may be obtained by means of Bye-laws made subject to the restrictions of General Acts already existing;

    (c.) Whether the Bill assigns a period for repayment of any loan under the Bill exceeding the term of sixty years, which term the Committee shall not in any case allow to be exceeded, or any period disproportionate to the duration of the works to be executed or other objects of the loan;

    (d.) Whether the Bill gives borrowing powers for purposes for which such powers already exist or may be obtained under General Acts, without subjecting the exercise of the powers under the Bill to approval from time to time by the proper Government Department;

    And the Committee shall report specially to the House—

    In what manner any Clauses relating to the several matters aforesaid have been dealt with by the Committee; and

    Whether any Report from any Government Department relative to the Bill has been referred to the Committee; and

    If so, in what manner the recommendations in that Report have been dealt with by the Committee; and

    Any other circumstances of which, in the opinion of the Committee, it is desirable that the House should be informed."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that before the question was disposed of he felt it his duty to say a few words—not that he expected, in the present condition of Public Business, or in the present scanty attendance of Members, that there were many present who took an interest in the subject, but because he thought he was bound, on behalf of those whom he represented, to point out to the House that this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was probably not responsible for it, except as the mouthpiece of the Select Committee over which he had presided, and by whom the recommendation was made, went to the very root of local self-government. The whole tendency of recent legislation had been to place in the hands of the local authorities certain powers which Parliament considered they ought to be entrusted with, for carrying on the practical business of local municipal self-government, which powers such local authorities ought to be able to exercise without fear or hindrance. It was idle for Parliament to say they would trust the Corporations and local bodies of the country to regulate their local affairs, of which they were necessarily the best judges, and tell them at the same time that they would impose restrictions upon them, by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which would place their action at the discretion of a central authority. When they spoke of the Local Government Board, moreover, they did not mean the right hon. Gentleman at the head of that Board, but the officials in the Office, who supervised in detail, and often opposed, according to their individual judgment and opinion, the wishes and interests of the Local Boards. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) protested against this system of centralization. In regard to loans, it was provided by the proposed Standing Order that the term for repayment should in no case be allowed to exceed 60 years. Hitherto no attempt had ever been made to fix one unvarying limit for the repayment of loans. There were many works which Local Boards undertook, from the necessities of the case, and often under circumstances which left them no choice—namely, under the compulsion of the Local Government Board itself. They were obliged to un-
    1500
    dertake many works and improvements for the public health; and they were compelled to lay out considerable sums of money for such purposes. The money was not raised of their own free will, but out of the necessities of the case, and under the controlling action of the Local Government Board. He did not complain of this, because it was essential that the health of the localities should be secured, and proper sanitary regulations provided; but what he did complain of was that when the Local Government Board had compelled the local authorities to borrow money in order to defray the expense, they should then, by a new Standing Order of that House, limit the period for repayment. He thought it would be very hard indeed upon the existing ratepayers that they should be called upon to bear the entire burden of improvements, from which those who came after them were to derive the principal benefit. He would take the case of one of these municipal boroughs—the borough which he had the honour to represent (Dewsbury). The local authorities in that borough were obliged, some years ago, to purchase gas-works, and, in order to carry them on properly, and to give the ratepayers the full advantage of them, they had to incur a debt of no less than £200,000. Upon that sum they had been paying interest. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) contended that the municipal authorities had no alternative but to incur the debt. They were bound to see that this district was properly lighted; the existing Companies were lighting it most imperfectly, and were charging the inhabitants exceptionally high prices. The authorities, having purchased the rights of the Gas Companies, laid out considerable sums of money in extending the works; and the result, as he had already stated, was that they had borrowed money to the extent of £200,000—a somewhat heavy sum for such a community. The ratepayers were therefore required to pay a considerable sum in the shape of interest, and they now found themselves in competition with the Electric Lighting Companies. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) appeared to be amused; but it was no smiling matter for the ratepayers. It was a great hardship upon the district that it should be compelled, within a given time, to repay

    1501
    the capital which it had been obliged to raise under circumstances which had left them no option, and suddenly to find their efforts superseded by a new competing invention, while the debt remained, and they had still principal and interest to repay. He also strongly objected to another part of this Order—namely, that part of it which provided at the end that, after a Select Committee had inquired into any Bill promoted by a Municipal Corporation, Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, Town Commissioners, or other local authority, or public body, having powers of local government or rating, the Committee should report specially to the House in what manner the clauses bad been dealt with; whether any Report from any Government Department relative to the Bill had been referred to the Committee; if so, in what manner the recommendations in such Report bad been dealt with by the Committee; and any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Committee, it was desirable that the House should be informed. They all knew very well what that meant. The Committee were to report to the House; but the real persons who would sit in judgment upon the finding of the Committee would not be the House of Commons, but the Local Government Board. He was of opinion that if they were to have local self-government, that local self-government should be left to take care of itself, and should not be constantly subjected to the meddling interference of the Local Government Board. The Corporations and local authorities of the country did not require that the Department represented by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) should sit over them to watch their acts, and tell them how far the locality required improvement, and what their necessities demanded. According to this Standing Order, the Local Government Board, and not the ratepayers, were the best judges of the requirements of a district; and their supervision would afford the best check against extravagance on the part of local bodies. He would not detain the House longer. He was sorry that he had been compelled to make these observations to the House; but he had felt that he had a public duty to discharge. At the same time, he made no complaint of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman oppo-
    1502
    site (Mr. Sclater-Booth) in moving these alterations of the Standing Orders, because he was perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman was simply representing the views of the Select Committee.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he thought that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the paragraphs he had quoted. The object of the Standing Order was not in the least degree to centralize local government, but to secure that the House should, have full information of the action of Committees upstairs. The House had imposed upon the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board certain duties in reference to the examination of Private Bills, and among those duties it was incumbent upon them to report whether any Private Bill proposed to proceed in any way antagonistic to the public interests. The Reports sent in by these Public Departments were sent up to the Select Committees, who worked with great zeal upstairs; and wherever there were opposed clauses, those clauses were thoroughly threshed out by counsel before the Committee. But it might happen that some of the clauses of a Private Bill were not opposed, and in that case they were passed without the House having an opportunity of knowing what was contained in them, and the House were called upon to act to the best of their ability with no information or knowledge before them as to what was required for the public interests. The object of the requirement to which his hon. Friend had called attention was to secure that the House should not be kept in ignorance of the nature of the contents of these Private Bills. His hon. and learned Friend also objected to the limitation of the period for the repayment of a loan to 60 years. The only point which could arise in that matter was whether 60 years was too short a time for that purpose or not. He would take the case which his hon. and learned Friend bad himself brought under the notice of the House—the case of the purchase and extension of gas-works, which his hon. and learned Friend stated might in the course of a few years come into competition with a new source of illumination in the shape of electric lighting. That competition might or might not become

    1503
    serious; but if it did, surely it would be very wrong for the Legislature to require the ratepayers of a district for the next 100 years to pay for an instrument which was no longer necessary, having been got rid of by the competition of improved appliances. A hundred years would be manifestly too long to fix as the period over which the repayment of the loan should be extended. Surely it ought to be sufficient to require any loan raised for these purposes to be repaid within 60 years. The recommendations of the Select Committee had been considered with great care, and had received the approval both of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. After giving anxious consideration to them in the view of the Amendments which had been placed on the Paper, he had come to the conclusion that, with one or two alterations, the House would do well to adopt them. They would place the House in the possession of most useful information in regard to the provisions of Private Bills promoted by local authorities and public bodies. He begged to move in the first line of the proposed new Standing Order, after the words "Bill promoted by," the insertion of the words "or conferring powers on."
    Amendment proposed, after the words "Bill presented by," to insert the words "or conferring powers on."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in Section (a), after "conflict with," to insert the words "deviation from."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, at end, to add, "And the Report of the Committee shall be printed and shall be circulated with the Votes."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Order be a Standing Order of the House."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he had had the honour of acting as a Member of the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had presided, and which had made these recommendations to the
    1504
    House. He only rose, however, for the purpose of saying that if he thought the Standing Order interfered in any way with the principles of local self-government he should oppose it as strongly as the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) did; but he could not place such a construction upon it. The whole of the Standing Order proceeded upon the assumption that the local authorities were applying to Parliament for certain powers in connection with police and sanitary purposes, which they did not at present possess. There was no interference with any existing power at all; but the Standing Order simply laid down regulations which were to apply when the local authorities came to Parliament for extensive police and sanitary powers in addition to those which they at present possessed. He saw nothing in the Standing Order which was in any way objectionable. When public bodies or local authorities asked for powers that were in excess of the general law, such powers ought only to be sanctioned by the Imperial Parliament under a general law. There ought not to be one law for Blackburn, another for Manchester, and another for Liverpool; and in going through the Bills which had been submitted to them, the Select Committee had struck out some hundreds of clauses which would have been almost grotesque in their social tyranny if they had been allowed to pass. He contended that Private Bill legislation on these subjects ought to be placed under proper checks and restraints. In reference to the other point which had been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury—namely, the repayment of loans, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) certainly thought that 60 years was a period quite long enough to impose a burden upon any community. Was his hon. and learned Friend aware that a sinking fund of 1 per cent would be sufficient to pay off a debt in 60 years? Consequently there was no justification for burdening ratepayers who wished to borrow money for sanitary and other improvements with a lengthened period of prospective liability. A hundred years were far too long. The evil the House ought to keep in view was the desirability of preventing extravagance of the worst possible form. He would not trouble the House further except to remind hon. Members

    1505
    that these recommendations were the result of seven weeks' careful investigation by the Select Committee upstairs.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he had no intention of opposing the Standing Order; he only desired, with the indulgence of the House, to express his gratification that the task imposed upon the Select Committee had been discharged so effectually by the Members of the Committee and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who presided over its deliberations. It was at his (Mr. Hopwood's) instance that the attention of the House had been called to the nature of the provisions contained in some of these Private Bills; and he was glad to find that the Committee charged with the duty of inspecting the various Bills had so satisfactorily performed their duty. By the passing of this Standing Order something like uniformity would be secured in regard to the future treatment of measures of this kind; and, therefore, the Committee had rendered good service. So far as he was personally concerned, the action he had taken in the matter was amply justified by the result; and he begged to express his acknowledgments to the Committee for the recommendations they had made.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he thought that if there was one feature in these recommendations which ought to commend them to the acceptance of the House, it was the very one which the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had so vehemently anathematized. No greater danger attended the recent action of the Legislature in regard to the indebtedness of local bodies than the practice it had encouraged of inducing Corporations and other municipal authorities to raise large loans for sanitary and police purposes, spreading the repayment over a long series of years. What they had to deal with now was the dangerous system of launching Corporations and local districts into debt for the advantage of private interests. When it was found that the repayment of these loans was made to extend, not over a period 20, 80, or 40 years, but over 50, 60, and—in the case of Bradford, even 100 years—he thought it was high time that a rule should be laid down which in the future would prevent this destructive process of indebtedness. The hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant
    1506
    Simon) was anxious to relieve those whom he represented, and did not wish that the present generation should he too heavily burdened; but he (Mr. Hubbard) thought it was the duty of the House to think of those who came after them, and to have some regard to the interests of posterity. He trusted that the House would adopt the recommendations which had been made to them by the Select Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That, in the case of any Bill promoted by or conferring powers on a Municipal Corporation or Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, Town Commissioners, or other local authority or public body having powers of local government or rating, the Committee on the Bill shall consider the Clauses of the Bill with reference to the following matters:

    (a.) Whether the Bill gives powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of, the provisions or powers of the general law;

    (b.) Whether the Bill gives powers which may be obtained by means of Bye-laws made subject to the restrictions of General Acts already existing;

    (c.) Whether the Bill assigns a period for repayment of any loan under the Bill exceeding the term of sixty years, which term the Committee shall not in any case allow to be exceeded, or any period disproportionate to the duration of the works to be executed or other objects of the loan;

    (d.) Whether the Bill gives borrowing powers for purposes for which such powers already exist or may be obtained under General Acts, without subjecting the exercise of the powers under the Bill to approval from time to time by the proper Government Department.

    And the Committee shall report specially to the House—

    In what manner any Clauses relating to the several matters aforesaid have been dealt with by the Committee; and

    Whether any Report from any Government Department relative to the Bill has been referred to the Committee; and

    If so, in what manner the recommendation in that Report have been dealt with by the Committee; and

    Any other circumstances of which, in the opinion of the Committee, it is desirable that the House should be informed:

    And the Report of the Committee shall be printed and shall be circulated with the Votes.
    Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of the House.
    Standing Order 3 read.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, there were several Amendments he desired to propose in the existing Standing Orders which were simply of a technical

    1507
    character, with the exception of a new Standing Order to follow Standing Order 158, the object of which he would explain when he reached it. He would move now, in Standing Order 3, page 9, line 11, after "arrangements," insert "or to dissolve any Company."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, line 11, after the word "arrangements," to insert the words "or to dissolve any Company."—(Mr, Lyon Playfair.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Standing Order 13 read, and amended, in page 11, line 5, by leaving out the words "the said," and inserting the word "any,"—(Mr. Lyon Playfair,)—instead thereof.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he would next move, as a new Standing Order to follow Standing Order 29, the Motion which appeared on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Colonel Makins).
    New Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 29:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That on or before the 30th day of November a copy of so much of the said plans and sections as relates to the district of any urban sanitary authority in England or Ireland, in or through which the work is intended to he made, maintained, varied, extended, or enlarged, or in which any lands or houses intended to be taken are situate, together with a copy of so much of the book of reference as relates to that district, shall be deposited with the clerk of that sanitary authority."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
    Question, "That the said Order be a Standing Order of the House," put, and agreed to.
    Standing Order 33 read.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 13, after the word "relate," to insert the words "and of every Bill whereby any powers, rights, duties, capacities, liabilities, or obligations are sought to be conferred or imposed on any Local Authority in England or Wales in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    New Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 60:—
    Ordered, That a copy of every Bill brought from the House of Lords, whereby application is made by or on behalf of any Municipal Corporation, Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, or other Local Authority in England
    1508
    or Wales, for power in respect of any purpose to which the several Acts specified in Part I. of the Schedule to The Local Government Board Act, 1871, relate, and Of every Bill whereby any powers, rights, duties, capacities, liabilities, or obligations are sought to be conferred or imposed on any Local Authority in England or Wales in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board, and of every Bill relating to Turnpike Roads or Trusts, Highways, or Bridges, shall be deposited at the office of the Local Government Board not later that two days after the Bill is read a first time.
    Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of the House.
    Standing Order 63 read, and amended, in page 22, line 9, by inserting after the word "same," the words—
    "Or authorising or enacting the abandonment of the undertaking, or any part of the undertaking, of any such Company, Association, or Copartnership, or the dissolution thereof."
    Standing Order 65 read, and amended, in page 24, line 4, by inserting after the word "same," the words—
    "Or authorising or enacting the abandonment of the undertaking, or any part of the undertaking, of any such Company, Association, or Copartnership, or the dissolution thereof."
    Standing Order 84 read, and amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words—
    "And in the case of every Bill required by the Standing Orders to be deposited at the office of the Local Government Board, on or before the 21st day of December, shall also be deposited at the office of the Local Government Board."
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRbegged to move the following new Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 158:—
    "That in the case of every Bill authorising, before the expiration of the time limited for the completion of a Railway or Tramway, the abandonment thereof, or of any part thereof, and the release of any deposit money impounded as security for such completion, a Report from the Board of Trade respecting the Bill and the objects thereof shall be presented to this House, and be referred to the Committee on the Bill; and the Committee shall report specially to the House in what manner the several recommendations contained in the Report from the Board of Trade have been dealt with by the Committee."
    He might explain that this was the only new Standing Order which was not purely technical. The present Standing Order required a Railway Company proposing to construct a railway within a certain limited period to deposit a certain sum of money as security for the completion of the authorized line; but

    1509
    it was constantly found that the Railways, when sanctioned, were not carried out, but were abandoned, and the question was—what was to be done with the deposit money? After some correspondence between the Treasury and the authorities of the House, it had been thought that the best mode of dealing with the matter was to require the Board of Trade to make a Report as to the facts of the case—whether the abandonment was just, and whether it interfered with any private rights. That Report would be sent to the Committee on the Bill, authorizing the abandonment of a railway or tramway before the expiration of the time limited for its completion; and the Committee were to be directed to report specially to the House in what manner the several recommendations contained in the Report from the Board of Trade had been dealt with. It seemed to him that the justice of the case would be fully met by that means.
    New Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 158:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the case of every Bill authorising, before the expiration of the time limited for the completion of a Railway or Tramway, the abandonment thereof, or of any part thereof, and the release of any deposit money impounded as security for such completion, a Report from the Board of Trade respecting the Bill, and the objects thereof, shall he presented to this House, and he referred to the Committee on the Bill; and the Committee shall report specially to the House in what manner the several recommendations contained in the Report from the Board of Trade have been dealt with by the Committee."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
    Question proposed, "That the said Order be a Standing Order of the House."
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDremarked, that a question might arise after a Committee had finished its labours whether the Company were going to carry out all their undertakings. He did not understand how the proposed Order met such a case.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the question generally arose in this way. If a Railway Company had not completed its undertaking, it usually applied to Parliament for an extension of time, and a clause was inserted in this subesquent Bill, releasing them from any obligation which they proposed to abandon. It was proposed, by this Standing
    1510
    Order; to refer such Bills to the Board of Trade for their Report upon them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Appendix (A) to Standing Orders read, and amended, in page 63, by inserting, after line 25, the words,—
    "[We also beg to inform you that it is intended that the Act shall provide to the effect, that, notwithstanding Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 [or Section 90 of The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845], you may be required to sell and convey a part only of your property, numbered on the deposited plans.]"—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill be considered forthwith."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, the proceedings of the hon. and learned Gentleman were somewhat extraordinary. No one knew what on earth the Lords Amendments were, so far as he could gather, and he thought he was asking nothing but what was fair and right in requesting that they should appear on the Notice Paper. This Bill had hitherto involved some attention in connection with Amendments by the Lords; and, for anything he knew, the Amendments to be considered might provoke a conflict between the two Houses. Yet they were, almost immediately that the House met, asked to take the Amendments into consideration before they ever knew what they were. The least thing that the Government could do was to have them printed. The Amendments might be trifling, and only formal, and, for his own part, he might possibly propose a consequential Amendment upon the Amendments of the Lords. But the Solicitor General for Ireland introduced the matter as if it was a second-class Bill. He felt so strongly upon the subject that he should divide the House on the question.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the Amendments were of a purely formal character. The only one of the slightest

    1511
    consequence was an Amendment to give effect to an Amendment which had been introduced at the instance of the hon. Member himself. The position in which that hon. Gentleman's Amendment was placed rendered its meaning ambiguous. Its position was, therefore, changed from one part of the clause to another. The other Amendment was of a formal character, and would have no effect on the purpose of the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he felt bound to condemn the practice of considering Amendments that were inaccessible to the great majority of the House. Some weeks ago, in the small hours of the morning, and in an angry and impatient House, composed mainly of Liberals, he had called attention to the inconvenience of thus dealing with the measure then before the House—the Bills of Sale Bill. No printed copy of that Bill was obtainable by hon. Members generally, and in the copy which he was able to procure through the courtesy of an officer of the House of Lords, the references did not correspond with those given on the Notice Paper. He protested against a similar course being taken on the present occasion. The Amendment referred to by the Solicitor General for Ireland was one which he had himself opposed; but he was cried down by hon. Members opposite, and they now saw the result of it.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he must state that he considered that the proceeding of the hon. and learned Gentleman was one which he could not but stigmatize as objectionable at all times, and it was extremely so as applied to such a Bill as this. This Bill had only been further considered in the House of Lords on Thursday evening, and they had not received any Notice whatever of the Amendments. These had not been placed on the Paper of the House that morning, as they might have been. These Amendments appeared to be the result of an interview between the Government and the managers of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords; and, knowing as they did the character of some of the Lords Amendments in the past, they ought to have the exact nature of these placed before them, so that they might protect them, if necessary, by consequential Amendments. There could be no want of time in this matter. He might remind the Government that
    1512
    they took five days to consider the Lords Amendments, although it was now notorious that that delay was entirely useless. It was now apparent that the greater part of that five days was wasted, and that the Government and the majority of the House of Lords had all along agreed between them what course was to be pursued. He thought that they should insist either that the Lords Amendments should be placed on the Paper of the House, or that they should be laid before the House, and for that purpose he moved the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. MOLLOYseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr Sexton.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: It appeared to me, Sir, that some parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Sligo were irrevelant; but, besides that, he has stated what is absolutely untrue, and of which the hon. Gentleman must have been entirely misinformed. He thinks fit to go back to the five days which elapsed between the receipt of the Lords Amendments and their consideration by this House. They were complicated Amendments, and, of course, had to be printed, and he says it was a waste of time, because the whole thing had been agreed upon between the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition. I never heard a more rash, a more absurd, nor a more groundless statement made in this House. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, I think I am entitled to speak on a matter of fact as to communications between the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition, and I affirm that there was no communication whatever between them. The hon. Gentleman has been led—why, I know not—into a most injurious, most absurd, groundless, and imaginary statement. That is the state of the case. I do not think this is a very convenient opportunity for raising a general question upon the mode of proceeding with the Lords Amendments; but it is necessary for the House to recollect that, at the close of the Session, the interchange of Amendments, and of Amendments upon Amendments, becomes a nice matter in point of time, and it is greatly for the convenience of the House that such proceedings should be expedited. I think my hon. and learned Friend,

    1513
    acted strictly according to precedent in asking the House on his own responsibility as to the character of the Amendments, to consider at once Amendments of a purely formal character without getting them printed. The hon. Member for Wexford says he desires an opportunity of bringing forward a consequential Amendment. Whether the Amendment can be admitted or not I have no knowledge, because I do not know what it is; but I quite agree that he should have an opportunity of moving it.
    MR. HEALY: I said that possibly I might desire to move a consequential Amendment. I do not know that I shall.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly the House should have an opportunity of considering that matter; and, therefore, I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will not persevere at this moment with this Motion. Whether it should be postponed until a later period in the evening, or whether it should be postponed from to-day till Monday, which will be a loss of three days in the passing of the Bill, I am not prepared to say; but probably the hon. Member will put himself into communication with my hon. and learned Friend, and the matter may be very easily arranged.
    MR. MACFARLANEasked if the Amendments could not be taken tomorrow, Saturday? Hon. Members on that side had naturally a very great distrust of Lords Amendments, and desired to see them and consider them before they agreed to them.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I ought to apologize, Sir; but I would remind the House, with regard to a question like the Lords Amendments, that we have always confined the Saturday Business to that of a technical description, and to the performance of legislation of a certain kind; but, of course, it is within the pleasure of the House to take the Amendments if they think fit. It is, however, only fair that I should inform the House that the whole of the Amendments which we have to consider were inserted at the instance of the Government.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not think it necessary further to reply to the strictures passed upon him by the Premier than to remark that the complexion of the proceedings between the Government and the majority in the
    1514
    other House bore a political interpretation, and in putting that interpretation upon it he thought he was quite within his right. He begged to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT—SEED LOANS.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that the magistrates acting at Ballinamore Petty Sessions, county Leitrim, have lately refused to enter into any inquiry as to whether the entries in the account books kept by the Poor Law Guardians of the Bawnboy Union, for the sums debited to tenants for the purchase of seeds under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, are correct; and, will the Local Government Board direct an examination to be made into the account books of the said distributors, with a view of remedying the injustice that tenants are subject to by the false and careless entries made in the books of the Poor Rate collectors and clerk of the Union?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): I find that the only information the Local Government Board have upon this matter is contained in a Memorial received from 15 ratepayers, who have been rated for seed in Bawnboy Union, and who state that some of them never made application for seed, and never received any, and that others only received a portion of the seed for which they are charged. They further alleged that the magistrates at Ballinamore Petty Sessions, where they were summoned, refused to investigate the cases, and granted decrees according to the entries in the collector's books without hearing any defence. The Local Government Board have communicated with the Guardians on the subject, but have not yet received their reply. With regard to the action of the magistrates in the matter the clerk of Petty Sessions at Ballinamore informs me that, the magistrates, on the 29th ultimo, refused to enter into

  1515
  a general inquiry as to the accounts kept by the Bawnboy Board of Guardians—
  "Having regard to the facts of the accounts then sued for being publicly notified, as well as special notices having been given to each party of the sums due by them for seed, &c, and no objection having been made by those parties within the proper time."
  The clerk of Petty Sessions adds that the magistrates did investigate some of the cases.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ARMAGH POLICE BARRACKS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is the case that the Inspector General of Constabulary took a house on lease before it was built, for the use of the police in Armagh, in so secret a manner that none of the residents heard of it until the lease was signed; whether the arrangement was thus carried out in order to prevent the residents from memorialising the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit its being built in their neighbourhood, as they otherwise would have done; whether the County Inspector informed some of the. inhabitants that it was now no use sending a protest to His Excellency, as no attention would be paid to it owing to the lease being signed; whether the sub-inspector lodges in the house of the landlord who has signed the lease; whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Ulster Gazette," showing the strong feeling which exists in the district against the police barracks being erected on this site; and, whether he can direct steps to be taken so that the barracks may be built elsewhere?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): I find that the Inspector General authorized the County Inspector to take the house referred to; but the yearly agreement has not been executed, nor will it be until the house is ready for occupation as a barrack. The arrangements were not conducted in a secret manner, and they appeared in the local paper. After authority to take the house had been received, the County Inspector did inform one inhabitant that there was no longer any use in memorializing. The Sub-Inspector lodges in the house of the landlord. The local Constabulary assert that there is no strong feeling in the
  1516
  district against the proposed barrack, and that there is no other equally suitable site available; and the Town Commissioners, who represent the interests of all parties in the town, have granted the necessary permission to build the barrack upon it.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—MOVILLE, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, For a Return of the number of Roman Catholic Sub-Constables serving in the constabulary district of Moville, county Donegal, during the month ending 30th June 1882; also the number of sub-constables of the Roman Catholic religion entered on Table 9, Return No. 8, Promotion List, in said district for the month ended 30th June 1882, by Sub-Inspector Robert Almon Smith, the officer in charge of said district, and the length of service of each sub-constable so recommended; also the number of sub-constables of the Protestant religion serving in the same district during the said period, and the number of the latter entered on Table 9, Return No. 8, as recommended for promotion by Sub-Inspector Smith, with the length of service of each Protestant so recommended on 30th June 1882; is it a fact that Sub-Constables Marks, Moffit, Johnston, and Taylor were placed on the promotion list (and still retained thereon) when Marks and Moffit had only three years' service, Johnston only five, &c, to the exclusion of many Catholics of over fifteen years' service in said district who were well conducted and qualified for the higher grade of promotion; is it a fact that Mr. Sub-Inspector Smith lives in Carrick House, a statute mile from his head-quarter station, and keeps his office at same house outside the boundaries of the town in which he is in charge; that his men are harassed carrying letters and commands to his house in the country, and thus withdrawing them from their public duties; and, how much rent is allowed to Sub-Inspector Smith yearly for keeping the office at his private dwelling, and why is he allowed any, when all former officers had their office in the Constabulary Barrack, Moville, free, without expense to the public?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): The Chief

  1517
  Secretary endeavoured to make out an answer for this Question, which could be compressed within reasonable limits, but found it impossible to do so. At his request, however, I will hand the hon. Member seriatim replies to the several paragraphs thereof, which I hope will satisfy him; but I am afraid that they will not be ready before the House adjourns.
  MR. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman give them in the shape of a Return?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)was understood to say that he thought there might be some objection; but that, as far as possible, the facts and figures would be prepared in a tabular form.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE INDIAN CONTINGENT—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.
  COLONEL NOLAN (for Mr. MOORE)asked the Secretary of State for India, If he can state whether any steps have been taken to secure the services of chaplains for the Roman Catholic soldiers of the Indian Contingent proceeding to Egypt?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that the other day he informed the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) that he had not received any details as to the arrangements made in sending troops to Egypt. He had not yet received such details; but he might add that the Indian troops that would land in Egypt would come under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Expedition; and, no doubt, the arrangements made for the benefit of the Roman Catholic troops despatched from England would be also available for the Roman Catholic troops despatched from India. It was probable, however, that there would be no Roman Catholics among them, as the only British troops yet sent from India were a mounted battery of about 100 men and a Highland regiment.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—TREATY OF 1847.
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any action has been taken on the part of France in contravention of Articles 1
  1518
  and 2 of the Treaty of 19th June 1847, between Great Britain and France, guaranteeing the absolute independence of certain islands in the Pacific?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The French flag was hoisted at Raiatea, an island to the leeward of Tahiti, shortly before Her Majesty's Government assumed Office, and a provisional protectorate assumed over, it by the French authorities at Tahiti, at the solicitation of the Chiefs of the Island; but the proceeding was disavowed by the French Government as an infraction of the Declaration of June 19, 1847. The French Government, however, opened negotiations for the abrogation of the Declaration in consideration of adequate concessions on their part in connection with other pending questions; and Her Majesty's Government have consented that the French flag shall remain provisionally hoisted at Raiatea until the 31st of December next, when, unless otherwise agreed between the two Governments, the status quo ante under the Declaration of 1847 will be reverted to.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JAMES AND THOMAS COEN AND J. E. HAZEL.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether the time has come for the release of James and Thomas Coen, who have now been in prison since the 28th of last February; and, whether the district in which they live has not been remarkably tranquil for the last three months?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): The cases of both these men were reconsidered by his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant on the 25th ultimo, and he decided that he could not at present order the release of either of them.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether there is any reason for the further detention of Mr. J. E. Hazel, who is suffering imprisonment for the second time as a suspect, and who comes from a district at present in a state of tranquillity?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant reconsidered John Hazel's case on the 25th ultimo, and decided that the time had not yet come

  1519
  when he could safely order his release. The case will shortly be brought forward again for consideration.

  NAVY—VALUATION STATEMENTS.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the Admiralty will now begin forming valuation statements of the new supplies for the armament and reserves and Military equipment of the ships of the Navy, commencing with the armament of the "Inflexible," so that in time the cost and quantities of the complete supplies of guns and stores of every description furnished at the cost of the War Office may be on record?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We fully appreciate the usefulness of such a record as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests; but I cannot give any definite assurance at present that it will be commenced. We will communicate with the War Office on the subject, and I can promise my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter will not be lost sight of.

  ARMY—THE GARRISON AT MALTA—MARRIED SOLDIERS' FAMILIES.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that an allowance has been authorised for the families of soldiers of the Malta Garrison, not on the married roll, who are serving in Egypt, and who married out of Malta, and that the same allowance has been refused to those soldiers who were married in Malta, thereby leaving their families in a state of destitution; and, if he will explain why this distinction should be made?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that the wives and families of soldiers not on the married establishment have no claim on the public. But to prevent their becoming chargeable to the local community, they are, in such cases as the present, when they married in England, sent, at the public expense, to their homes in England, and they receive subsistence on board ship or while waiting for passage. Maltese women, married without leave, are in their native country, and have no claim whatever. I certainly shall do nothing to encourage marriage without leave.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MAIL SERVICE IN WATERFORD CO.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that, although there is a line of Railway from Lismore to Waterford, viâ Cappoquin and Dungarvan, the night mails from Lismore and Cappoquin for Waterford are sent from those towns by car to Cahir, in the county of Tipperary, a distance of 40 miles, and thence by train to Waterford; that the night mails from Dungarvan and district for Waterford are sent by car to Clonmel, a distance of 28 miles, and thence by train to Waterford; and the mails from Durrow, Stradbally, and Kilmacthomas Stations on the Waterford and Lismore Railway, are sent by car to Piltown, in the county of Kilkenny, and thence to Waterford by train; and, whether the Postal authorities have considered the advisability of utilising the Waterford and Lismore Railway for the carriage of the mails between the towns to and through which it runs?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that day trains on the Waterford and Lismore Railway were now used for the conveyance of mails from Lismore and Cappoquin and other places in the county of Waterford to Waterford. He feared, if night trains were employed, the charge would be out of all proportion to the postal service rendered, because the mails would be but slightly accelerated.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—PROSELYTIZING IN WORKHOUSE SCHOOLS.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has as yet made the inquiries promised by the Secretary to the Board, as to the correctness of a statement made by a Member of this House to the effect that several children have recently been flogged in a school under the jurisdiction of the Board for refusing to conform to a religion different from that professed by their parents?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, the name of the Union having now been communicated to him, he directed the Inspector of the district to inquire into the matter. Some of the cases of alleged flogging were said to have occurred three or four years ago, and the schoolmaster complained of had ceased to hold the office.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—ROSSLARE HARBOUR.
  MR. BERESFORDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Board of Rosslare Harbour Commissioners having carried out the arrangement entered into by them with the Government, and having completed the line of Railway between the town of Wexford and Rosslare, he will take the matter into his consideration and recommend the Treasury to advance a sufficient sum of money to complete the pier at Rosslare and carry out the project as originally intended, so as to afford a safe berth to vessels lying alongside the pier?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): This is a matter which rests with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, to whom I must refer the hon. Member.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE LEASES CLAUSES—MR. JUSTICE O'HAGAN.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state in what form the report was made to Mr. Justice O'Hagan to give his views as to the provisions of the Land Act relating to leases; was that learned Judge asked to suggest changes in the Law, or only to recommend amendments by which the existing Law might work more effectively; and, if he was asked to suggest changes in the Law, was there any precedent for such an application from the Executive to one of Her Majesty's Judges?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that the Question appeared on the Paper to-day for the first time, and he had not had time to make inquiries about it. He was not sure that the matter ought to be made a subject of communication to Parliament at all.

  EMIGRANT SHIPS—THE WRECK OF THE "MOSELLE."
  COLONEL NOLAN (for Mr. MOORE)asked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps have been taken to provide for the large number of emigrants landed from the wreck of the "Moselle?"
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Trade have no statutory authority to interfere with emigrant passengers on a voyage in a foreign ship from one foreign port to another, even though the passengers may land for a time in the United Kingdom. It is the duty of the agents of the foreign steamer to provide the passengers from the Moselle with lodging and food while they remain in this country. I have, however, for my own information, ascertained what has been done in this respect in this case; and I find, according to the following telegram from the Acting Collector of Customs at Falmouth, that—
  "Six hundred and thirteen passengers landed from the Moselle. First-class provided for at hotel, and steerage passengers accommodated at Sailors' Home, at hotels, and in warehouses at Falmouth Docks. Arrangements made by Fox and Co., German Consuls and agents for the Company. No complaints of either food or lodging have reached me."

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to a statement which appeared in an evening newspaper of the 10th instant to the effect that, during the last fortnight, the heading of the submarine gallery which is being driven in the neighbourhood of Dover has been advanced seventy yards; and, if this be correct, what steps he intends to take in order to bring to justice the person or persons guilty of this infraction of the Law?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 8th instant I received a further Report from Colonel Yolland, giving the results of his re-inspection of the Channel Tunnel works on the 5th inst. From this Report it appears that since the 15th of July—the date of Colonel Yolland's previous inspection—the boring has been extended for a distance of about 70 yards, in spite of the orders of the Court and of the Board of Trade. I am now taking the necessary steps under legal advice to insure strict obedience to the order of the Court.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE EGYPTIAN BUDGET, &c.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will state why the Political Correspondence on the affairs of Egypt, be-

  1523
  tween the close of the year 1880 and the 9th September 1881, has not been published to Parliament, and whether he will cause the same to be laid upon the Table of the House; whether he is able to assure the House that, during the period in question, the Despatches from Egypt did not contain information as to the growing National discontent against the European control; and, whether, upon the pacification of Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will merely recommend the continued payment of £150,000, under the Law of Liquidation of 1880, or whether they will recognise in full the claims of the Egyptian cultivators in respect of the £17,000,000 advanced by them to the general Revenue, and applied in great part to payment of the bondholders' claims?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Correspondence previous to September, 1881, was not laid before Parliament because there was not sufficient public interest in the affairs of Egypt to call for its presentation at the time, and it was not included in the Papers laid at the beginning of this Session, as it then appeared to be out of date. From an examination of the Correspondence which has been made this morning, there do not appear to be any despatches containing the information suggested by the hon. Member; but further search will be made, and if any Reports on the subject that admit of being published are found, they will be given. In answer to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to point out that the arrangements under the Law of Liquidation constitute an international engagement, and that it is not within the competence of Her Majesty's Government to alter them.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, whether the hon. Baronet would lay on the Table Papers that showed these were international engagements?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that these Papers were already in possession of the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked if the hon. Baronet would mention any Paper on the Table of the House which showed that there were international engagements?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Will the hon. Member put the Question on the Paper?

  EGYPT—THE CHAMBER OF NOTABLES—VOTING THE BUDGET.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the action of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt is directed to prevent the Egyptian Chamber from exercising its right to vote its own Budget, as appears from Sir Edward Malet's prediction to that effect, in Despatch on page 52 of Blue Book, No. 3230, of 1882; and, whether he will take steps to ascertain from the de facto controlling powers in Egypt if they will not at once lay down their arms on being allowed the constitutional right referred to in preceding portion of this Question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I observe that this is a prospective Question. Undoubtedly, there has been no action on the part of the Government directed towards preventing the Egyptian Chamber from exercising its right to vote its own Budget. Of course, I do not mean to say what precise amount of control over the Budget can be given to the Egyptian Chamber. That is a matter for future consideration, which it by no means depends upon us alone to settle. The hon. Member will recollect that international engagements having the sanction of a very large number of Powers are in question, and it is not in my power to say, even if I had the disposition to say it, that these international engagements ought to be left wholly at the discretion of the Egyptian authorities. But there is nothing to prevent the Egyptian Chamber exercising some control in reference to its finances.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—PROCLAMATION BY THE CONFERENCE OF ARABI AS A REBEL.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Conference at Constantinople has demanded of the Porte the proclamation of Arabi as a rebel; and, whether a Military Convention has been concluded between the British and Ottoman Governments; and, if so, what are its terms?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I stated yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), that the whole of the Powers had concurred in asking the Porte to issue a Proclamation. I could not read it, as it was too long, but it supported the Khedive and de-

  1525
  clared Arabi by name to be a rebel against the Sultan. As regards the second part of the Question, I may state that no Military Convention has been concluded; but, as I stated yesterday, the Porte has declared its willingness to accede to such a Convention?

  NAVY—DOCKYARD EMPLOYES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the petition of the hired labourers of Her Majesty's Dockyards has been considered by the Admiralty, and when an answer will be given to the prayer of that body?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that full inquiry would be made into the case in the course of the Recess.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—THE REPORT.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board will be presented before the House adjourns?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the Report was already in print, and was before the Scotch Fishery Board. He had expressed to the Board a hope that it might be presented before the House adjourned.
  MR. HEALYasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he still intended to bring in the Bill relating to the Scotch Fishery Board?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have not given up hope of doing so yet.
  MR. HEALY: Oh, oh!

  RAILWAYS—THIRD CLASS PASSENGER DUTY.
  MR. BUXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, With reference to a statement made by him, that—
  "The increase in the Duty on Third Class Passengers from £70,322 in 1873 to £333,032 in 1880, is largely due to an immense increase in the number of Third Class Passengers;"
  and to a Return made by the Board of Trade on the 28th of last June (Parliamentary Paper, No. 254) stating that the amount of Third Class Passenger Fares increased from £11,238,283 in 1873 to £14,333,271 in 1880, while the Passenger Duty on Third Class Fares increased from £74,097 in 1873 to £339,025 in 1880; and, seeing that this
  1526
  increase in the amount of Third Class Fares accounts only for an increase of Passenger Duty from £74,097 in 1873 to £94,503 in 1880, being an increase of only £20,406, whether he will be so good as to explain to the House to what circumstances they are to attribute the further increase in the Duty on Third Class Fares of £244,522?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): I believe that the apparent discrepancy between the augmentation in the railway duty as compared with the augmentation in the number of third class passengers is to be explained by two causes. In the first place, the Railway Companies have made great changes in their arrangements, by which a much larger number of persons are induced to travel in third class carriages in trains which do not comply altogether with the Cheap Trains Act, and which, therefore, do not obtain a remission of duty. The other cause is that there have been legal decisions obtained from time to time by the Board of Revenue since 1873, which establish a liability to pay duty in the case of trains which formerly claimed to be exempt.

  PARLIAMENT—THE AUTUMN SITTING.
  SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is still his intention to propose that the House shall shortly adjourn till some period in the Autumn; if so, when the proposal will be made, and whether it will be accompanied or preceded by any statement as to the business to be taken in the remaining part of the Session; and, whether it is intended to pass the Appropriation Act before the Adjournment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to this Question, I have to say distinctly that it is still the intention of the Government to propose that the House shall shortly adjourn till some period in the Autumn. The day of the adjournment must depend upon the progress of necessary Business, and in necessary Business I include the passing of the Appropriation Act. If we are able to close our proceedings in Committee of Supply tonight, which I think is expected and desired on all hands, in that case we ought to be able to propose the adjournment on Friday next. It is intended to ask for an adjournment till some period in

  1527
  the Autumn, and on Monday I hope to be able to mention the day to which we shall ask the House to adjourn. I perhaps ought to remind hon. Members that an Adjournment, like a Prorogation, is liable to be interrupted in the case of need by the action of the Crown, under the advice of Ministers, upon short notice, so that it does not signify an absolute and necessary cessation of Business. As to the form of Adjournment, I presume that, in conformity with usual practice, a Motion will be made on the last day of the Sitting of the House that the House do at its rising adjourn to such a date as may be named.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It would be convenient to hon. Members who are about to leave town if the right hon. Gentleman could state till when he expects the House to adjourn. I should also wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will be accompanied by a statement of the Business to be done in the Autumn?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have, Sir, I think, answered a similar Question on a former occasion. With regard to the work to be undertaken in the Autumn Sitting, our intention has, in fact, already been announced to the House, and it has undergone no change. We shall ask the House to devote itself to the consideration of the question of Procedure, and to give that question precedence on all days on which it may be set down for consideration. I certainly have no intention of asking the House, on the part of the Government, to transact any other Business whatever. But, of course, when I make that declaration, I except any case of necessity that may arise—such a case as no person can foresee. With regard to the time until when this House may adjourn, I think it will be probably the 24th or 26th of October. It would not be earlier, but I should be glad to reserve till Monday any statement in the nature of an absolute declaration.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance that no Government Bill which had already been brought in and dropped would be put down for the Autumn Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As the Autumn Sitting will be part of the present Session, the Rules of the House would pre-
  1528
  clude the introduction of any Bill which the Government have abandoned.
  MR. HEALY: Or take the subsequent stages?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is only fair to the House that it should be understood that we absolutely disclaim all intention of bringing on any Business except that relating to Procedure; but the reservation that I have made—namely, a case of public necessity arising out of great emergency—would, of course, not fall within the declaration that I have made.
  MR. WARTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would use his influence to repress private legislation in October?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no power to repress private legislation; but we shall have no disposition to encourage it; and if the House is pleased to concur with us in the view that the proper purpose of such a meeting as we propose will be simply to deal with Procedure, and if, moreover, the House provides that Procedure shall take precedence whenever set down upon the Paper, I think there will be ample means of preventing any legislation such as that referred to by the hon. and learned Member.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will the Resolution giving precedence to Procedure be moved before we adjourn or in October?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will consider that question, and announce our decision on Monday.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED DISCONTENT.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Prime Minister whether there was any truth in the report that the Government had conceded the demands of the Irish Constabulary?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would not like to give an inaccurate or hasty answer to that Question, on which he had not got definite information. Perhaps the hon. Member would be kind enough to repeat his Question on some other occasion.

  THE FOREIGN POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he had obtained by the ballot the first place on Tuesday for a Motion with re-

  1529
  gard to the Foreign Policy of the Government. He wished to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that everything which last August he affirmed with regard to the Foreign Policy of the Government had come true, and everything which the right hon. Gentleman asserted had failed to come true—whether, in view of these facts, the right hon. Gentleman would give him an opportunity on Tuesday of impeaching the Foreign Policy of the Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the Rules of the House give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity, I have no doubt there would be no want of good disposition on his part to carry out the designs he has just announced. We should be prepared to stand the consequences, and meet them as we best may; but it is not in my power to give him any other opportunity.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Yes, Sir; it is within the power of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the precedence taken for Government Business.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Now that the hon. Gentleman has disclosed the full extent of his intention, I must answer emphatically in the negative.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—RE-ARREST OF MR. GEORGE.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENwished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question; but, as he was not in his place, perhaps he might ask the Home Secretary to answer it. It appeared that Mr. George had been re-arrested, and that that had taken place because instructions were given to the police to arrest him. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, as these re-arrests caused great inconvenience, it would not be possible for the Irish Government to issue some kind of passport, so that strangers wishing to travel in Ireland might have an opportunity of doing so without having to risk the indignities to which Mr. George had been subjected?
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the Government was aware that in similar cases passports had been issued by the late Government of Naples and by the present Government of Russia?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had no information at all on the subject of Mr. George's re-arrest beyond that which he saw in the newspapers. His
  1530
  right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had gone to Ireland, and that was the reason why he was not in the House.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to treat the question with indifference; but could the Government give them some reasonable assurance that innocent persons travelling in Ireland would not be subjected to these indignities?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I can assure the hon. Member I did not wish to treat this question with indifference. I was only able to say that I had no information. I am certain that as soon as the Chief Secretary arrives in Ireland he will address himself to the subject, and will see that every precaution is taken to prevent inconvenience being occasioned.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the fact that Michael O'Connor, a distinguished citizen of California, was arrested in Ireland a few weeks ago, when he was simply visiting his native place? He also asked whether it was not the case that, when the Prevention of Crime Bill was passing through the House, the right hon. Gentleman gave the assurance that the Government of Ireland would make every effort that this power of interfering with aliens should not be abused, so that persons visiting Ireland on pleasure or business should not be embarrassed; and whether the arrests of Mr. O'Connor and Mr. George were in accordance with that pledge?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he entirely recognized the undertaking which the Government gave as to arrests, and which they were bound to give. He was quite sure that the Government in Ireland would do all in their power to fulfil that undertaking. He could not answer, however, as to these particular arrests, because he had no information respecting them; but he was quite certain that if the Government of Ireland were of opinion that these arrests should not have been made and were owing to carelessness, they would take measures to prevent anything of the kind occurring in the future.
  MR. HEALYasked if there would be any Representative of the Irish Government in the House to answer the Questions relating to Ireland during the

  1531
  remainder of the Sitting previous to the Adjournment?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was perfectly accidental. He would be in his place shortly; but, if not, some Member of the Government would be prepared to answer the Questions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  WOOLMER FOREST—RECENT FIRES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, who had given Notice that he would call attention to correspondence with the War Office respecting recent fires in Woolmer Forest; and to move—
    "That the management of Woolmer Forest by officials under the War Department has given just cause of dissatisfaction and alarm to the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands,"
    said, that various fires had occurred in the Forest, doing more or less damage to adjoining lands; but on the 23rd of May a large and serious fire took place, by which damage to the extent of £2,000 was occasioned to the property of Mr. Smith, an adjoining landowner. An official inquiry was held under the direction of Major General Sir Henry Have-lock-Allan; but the evidence on that occasion was restricted to the cause of the fire by which the damage complained of arose. Mr. Smith, the gentleman at whose instance he had brought this subject forward, was much dissatisfied with that inquiry, because he was not permitted to show that the same persons who had lighted the fires in the earlier part of the year were also the authors of that which caused his loss. It was reported to the General Commanding the Division, as the result of the inquiry, that it was not caused by War Office officials; but Sir Daniel Lysons recommended that, instead of being under the charge of a warder, these forests should in future be placed under the management of an officer of the Royal Engineers. Notwithstanding the inquiry that had been held, there was ample evidence that
    1532
    these fires in the Forest were lighted by the officials for purposes connected with the preservation of game. Lord Selborne, who was a resident in the district, introduced Mr. Smith to the Secretary of State, and wrote stating that his impression was that the fires were not accidental, but originated through the most dangerous system of clearing wild ground for the preservation of game by burning the heather. The numerous inhabitants in this district had a right to be informed that the attention of the Secretary of State had been personally directed to what, to them, was a most serious question—namely, that steps should be taken to prevent the recurrence of these fires.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that a Committee of that House which sat many years ago unanimously resolved that Woolmer Forest should be sold; but that proposal had never been acted upon. Crown Forests were not saleable, except under Act of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought proper to introduce a Bill authorizing the sale of Woolmer Forest, he (Mr. Arnold) would give it any support in his power.
    Mr. H. G. ALLEN, as a friend of Mr. Smith, whose complaint had been brought forward, could assure the House that whatever, he said was thoroughly reliable. This mode of clearing wild land was very dangerous, and could be for no other purpose than that suggested by the Lord Chancellor, who was not very likely to have arrived at his conclusion with regard to the origin of these fires on insufficient evidence—namely, the preservation of game. He therefore trusted that until the suggestion of the hon. Member for Salford was acted upon, and the Forest sold, orders would be given from head-quarters for the discontinuance of so dangerous a method of clearance as that of burning the underwood.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, no one connected with the War Department could complain of the calm and able statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in setting forth the grievances of those of his constituents who resided in the neighbourhood of Woolmer Forest. A Regulation had been framed which provided that the Chief Engineer at Aldershot should be specially charged with the duty of superintending this property,

    1533
    and looking after the warders. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to argue that because the fire of the 12th of March was lighted by the Government officials, therefore the subsequent fires were lighted by them. After the fire in May, Sir Daniel Lysons ordered a Court of Inquiry to be assembled. It was presided over by Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, and among its members was Colonel Harrison, one of the Chief Engineers at Aldershot. That Court was of opinion that the fire at Woolmer Forest on the 22nd of May was caused by some incendiary, and not by any Government official or servant. He confessed he thought it highly desirable that further precautions should be taken, especially in regard to the clearings. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the new Regulations, which provided, among other things, that an officer of the Royal Engineers should be present with a sufficient number of men to prevent the fires from spreading, and to extinguish them when necessary, and also that all residents in the neighbourhood should receive adequate notice before the fires were lighted.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to,

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
    (1.) £14,941, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he must congratulate the Committee and the country upon the fact that the Royal Commission on Agriculture had now finished its labours. This was a fitting opportunity to notice that the three volumes which the Commission had produced had cost the country more than £10,000 each. The cost of the Commission had been extraordinary and extravagant. The Commission had produced volumes of evidence which were of great value, and which, for 20 years to come, would probably form the most useful text-books on agriculture in this country; but whilst he thought it was impossible to over-estimate the value of this work of the Commission, he must protest against the enormous expenditure, amounting in all to nearly £40,000,
    1534
    which the Commission had involved. He could not fail to compare it with another Commission in this list—he meant the Commission on Technical Instruction, which, though a travelling Commission, had spent the comparatively small sum of £1,000. He deeply regretted that the work of the Agricultural Commission had led to what he could not but regard as a very considerable waste of public money.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, as he was the only Member of the Agricultural Commission who was now present, he must ask the Committee to consider the inconsistent character of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Arthur Arnold's) statements. The hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the evidence collected was invaluable, but that the three volumes produced had cost £10,000 each, and that was too much. The question of cost ought to be taken in relation to the value of that which had been got; the question was not how much the Commission had cost, but whether the work could have been done for less money. In what way had there been this extravagance? Was it that the Commission had been paid? Nothing of the kind. The majority of the Commissioners had received nothing, but had paid money out of their own pockets. Farmers and professional gentlemen who came from different parts of the country to work on the Commission or to give evidence had been paid their travelling expenses, and, he thought, the very moderate sum of two or three guineas a-day. The great cost of the Commission arose from the employment of professional experts who had been to all parts of the world to make inquiries, and to obtain information of a thoroughly authentic and reliable character upon the very important and multifarious subjects referred to the Commission by Her Majesty. He believed that some portion of the labours of the Commission had not yet been placed before Parliament. Some of the Returns—and the Committee must recollect that the printing of the Returns and the employment for two or three years, in point of fact, of shorthand writers, was one of the principal causes of the great expenditure—had not yet been laid before the House. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: No, no!] The hon. Member said "No, no!" as though he knew all

    1535
    about it. The hon. Member complained of what had been done. He could only say the hon. Member's (Mr. Arthur Arnold's) own evidence had cost the country a very large sum of money. At the request of the hon. Gentleman the Commission called him; he gave his evidence at great length, and it would be for those who read his evidence to judge of its value. At any rate, he would say there was no witness who was examined who cost the country so much as the hon. Member himself. Then the hon. Member compared the Agricultural Commission to the Commission on Technical Education, very much to the disadvantage of the Agricultural Commission. Why, the hon. Gentleman made a comparison without knowing anything about the subject! Would the hon. Gentleman say how the expenses of the Technical Education Commission were incurred? If he had gone into the matter properly, he would have ascertained that the Technical Education Commission paid its own expenses, a fact which was exceedingly discreditable to the country. The Gentlemen who were appointed upon that Commission received no pecuniary assistance from the Government, and that was a matter which it was not unlikely would be brought under the notice of Parliament on another occasion, because, without going into matters of a delicate nature, the Committee could easily understand that there might be even Members of that Commission who could not pay their own expenses. For the country to appoint a Commission and not to pay the Members of it was either to insure that only rich men should form the Commission, or to require persons of public spirit to put their hands in their own pockets and pay expenses which ought not to fall upon them. There was no kind of comparison to be drawn between the Agricultural Commission and the Technical Education Commission. Certainly the Technical Education Commission had done its labours admirably; and he thought, on the whole, the country would be of opinion that the Agricultural Commission, which had worked without pecuniary remuneration, so far as its Members were concerned, had also earned the good opinion of the country, and ought not to be criticized upon imperfect information in the perfunctory manner adopted by the hon. Member.
    Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell Henry), he was still of opinion that the evidence given before the Commission might have been presented to the House for about £3,000, instead of £40,000.
    MR. MITCHELL HENEYsaid, that for the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee that work which had occupied three years, which required the sending to all parts of the world of highly-paid experts, could have been done for £3,000, was simply ludicrous. The Committee would know very well in what way to receive statements of that kind.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £3,711, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    (3.) £793,155, to complete the sum for Customs.
    (4.) £1,557,822, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.
    (5.) £3,043,300, to complete the sum for Post Office.
    (6.) £490,514, to complete the sum for Post Office Packet Service.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the Post Office contract for the transmission of the Irish mails between Holyhead and Dublin. This was a matter of very considerable importance, and one which excited a great deal of interest in Ireland. The period of the present contract had now expired, or was about to expire, and the Department had advertised for new tenders. He did not understand that notice had been given for the termination of the existing contract; but advertisements had been published and tenders had been received from new contractors. The various Chambers of Commerce throughout the country had taken an interest in the matter, and they had forwarded Memorials to the Postmaster General in reference to it. A good many questions would arise in connection with the policy which would actuate the Department in giving away this contract. In the first place, it was important the Committee should know whether the Department intended to deal with the entire mail service between England and Ireland in connection with the new contract for across Chan-

    1537
    nel, or whether they only intended to deal with the carrying of the mails between Holyhead and Dublin. He hoped the Department would take into consideration the question of a general acceleration of the mail service. Enormous practical convenience could be secured by an acceleration of the service, and it could be effected without any additional cost. Another question of great practical importance, and on which he hoped the Postmaster General would be able to give the Committee some information, was as to whether he intended that the new service should be a service from Holyhead to Kingstown, as at present, or from Holyhead direct to the port of Dublin. Such were the questions on which lie was anxious to get some information. He believed it was the practice of the Department not to state the terms of the tenders they had received in connection with these contracts until they had actually accepted them. Of course, he was aware they were then laid on the Table of the House; but that was a purely formal roceeding, and unless some powerful reason could be alleged, no contract was over refused ratification by the House. He could not understand why the tenders should not be disclosed to the public before the Department took them into consideration. The tenders sent to other Departments of the State became public property immediately upon their reception. Why this exception in the case of the postal contracts he failed to comprehend. There was a very strong feeling in Ireland that it was quite possible that an Irish Company—the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company—which for the last 30 years had executed this contract, with satisfaction both to the Department and to the public, might be shunted on this occasion in favour of the London and North-Western Railway Company, who carried the mails, except across Channel, and who had recently become steam-ship proprietors, having a line of steamers running to the port of Dublin. He believed the London and Northwestern Company had sent in a tender for the new contract in competition with the City of Dublin Company. The London and North-Western Company was, of course, a Company of enormous wealth. It was stated, with what truth he did not know, that it could more or less directly influence some 50 votes in
    1538
    this House. One of the members of the Board of Directors was a Member of the Government, another member of the Board was a Member of the late Irish Government, and, therefore, the Company had a very great amount of influence and power. He would be 10th to even suggest in the remotest way that any of its power or influence would be exercised in anything but the most legitimate manner; but the fact of the Company being so directly represented in this House should induce the Government to disclose to the Irish public, who were so deeply interested in them, the terms of the tenders before they committed themselves to one or the other. It was easy to be conceived that a Company with enormous capital and revenue, like the London and North-Western, might find it to its interest to tender at an unremunerative rate—at a rate at which an independent Company merely carrying on the mail business could not compete with—with the full knowledge that if its tender were accepted the small rival Company would be destroyed, and at the termination of the period of the first contract, the larger Company would be the masters of the situation and able to dictate its own terms. He was sure the Postmaster General would not be inclined to lend himself to anything of the kind; but there was an apprehension, which he thought was well founded, that what might be deemed to be somewhat unfair competition of that character might militate against the chance of the Irish Company; that, in fact, an old and most respectable Irish Company might be destroyed by competition with an enormous Corporation like the London and North-Western. Moreover, there was a very strong feeling, in which he shared, and in which anyone who had any knowledge of Dublin must share, that it would be most detrimental to the public service if the mails were carried direct to the port of Dublin instead of to Kingstown, as at present. He was quite aware that new steamers had been put on for the purpose of carrying passengers to the port of Dublin, and that it was alleged they could carry mails just as well. From his own personal experience, he could say, without fear of contradiction, that it was a physical impossibility to carry mails to the port of Dublin with anything like the regularity which must be first essential of the postal service,

    1539
    The fogs were sometimes so dense that vessels were delayed from entering the port of Dublin for seven, eight, nine, and ten hours. No expenditure of money could obviate that serious difficulty, which, however, did not exist with regard to Kingstown. Kingstown lay more in the open sea than did the port of Dublin. There was a sand-bank some miles outside Kingstown, on which was the Kisch Lightship and bell, and this could always be made by steamers coming from Holyhead, no matter how dense the fog might be. When this lightship was once reached, the harbour of Kingstown could be made by compass alone. It was impossible so to make the port of Dublin. Vessels were not infrequently delayed for hours outside the port, so it was absolutely impossible to secure a perfectly regular mail service to the port of Dublin. He imagined, however, the Post Office would have sent an Inspector to the spot to inquire into the whole subject. He saw no public purpose to be gained in Ireland by destroying healthy competition, and leaving a monopoly of the carrying service in the hands of a gigantic Corporation like the London and North-Western Railway Company. If it could be shown that a few thousand pounds could be saved by such a procedure, the saving would be dearly purchased, and would certainly be obnoxious to the Irish people. He hoped that nothing of the kind was contemplated. It would be altogether detrimental to the public interests, and be displaying ingratitude towards a poor Company, who had hitherto done the work satisfactorily, and who would ever be regarded as an historical Company. Indeed, the Irish Company was the Company which founded the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General might not be aware of that fact, but it nevertheless was a fact. The Irish Company was the first Company that sent a steamer across the Atlantic; and the vessels they now had upon the Line would stand a comparison with any vessels afloat, both as regarded speed, regularity of service, and seaworthiness. And now he had a word or two to say upon the larger question of the acceleration of the mail service between England and Ireland. A large saving was to be effected in the renewal of the contract.
    1540
    He had no idea what the figures were; but he put it down that £20,000 would be saved by the competition between the Companies. The contract was £85,000 or £80,000, subject to some reduction owing to the excess of passenger traffic. Probably there might be a reduction of some £20,000; and what he desired was that the right hon. Gentleman should not put that 20,000 to the credit of the Post Office Department, and then to say, if the Irish people asked for a few thousands to be spent in the acceleration of the Irish mail service generally, "Where are the funds to come from?" If a saving were effected at all, it ought, in his opinion, to be devoted to the general acceleration of the service between London and Dublin, and between Dublin and the Irish Provincial towns. At the present moment the service, especially so far as the Provincial towns were concerned, was most unsatisfactory. Suppose a man posted a letter on Monday to Cork, Waterford, Kilkenny, or Limerick, he could not receive a reply to it until the Wednesday evening in London. Hon. Members would know that for all practical purposes that was the same as if no reply was received until Thursday morning—making three working days from the despatch of the letter until the receipt of the reply. He believed that it would be very easy indeed, at a comparatively small outlay, so to increase the speed of the service between Euston and Holyhead, and, secondly, between Holyhead and Kingstown, and, thirdly, between Kingstown and the Irish Provincial towns, as to secure that any man in the Irish Provincial towns he had mentioned should be able to receive a reply to his letters at the same time as a man living in Dublin, and that a reply to communications posted to Cork, Waterford, Kilkenny, Limerick, and other places, should be received in London on Wednesday morning, instead of Wednesday evening, which would secure a saving of a working day, a matter of enormous importance to all business men. Some of his friends had said to him, when they found that he was interesting himself in this question, that the result would be to promote English manufactures at the expense of Ireland, that he was only facilitating the introduction of English goods into Ireland, and hindering the Irish manufacturers to the same extent by depriving them of

    1541
    a portion of the trade they would otherwise have. He declined to take any responsibility, on that account, upon his own shoulders. He believed that the acceleration of the mail service would benefit both parties, and if it benefited English traders, it would benefit in a corresponding degree the customers in Ireland. The advantage would not merely be as between England and Ireland, but there would also be a considerable advantage secured between Dublin and the Irish Provincial towns, because, at the present moment, all the outgoing mails from Dublin depended upon the English mails. They did not leave Dublin until a comparatively late hour. Instead of leaving at 5 o'clock in the morning, as they ought to do, they did not, upon the average, leave until nearly 9 o'clock. If they could succeed in inducing Her Majesty's Government to accelerate the mail service to England from Dublin, all the outgoing mails from Dublin to the Provinces could easily be accelerated in the same proportion; and inasmuch as the passenger traffic from Dublin to the Provinces was dependent on the mail traffic for its time of leaving, there would be this convenience, that a man leaving Dublin in the morning for Cork or Limerick, could transact his business in those towns and return to Dublin in time for dinner, in the same way that a man could leave London now, go down to Liverpool or Manchester, get through all his business transactions there, and return to London in the course of the same day. If the Government consented to accelerate the Irish mail service—and there was no difficulty whatever in doing it—a man would be able to run down to Cork or to any Provincial town, and, having gone through, his business, could return to Dublin on the same day. This was a question that was of enormous importance to the people of Ireland, because it meant, as between Dublin and the Irish Provincial towns, the gain of an entire day. He was most anxious that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General should consider the subject as a whole, and not merely in reference to the question of sending the mails from Holyhead to Dublin. It was a very large question, and now was the time for taking it up if it was to be taken up at all within the next 10 years. In consequence of there not being direct
    1542
    communication between Kingstown and all the other railways having a terminus in Dublin, he thought it was worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that the notice had not yet been given of the termination of the contract, he would not suspend the notice for the present, in order to see whether pressure could not be brought to bear upon the Railway Companies in Dublin to provide that practical steps should be taken for securing a connection between the Kingstown Railway and the other railways having terminii in Dublin, so that in future the mails should be conveyed direct by the lines of railway going South, West, and North. The inconvenience of the existing arrangements was very much felt all over Ireland; indeed, so serious was the difficulty that he was strongly of opinion that the Department should hold its hand for a little while, and say—"We will do nothing for 12 months, in order that we may ascertain whether the Railway Companies will do anything for the benefit of the public." If that course were taken, he believed that something would be done; whereas if the Government completed the contract at once, nothing would be done, and all the inconveniences now experienced would continue to prevail for the next 10 years. He felt quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would turn his attention to the subject, and that he would endeavour to arrive at the wisest possible conclusion. He hoped, when the right hon. Gentleman rose to reply, that he would be able to give to the country some information of a reassuring character.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he cordially endorsed everything that had been so ably stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) on the important subject of the proposed postal contract. There was a very strong opinion in Ireland that there would be an effort, and it was feared that it might, perhaps, be a successful effort, on the part of the London and North-Western Railway Company to obtain the contract now enjoyed by the Irish Company for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails between Holyhead and Kingstown. He certainly believed that it was not only the sentiment of the Irish Members generally, but of the Irish people as well, that the removal of the mail contract from the

    1543
    present Company would be viewed with considerable dissatisfaction unless it could be shown that there were the strongest reasons for it. The present Company had had the conveyance of the mails for upwards of 30 years, and that mail service was not only a credit to Ireland, but he believed it was admitted that for the distance travelled it was one of the first mail services in the world. At very considerable expense, and with very great support, the Company had carried out the service, both as regarded the mails and the passengers, in a highly superior manner, and very often at a very considerably increased outlay. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had quite accurately pourtrayed what the feeling of Ireland was when he said so emphatically that any change to the detriment of the existing Company would be viewed with considerable dissatisfaction. Amongst the many advantages which the Company had conferred upon Ireland was not only the keeping up of the vessels for conducting the postal service between Dublin and Holyhead, but also the keeping up of another very important mercantile Company at Dublin. The enterprises of the Dublin Navigation Company were regarded in Ireland as a great National undertaking; and, in common with other Irish Members who would probably follow him, he appealed to the Postmaster General to pause very seriously before he proposed to alter the existing arrangements for the conveyance of the mails.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had failed to observe that the Postmaster General was in his place when the Post Office Vote was taken, or he should have asked a question upon the matter. He wished, however, to ask a question upon the present Vote in reference to the price of registered letters. They were now 2¼d., which was very often practically 2½d.; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be much better to fix the price at 2d. for a registered letter, without making any charge for the envelope itself?
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not propose to add anything to the very able statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) as to acceleration and improvement of the Irish mail service. He thought that his hon. Friend might be accepted, not only
    1544
    as the able, but as the trustworthy exponent of Irish feeling on that subject. He (Mr. Sexton) had lately asked a question of the Postmaster General about the post office at Ballyvourn, in the county of Roscommon, to which he should like to call attention.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member might ask a question as a matter of convenience; but it was impossible to discuss the Post Office Vote now, as it had already been disposed of. The Committee were now considering the Vote for the Post Office Packet Service.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would reserve his observations for another occasion.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he did not think it necessary to occupy the time of the Committee at any length after the exhaustive speech which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). He had risen merely for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General whether he would consider a matter he (Mr. Leamy) had put to him to-day respecting the carriage of the mails on the Waterford and Lismore Railway? He was very sorry that he had not been able to give the right hon. Gentleman longer Notice of the Question, because, as he had only given Notice of it on Wednesday, it had been impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to make full inquiry into the case. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, even if the railway in question were utilized for the carriage of the night mails between the towns he had mentioned, it would still be necessary to continue the present arrangements. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was labouring entirely under a mistake.
    COLONEL TAYLORdesired to say one or two words before the Vote was disposed of. For the last 20 or 30 years the mail service had been conducted between Dublin and Holyhead in the most satisfactory manner, and he believed that there was a general feeling in Ireland in favour of continuing the existing arrangements. The Dublin Navigation Company deserved the highest credit, not only for the manner in which they had conducted the service between Holyhead and Kingstown, but also the service at North Wall. He believed that the London and North-Western Railway Company were now applying for the contract, and, being well acquainted with the

    1545
    manner in which the service was at present conducted, he certainly did not believe that any improvement could be made upon the vessels which were now run between Holyhead and Kingstown.
    MR. FAWCETT: I think I may undertake to say that the contract for the conveyance of the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown will not be decided directly after this Vote has been taken, because I am bound to say that I think the able and practical speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) deserves very careful consideration. I can assure him that, as far as I am concerned, his remarks shall be carefully considered, as well as the remarks made by other hon. Members in the course of this short debate. He and they are aware that the decision on this important question ultimately rests not with the Post Office, but with the Treasury. In regard to these contracts, they are supreme in the matter. But, at the same time, I believe I am perfectly justified in saying that the remarks which have been made this evening, and the other representations we have received, will be as carefully considered by the Treasury before any decision is ultimately arrived at as they have been by the Post Office. In receiving a very large and influential deputation of the Irish Members some time since, I conceded, I thought, to the full extent the importance of the subject demanded—the very great desirability, if it could be found practicable, of accelerating the mails between England and Ireland. There was one part of the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) with which I most entirely concur, and it was this—that, regarding the subject as a question of postal acceleration, the acceleration of the mails in all the Provincial towns of Ireland is even of much more importance than their acceleration to Dublin, because if the mails arrive in Dublin at a sufficiently early hour to enable the letters to be delivered at breakfast-time—say, half-past 8 o'clock—Dublin would be sufficiently well served; but it is perfectly obvious that, as far as the mails are concerned that have to be sent on from Dublin to distant Provincial towns, every hour the mails can be accelerated, on their arrival in Dublin, at any rate, means the possibility of their arriving at some Provincial town an hour earlier in the day; and,
    1546
    of course, it may be of the utmost importance that the mail should arrive, say, in Cork, at 11 instead of 12 o'clock, because not only would men of business get their letters an hour earlier, but they would also have the advantage, on the other hand, of one or two hours longer for enabling them to reply to their correspondents. Therefore, I can assure the Irish Members that the question of accelerating the mails, not only to Dublin, but also as far as is practicable to the Provincial towns and the rural districts generally throughout Ireland, is fully recognized. I have already taken steps to have the subject thoroughly investigated by one of the ablest officials connected with the Post Office—the Inspector General of Mails. He has already visited Ireland, and has gone through all the minutiæ of the subject with the greatest possible care, and I can only say that he is anxious to provide all the acceleration that the state of the circumstances will allow. He has investigated the subject most exhaustively, and I believe there is not a single town in Ireland that has escaped his careful consideration, and there is not a town in Ireland which he has not considered with a view of the acceleration of the mails. With regard to the question of the contract, I believe I should be divulging no secret which it is important I should withhold when I say that we advertised for tenders, and have received two replies—one from the London and North-Western Railway Company, and the other from the existing Company—the Navigation Company. No decision has yet been arrived at in reference to the acceptance of either of these tenders. I can quite recognize the truth of what has been said by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), that we have to consider, in arriving at a decision, the questions of economy and efficiency. And I will go with him so far as to say that it is not a question of immediate economy only, but also a question of future economy; because you may purchase a small saving very dearly if there is reason to suppose that that small saving will be likely in the future to lead to a large expenditure. With regard to efficiency, that has also, of course, to be carefully considered. We must not look upon the matter simply from what we have done in the past, but we must consider what is likely to be done by the two competi-

    1547
    tors for the service in the future I should be very sorry to be supposed to do any injustice to the Dublin Navigation Company. They have served—as has been well said by the right hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel Taylor)—they have served the Post Office in the past remarkably well. They have done their work efficiently and with punctuality. I believe there has been scarcely a single casualty; but, in regard to the future, the necessity of obtaining the best possible service is a matter of such immense importance to the inhabitants of Ireland generally, that, of course, we must consider very carefully which of these two Companies is likely, at the most reasonable rate, to supply us with the best service in the end. With regard to the depot at North Wall, when the deputation waited upon me, which included various Irish Members and gentlemen representing important Irish bodies, some of the deputation advocated the North Wall route; whereas others were of opinion that if we adopted the North Wall route we should lose all chance of having the mails conveyed with regularity. I have thought it desirable, considering the conflicting nature of the statements, to have the subject most exhaustively investigated; and after the deputation left, I immediately asked the gentleman connected with the Post Office to whom I have already referred—Mr. Baines—to visit Dublin and obtain all possible evidence upon the question. This he has done, and he has presented to the Post Office a full and elaborate Report. That Report will be carefully considered by the Post Office and the Treasury before any decision is arrived at. I hope I have now said sufficient to satisfy the Irish Members and others interested in the subject that we duly recognize the importance of the question. The only object we have in view is to adopt that arrangement and to conclude that contract which we believe to be the best possible for the service of Ireland.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he must apologize for not having been present in his place when the discussion upon this Vote was brought on; but it had happened at the moment that he was attending a Committee upstairs. Anyone who knew the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would at once recognize that there never could have been any official connected
    1548
    with any Government who was more earnestly and zealously inclined to do what was just and fair. He was sure that anyone who had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would place absolute faith and credence in it; but, at the same time, he did not think it reasonable or fair, considering his connection with Dublin—a city with which he had been associated all his life—if he allowed the discussion to close without saying something in reference to the matter. For a very considerable number of years he had been constantly travelling backwards and forwards between England and Ireland by the Dublin steam packet-boats, and he was able to bear testimony to the fact that a Company more civil and obliging, or one which more satisfactorily performed its duties, it was impossible to find. He trusted that every consideration would be given to the proposals of the Company for a renewal of their contract, and that some substantial balance, both in regard to efficiency and economy, should be necessary in order to turn the scale against a Company which had always in the past conducted the service efficiently and well.
    BARON DE FERRIERESdesired to say a word, before the Vote was agreed to in reference to the conveyance of the mails to the Cape Colony, upon a matter which he had already brought under the the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, who had promised to give it his consideration. There was, however, a point which materially concerned some of Her Majesty's officers who were stationed at St. Helena. The postage to St. Helena was Is. for half-an-ounce, and he believed that this was an exceptional case in regard to the whole of Her Majesty's Colonies. In other cases the postage was 6d. an ounce, but at St. Helena it was 1s., and it fell very hard on the officers quartered there, and who were, in a great measure, shut out from the rest of the world. They had, as a matter of fact, sometimes to pay 3s. for a communication from England, because nearly all the packets of news sent out were bulky, and the postage often amounted to 2s. or 3s. He had mentioned this circumstance to the right hon. Gentleman, who had promised that it should be inquired into, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be astonished when he discovered what

    1549
    the real facts of the case were. It seemd that the actual postage was only 6d. per half-ounce, and that the other 6d. went to assist the ordinary revenue of St. Helena. He (Baron De Ferrieres) thought it was monstrous that for so paltry an addition to the revenue of the Island, Her Majesty's officers quartered there should be made to pay this overcharge. It was very doubtful whether there were 1,000 letters delivered in St. Helena in the course of the year, so that the addition to the revenue of the Island derived from them would not be more than £25 per annum; and, in his opinion, it was a great hardship that the officers quartered in the Island should be called upon to pay this charge in the shape of extra postage upon their letters. He thought the Post Office Department ought to meet the requirements of the case, and bring down the charge to 6d. per half-ounce, as it was in the rest of Her Majesty's Colonies.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he certainly thought Her Majesty's troops serving abroad ought to receive their letters at the lowest possible rate. They were performing an arduous duty for the sake of maintaining the prestige and honour of the country, and if they received their letters without charge at all, the loss to the Public Revenue would not be very considerable. He hoped that some arrangement would be made in this direction, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, after giving the matter due consideration, would not be inclined to grudge even a slight loss to the Post Office.
    MR. FAWCETT: In regard to the postage to St. Helena, I am inclined to think that there is some reduction made to soldiers serving there. It is, however, scarcely a question that concerns the Post Office so much as the Treasury and the War Office. With regard to St. Helena, I have already told my hon. Friend that there is a possibility of reducing the postage to St. Helena. It is not a question which affects officers serving in Her Majesty's Army only, but the highest rate of postage affects all persons residing there. The greatest reduction would be in adopting the rate charged in the case of other Colonies—the ordinary charge of 6d. per half-ounce upon each letter.
    MR. GRAYbegged to acknowledge the frank and friendly spirit in which
    1550
    the right hon. Gentleman had responded to his appeal, and would not prolong the discussion. He admitted that the necessity of providing the best means of communication between England and Ireland was a matter of such importance that it must be paramount to any interests connected with any private Company. At the same time, he wished to point out what he conceived to be the disadvantage in which the Irish Company would be placed in endeavouring to compete with so formidable an antagonist as the London and North-Western Railway Company. Whether it was a wise policy for Parliament to allow the Railway Company to become steam packet owners might be a matter upon which there would probably be a difference of opinion. A case of this kind might possibly arise. The London and North-Western Company might say this—"We will convey the mails between London and Dublin in so many hours, performing the service in a shorter time than that occupied at present;" and the right hon. Gentleman might consider it necessary, in the interests of the public generally, to accept a proposition of that kind, taking it as a whole. But when the right hon. Gentleman came carefully to investigate where the saving of time was effected, he would have two points to consider—namely, whether it ought to be effected in the service across the Channel, or in the railway service. If it was to be effected in the Channel service, then he (Mr. Gray) was prepared to contend and to allege, without fear of contradiction, that the Dublin Navigation Company could compete in the carriage of the mails across the sea with any mail steamers in existence, or that could be built in the present condition of naval science. But if the London and North-Western Railway Company were going to try and secure the cross-Channel service by some quasi-bribe to the Post Office Department, that they were prepared to accelerate the railway service, and an admission that the land service was not at the present moment done as efficiently as it ought to be, then he did not think that was a point which the right hon. Gentleman ought to take into consideration at all. On the contrary, he (Mr. Gray) contended that the London and North-Western Company ought to be induced or compelled to accelerate their service between London and Holy-

    1551
    head, irrespective of all conditions in regard to the conveyance of the mails between Holyhead and Dublin. Unfortunately for himself, scarcely a week passed that he was not compelled to travel over the London and North-Western Railway between Holyhead and Dublin, and he knew that a great many delays occurred which were altogether unnecessary. There was, for instance, a delay of 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour at Holyhead itself, which was quite unnecessary; and although it took place nominally for the collection of the tickets, it was in reality for the transaction of the business of the Railway Company. That delay of a quarter of an hour could easily be got rid of. He trusted that if any offer was made by the London and North-Western Company which would secure the saving of time, the right hon. Gentleman would carefully inquire where it was that the time would be saved—whether it was in the land journey between London and Holyhead, or in the carriage of the mails across the sea between Holyhead and Kingstown. He alleged, without fear of contradiction, that the Irish Company would be able to compete in their own particular business of carrying the mails by means of steam vessels as rapidly and as efficiently as any Company in existence which could be substituted for them, although he admitted that there were other vessels which might be as good in a calm sea, and even larger and more powerful vessels, yet he believed there were none which were nearly so effective in a heavy sea; and that was constantly the condition of things in crossing the Channel. He sincerely trusted that in the careful consideration which the right hon. Gentleman had promised to give to the matter, he would not lose sight of that aspect of the case. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said—and he acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman and the Post Office Department had devoted a great deal of attention to the matter—he was content to leave the question in his hands.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he should be glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, or from the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any decision had been arrived at as to the amount of the contribution to be paid by India towards the Eastern Packet Service? It appeared from the
    1552
    Vote that a very small amount indeed had been already received, and that there was a loss last year upon the service of some £7,000. He knew that the question had been in dispute for several years, and he wished to know whether there was any immediate prospect of an arrangement being come to between the Home Government and the Indian Government?
    MR. COURTNEYwas sorry to inform his hon. Friend that the matter was not yet settled. It was in reference to certain particular expenses that the difficulty had arisen between the Home Government and the Indian Government, and the delay which had occurred had been unavoidable. He entertained a hope that it would be settled shortly.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £835,298, to complete the sum for Post Office Telegraphs.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he was about to make an appeal to his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, which, he believed, would have the effect of somewhat strengthening his hands. Last year, when the Post Office Votes came on, the House had not received the Report of the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman explained on that occasion that he had had the Report in his hands for some days, but that it had not been completed. Precisely the same thing had occurred this year. The Report of the Post Office was only received yesterday. The same thing had happened in regard to several other Departments. Last year the whole of the Vote for Science and Art was carried without a word of information on the subject of the Vote being in the hands of hon. Members. He thought, if Reports were to be presented at all, that they should be printed and published before the Votes came on for discussion. He was quite aware of the difficulties which existed; but he thought his right hon. Friend at the head of the Department ought to insist on its being submitted to the House at least a month before the Vote was brought on for discussion. It was utterly impossible to discuss the Votes in the absence of this information, and he thought his right hon. Friend would see that it was scarcely reasonable to expect them to do so. There was another point he was desirous of mentioning. He wanted to know if it was

    1553
    possible to alter the period at which the accounts were made up?
    MR. FAWCETTwas understood to say that the accounts followed the ordinary rule, and were brought down to the month of April.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, that if they could be made up earlier more time might be afforded for their consideration and discussion. He thought it would be more convenient to bring down the whole of the accounts to the month of March only. Such an arrangement would give the House a more complete information in regard to the working of the telegraph service, and he confessed that at present he was unable to understand the accounts presented in regard to that service. The expenditure was put down at £1,444,000, while the receipts appeared to have been £1,634,000, showing apparently a surplus of nearly £200,000; but when they came to take into account the payment of the interest on the sum which the purchase of the telegraphs had cost, there appeared to have been a deficiency amounting to something like £300,000. That was a very large deficiency; and, having regard to the desire so frequently expressed, that the cost of telegraphing might be reduced, he hoped that some endeavour would be made, by practising economy within the Department, to bring the expenditure within such a compass that the Post Office would be able to deal with it and comply with the wish of the public. His right hon. Friend smiled. He (Mr. Magniac) had no doubt that endeavours were already made to secure economy in the working of the telegraphs, and he thought his right hon. Friend had already given proof that he was anxious to reduce the expenditure connected with his Department. All he wished was to impress on his right hon. Friend the propriety of neglecting no opportunity which might arise for reducing the cost of telegrams. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) was also anxious for economy; but the general public, in addition to economy, wished to see the telegraphs not only efficiently worked, but worked in such a manner as to secure the convenience of the public. He believed it would give an extraordinary impetus to the trade of the country if telegrams could be sent at a lower price than they were at present. With a deficiency of
    1554
    £270,000 it would be unreasonable, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make any change this year; but he did hope that attention would be given to the subject. It was very satisfactory to observe the success which had attended the substitution of postage stamps for telegraph stamps. The latter had been found to be a very great convenience indeed, and in all probability a considerable increase in the Revenue would result from the increased facilities which had been afforded. Many persons would send telegrams who did not now use them, if they had an office at their doors and the means of writing a telegram. He therefore hoped the attention of his right hon. Friend would be turned in that direction. The expense of telegraphing in this country was much greater than it was in other countries, and he did not believe that a reduction of price would result in any permanent loss to the Revenue. The work done by the Department in reference to the telegraphs was not quite so obvious as it was in the Post Office; but, at the same time, he had very little doubt that it was quite as onerous. There was one other point upon which he wished to make an observation, and that was the Engineering Department. The charges for that Department amounted to a very heavy item. They all knew that the Government services in engineering matters were conducted on the best principles, and that the best principles were the most expensive. The tendency of all Government Departments which had the spending of money that was not their own was to spend more than they would otherwise do. It was certainly not desirable that the efficiency of the Department should in any way be reduced; but certain facts had come out which were known to the public, and he believed it was generally admitted that it was necessary to keep a strict eye upon the Department. He was of opinion that if that were done it would be found a considerable source of economy, and he therefore trusted that strict supervision would be brought to bear over all the telegraph arrangements in future.
    MR. HEALYwished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to a matter which might appear to be a very small matter, but which was one of considerable importance to some of the Irish people.

    1555
    It was this. At all the Irish telegraph offices in the Provincial towns of Ireland, if they were only five miles from each other, the English time was employed to mark the hour at which a telegram was despatched, and the consequence was that the Irish people were put out by half-an-hour in their reckoning, and it was often a serious matter to compel them to go by English time instead of their own. His appeal to the right hon. Gentleman was that he should direct the present arrangement to be changed, and that in future the national time should be employed. He did not think the demand was an extravagant one, and he trusted that as far as the English telegrams were concerned, the Post Office would stamp upon them the Irish as well as the English time. All messages sent to Ireland from England were marked with the English time as well as the Irish, and where a telegram was forwarded in Ireland itself from one town to another, to stamp it with Greenwich time was, in his opinion, highly absurd. Many people, not knowing the real facts of the case, were constantly complaining of delay. If a telegram were sent to Paris the difference in time was only 10 minutes; but there was a difference of half-an-hour between the English and the Irish time. He trusted that in future the right hon. Gentleman would only stamp Irish time upon the Irish telegrams.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman had decided upon employing a great many more female clerks in the Department, and he wished to know what was the reason of the distinction which was drawn, on page 691 of the Estimates, between the remuneration of the first class male telegraphists and the first class female telegraphists? There was also a distinction drawn between the salaries of the second class male and female telegraphists. He was of opinion that if a woman did precisely the same work as a man, she should be paid on the same scale. He did not mean to say that the salary was too high in one case and too low in another. He had nothing whatever to say upon that question; but he thought it was only reasonable that if the Government employed people to do exactly the same work they should all of them have the same salaries. He had another question to put
    1556
    in relation to another subject—namely, the telephones. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had decided upon granting a licence to any Telephone Company, to put up telephone communications. That licence gave to the Telephone Company a right to attach its wires to any house with the consent of the owner of such house; but it went much further, and gave the Telephone Companies the right of carrying their wires over the public streets. Now, he was entirely in favour of these licences being given without favour or prejudice to all Companies; but it certainly appeared to him desirable to make a little charge upon the Telephone Companies for the privilege of using the streets. He failed to see why these Companies should be allowed to use the streets more than any one else. The streets belonged to the public; and, although the Telephone Companies might do no harm in passing their wires over the streets, they ought to pay for the permission accorded them of using the property of other people. There was another point to which he also wished to call attention. They had recently had a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government in regard to electric lighting. In that Bill, if his recollection was accurate, it was provided that after 15 years any Electric Lighting Company should be obliged to sell their plant and privileges, without receiving anything for goodwill, to the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that when the Government came to the conclusion that it was desirable, in the interests of the public, that the country should take possession of the telegraphs, they were only able to do so at an exceedingly heavy cost to the country. He was afraid that unless some understanding were come to with the Telephone Companies now at the commencement of their establishment, if ever the day arrived when it might become necessary for the State to purchase them, in the general interests of the public, they might be obliged to pay a very large sum for the privilege, not only for goodwill, but in the shape of pensions and superannuation allowances—in point of fact, that the Government would have to pay over again in the case of the telephones all the heavy expenses they had incurred in acquiring the telegraphs. He therefore hoped I that in all the licences which the Post

    1557
    Office gave, the right hon. Gentleman would reserve to the Government the right of the Government to buy the telephones after the lapse of a certain time on the same principle as that which they had adopted in regard to the Electric Lighting Companies and the local authorities. In that case they had laid down a very fair principle that the Electric Lighting Companies should not be disturbed in the enjoyment of their undertakings for a certain length of time, but that, after that period had expired, the local authorities should be at liberty to purchase them by paying the actual value of the plant, without being subjected to exorbitant charges for goodwill and compensation allowances. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to cheapen the price of telegrams. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was himself a convert to that view if it could possibly be carried out. It was so desirable that they should have 6d. instead of 1s. telegrams, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persevere in his efforts to convince his Colleagues that he was in the right, and that they were in the wrong. He need not, however, go further into that matter at present, especially bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department was already converted. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to persuade the Secretary to the Treasury, sitting beside him, that the view he had taken himself was the right one. In this country a 1s. was charged for every telegram up to 20 words; but in other countries telegraphic communication was at a much cheaper rate. He certainly could not understand why, in this country, we should pay so much more than other people.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General a question with respect to the telegraphic arrangements which he had brought under the consideration of several Postmaster Generals, and had received different reasons from them for objecting to it. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Magniac) that they could not expect at the present moment, with the present heavy charges the Telegraph Department had to bear, and in the face
    1558
    of an absolute deficiency, to obtain from the Government the concession of cheap telegrams throughout the country. But he could not forget that when the Government took over the telegraph works, and everything connected with them, there were absolutely in existence in the Metropolis 6d. telegrams, and it was at that time confidently predicted that when the arrangements under the Government got into full operation there would be 6d. telegrams throughout the whole of the country. He hoped the Government would take the matter seriously into their consideration with the view of reducing the rate for short telegrams whenever the financial position of the Department would justify them in doing so. He would not advocate anything being done at the present moment that would reduce the Revenue; but Her Majesty's Government would be aware that a large number of telegrams were now sent which only required the answer "Yes" or "No." He would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether in such a case a prepaid telegram, at 1s. 6d.—namely, 1s. for the telegram and 6d. for a reply of two or three words, having effect, say, for 48 hours, might not be allowed? At the present moment, if they prepaid a telegram, they had to pay 1s. for 20 words in the original telegram, and 1s. for a reply of 10 or 20 words, the reply holding good for three months, and if not used then the 1s. paid could be claimed back from the Post Office. If 1s. 6d. were charged for a prepaid telegram and reply, at the rate of 1s. for 20 words in the original telegram, and 6d. for a reply not exceeding 10 words, the reply standing good for 48 hours, and if not used no money to be returned, he thought the Government would be absolute gainers in the end. He believed that such a concession would so largely increase the number of reply telegrams that it was impossible there could be a loss to the Department. When he first brought the subject before the Postmaster General, some years since, he was informed by the Chief of the Telegraph Department that the Department was so full of work that they had no means or appliances at their disposal for doing more than they were at present doing; and that if they had a large amount of extra work imposed upon them their power would be insufficient to enable

    1559
    them to dispose of it, and that it would consequently entail a reduction rather than an increase of Revenue. But the Chief of the Department also added—"Only wait until we have the full appliances to do the work, and we shall be able to do it." He would now ask the Postmaster General if he seriously believed that the adoption of the system of 6d. prepaid reply telegrams not exceeding 10 words would be injurious to the Revenue? If not, it would most assuredly be a matter of great convenience to the country, and it ought to be carried out. It must be remembered that the use of telegrams was now becoming almost universal, and that advantage was now taken of them by many classes of the community, who, when the telegraphs were originally established, were never thought likely to use them.
    MR. FAWCETT: In the course of the discussion various suggestions have been made by the hon. Members who have taken part in it. First of all, there was a suggestion by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) in regard to the use of the Irish time upon exclusively Irish telegrams. I must admit that I was not aware of the fact that the English time was used in marking the telegrams in Ireland; but I will make a note of what the hon. Member has said, and I will make inquiries and see if some alteration cannot be effected. With regard to the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), I quite admit the truth of what he has said about the present thoroughly unsatisfactory condition of the telegraph arrangements. Indeed, the Telegraph Department seems to me to be the only financial Department of the Post Office which is not in a satisfactory state at the present moment. But, in saying that the revenues of the Telegraph Department are unsatisfactory at present, I think, in justice to the financial administration of that Department, that this fact should always be borne in mind—that we have to pay a dead weight of debt of at least £3,500,000. Owing to the carelessness of the Government of the day at the time the arrangements were made for the purchase of the telegraphs, and the inattention of hon. Members of this House, the country paid a sum of £3,500,000 more for the rights and property of the Telegraph
    1560
    Companies than they were worth. I may mention circumstances which happened in regard to the value of telegraph stock before the undertakings of the different Companies were purchased, and afterwards. The moment it was known that the Government contemplated the acquisition of the telegraphs, the price of stock went up enormously—in some instances the price was increased by no less than 300 per cent. Of course, in the end, the public had to pay for all that, and the Department is feeling the effect of the extravagant price given, even at the present moment. If the telegraphs had been bought at a proper price the sum paid for them would have been £7,000,000, instead of £10,500,000, and, in that case, even at the present time, we should not have been showing an unsatisfactory result, but we should have been making, after paying the interest on the capital expended, a small margin of profit, which we might have devoted to the improvement of the telegraph service itself. I hope that what has occurred in regard to the purchase of the telegraphs will be looked upon as a warning by the House of Commons in the future that if they are careless, or allow the Government to be careless, in their financial transactions with private Companies, the inevitable result will be that the public interests will suffer in the end. I can assure my hon. Friend that I fully appreciate the Value of his business experience, and that I shall be delighted to receive from him any suggestions in regard to the observance of greater economy in connection with the management of the telegraphic business of the Post Office. My hon. Friend has referred to the Engineering Department, and I can assure him that if he will give us the advantage of his advice and assistance, any suggestions he may have to make will receive all the careful attention they deserve. With regard to giving greater facilities to the public, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) has referred to the extent to which the telegraph business might be increased if the telegraphs were made more easily accessible to the public. Now, a change has lately been introduced, in reference to which the Committee will, perhaps, allow me to say a word, because I believe it is not sufficiently well known, but which, I believe, will greatly facili-

    1561
    tate the action of the telegraphs. In November last we abolished the telegraph stamp, and telegraphic messages are now allowed to be paid by ordinary postage stamps. It is possible to send a telegram by post by putting 12 ordinary stamps upon an ordinary sheet of paper, and if anyone wishes to send a telegram late at night there is now a most easy way of getting that telegram sent off early in the morning by putting it in the nearest Post Office or pillar-box. For instance, suppose a man arrives at his house late at night, and wants to send a telegram to some Provincial town, he can write it on half a sheet of ordinary note paper without being required to use the regular telegraphic message form. That telegram is sent off at once to the general post office of the district. For instance, suppose it is intended to send the telegram from Oxford, the very moment the telegraph office opens in the city of Oxford, at 7 o'clock in the morning, that telegram is certain to be despatched, and in all probability it will be sent at least an hour sooner than if the person sending it were put to the trouble of getting up early in the morning to despatch it. It is only a small change, but it is one which I believe will be very much for the convenience of the general public. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has made some remarks relative to a distinction in the relative remuneration of the men and women employed by the Post Office. I am sure he will believe me that I am as anxious as he can be to secure the employment of women, and that it should be extended as far as posible, and that all persons employed should receive a fair and just remuneration for their services. But it must be borne in mind that the Government is bound, in deciding what remuneration should be given to those they employ, to be guided by the same considerations which actuate private individuals, and the reason why we pay a man and a woman different rates for doing, perhaps, precisely analogous kind of work, is the same reason to draw a distinction in engaging a tutor for the education of his son and a young lady for the education of his daughter. Although the young lady may have distinguished herself quite as much in her examinations as the young man, such is the relative demand for the services of each that a
    1562
    higher rate of remuneration is obliged to be paid for the services of the male tutor than for those of the young lady. I may point out that there is also another reason besides the general condition of the labour market why women do not receive the same remuneration as male clerks—namely, that the whole of the night work, which is the most trying part of the duty performed, falls upon the male staff. There is only one other suggestion which has been made, which it is necessary I should refer to, and that is the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) that a short reply telegram should be sent at a lower rate than the original telegraphic message to which it is an answer. I should not like to express any opinion upon that matter now; but I can give an assurance to my hon. Friend that I will consider whether his suggestion can be carried out without involving any serious loss to the Revenue.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (8.) £3,000, Supplementary sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he believed that this Vote included the sum necessary to defray the cost of the proposed alterations at Hyde Park Corner. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works whether he was right in that assumption?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes, the hon. Member is perfectly correct.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some account of the improvements which were about to be undertaken at Hyde Park Corner. They had had a plan submitted to them which certainly was an improvement upon the existing state of things, but he thought it was capable of an alteration which would effect a still further improvement. Of course, he was prepared to admit that the difficulties of dealing with Hyde Park Corner were much increased by the large traffic north and south crossing that from east and west, and especially that part of it which came from the north to the Victoria Station and Westminster Bridge—namely,

    1563
    the number of cabs and other vehicles which, coming from Hyde Park Corner, turned down Grosvenor Place in order to reach the Victoria Station. There was also a considerable amount of traffic occasioned by cabs and other vehicles going in the other direction, up Grosvenor Place and turning east ward to wards Knightsbridge. There was also a stream of carriages to and from the Park itself. The large amount of this traffic at Hyde Park Corner during a short season of the year made it difficult for the through traffic down this great western road to proceed, and it was only in consequence of the strenuous exertions of the police that it was enabled to be conducted in such a manner as to afford adequate protection to the lives of the public. Now, it appeared to him that a large portion of the traffic which went down Park Lane and Hamilton Place would, if they had a road continued on the other side of Piccadilly across the Green Park, running by the side of Constitution Hill to the front of Buckingham Palace, and there joining the road from Pall Mall to Buckingham Gate, go that way to Victoria Station and Westminster Bridge. He was of opinion that such a road would be of immense value in easing the traffic, because there could not be the slightest doubt that Grosvenor Place was not at all wide enough for it at present. There would also be this great advantage—that it would be the means of causing the traffic to circulate, which was now blocked in consequence of Constitution Hill being closed for general traffic, being a private road of Her Majesty's to Hyde Park. Constitution Hill was not at all wide enough to carry the whole of the traffic, and if the plan he suggested were carried out, it would leave Constitution Hill in the same position it was now, and would in no way interfere with the private rights of the Crown. He was sorry to say that it took a very long time indeed to effect improvements in the Metropolis. It was only in 1851, on account of extra traffic caused by the Great Exhibition, that they succeeded in opening the road from Pall Mall to Buckingham Gate. Before that date the traffic had to go round by Charing Cross, or by Storey's Gate. Since 1851 the traffic was permitted to pass by Pall Mall, and cabs were now able to take that route. In 1862, when there was
    1564
    another International Exhibition, after great pressure had been brought to bear upon the Commissioner of Works, the traffic was opened from the north of London through Hyde Park. Previously Hyde Park had been altogether closed to traffic except private carriages. In the Exhibition year, the pressure of the traffic was found to be so great, that a road was made for carriages on the bridge over the Serpentine, which opened up a communication through Hyde Park from north to south, cabs being permitted to drive across from Victoria Gate to Alexandra Gate, and had been of the utmost convenience to the public, and had lessened the traffic in Park Lane and Hyde Park Corner. Now they wanted a road from Piccadilly through St. James' Park, and some people suggested that Constitution Hill should be thrown open. He did not suggest that himself; but if a wide road were made in continuation of Park Lane, coming out at the large open space in front of Buckingham Palace, and enabling the traffic to find its way by that means to the Victoria Station, and going on in the other direction through Storey's Gate to Westminster Bridge, Grosvenor Place would be very much relieved. The present arrangement did not relieve Grosvenor Place at all, but only the mouth of it. He must say that the arrangement suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would make the locality around Hyde Park Corner one of the most dangerous for foot passengers they would have in the Metropolis, because the wide mouth proposed to be made from Grosvenor Place to Hamilton Place would be, to persons walking up from Piccadilly, a most dangerous spot to cross. They would have to cross another place double the width of Hyde Park Corner, and the arrangement altogether would be most inconvenient for foot passengers. Nor would it accomplish the object desired so effectually as if a roadway were made across the Park to Park Lane. It would, further—which he regarded as a great misfortune—necessitate the removal of the Arch at Hyde Park Corner. It was proposed, under the plan of the Chief Commissioner of Works, to remove it from higher to lower ground, where it would not be seen, as it was now, from Hyde Park. He was quite aware of the controversy which

    1565
    had been carried on upon this subject, and the criticisms which had been passed upon the Arch and the Duke of Wellington's Statue. He remembered very well when the statue was first placed upon the Arch, and the strong feeling which was manifested against the erection of any monument there to the great warrior, whose memory it was intended to perpetuate. There were many who thought that, from an architectural point of view, it was a great mistake; and there were others who were opposed to the erection of the statue of a subject of Her Majesty, upon horse-back, because up to that time no statue of a subject had ever been placed on a horse. Persons who entertained that view, were all united against an equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington being placed on the Arch at Hyde Park Corner; but notwithstanding the objections that were urged at the time, and the criticisms that were passed, the statue was erected. It was now proposed to take down the statue of the Duke and to remove the Arch itself. He did not think that it would be any improvement to remove the Arch, and the site which it now occupied was far preferable to the site to which it was proposed to remove it to a lower elevation. In addition, as he had already pointed out, the plan of the Chief Commissioner of Works would make it exceedingly dangerous for passengers to cross at this point from Hyde Park, and the amount of relief to the traffic in Grosvenor Place which ought to be afforded would not be given. By far the best plan was to make a thoroughfare into the Park by means of a road from Piccadilly to Marlborough House. A road of that kind would be of immense advantage, and while carrying out the object really desired, it might be made at a small expense. If anything more were found to be requisite afterwards, it might easily be accomplished. Such a scheme would not involve the removal of the Arch, nor the making of a number of roads at a heavy expense, such as was involved in carrying out the plan proposed by the Chief Commissioner; and in the end he believed it would give more satisfaction. He threw out the suggestion for the consideration of the Chief Commissioner, whose own plan he certainly did not think would meet all the requirements of the case. Indeed, he did not believe
    1566
    that if it were carried out it would reflect much credit upon the taste of the Government and of the Metropolis.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: My hon. Friend began by asking me to describe at length the scheme I propose to the House. I think the best answer I can make to him is to refer him to the model which has been in the Tea Room of the House for many weeks, and which, I believe I may say confidently, has given general satisfaction. My hon. Friend then proceeded to describe a plan of his own, which is altogether different, and one which has no bearing upon the objects we have in view, and which, although there might be something to be said for it from other points of view, would not in any way remedy the evils proposed to be remedied by the plan we have ourselves submitted. My hon. Friend proposes that a road should be taken from the bottom of Park Lane across the Green Park to the front of Buckingham Palace, and he says that the traffic might be carried in that way to the Victoria Station. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend cannot have consulted the map and taken the distances, because, if he supposes that cabs or carriages would go down such a road for the purpose of going from the north to Victoria Station, he is very much mistaken. The route would be a great deal longer than the existing route. I will, therefore, say no more about the plan of my hon. Friend, which every hon. Member will see at once is impracticable for the object we have in view, and is, therefore, hopeless and out of the question. It might be that such a road would be convenient for carriages going to Grosvenor Square and down to the Houses of Parliament; but it would not get rid of the difficulty at Hyde Park Corner, nor relieve the pressure of the traffic. The only other point mentioned by my hon. Friend is his objection to the removal of the Arch. Now, the removal of the Arch is an essential feature of the scheme which I have laid before the House, and without that removal the scheme could not be carried out. It is necessary, for two reasons—First, because, without the removal of the Arch, we could not widen the road; and, secondly, if the plan is to be carried out in its main features, it would not be possible for the road between the two Parks—the Green Park

    1567
    and Hyde Park—to pass through the Arch, but it would be necessary to make a road by the side of the Arch, with an entrance to Hyde Park through one of the side gates; and in this way the dignity of the approach, which, it must be remembered, is a Royal approach to the Park, would be altogether destroyed, and a considerable portion of the improvement would be entirely lost. In point of fact, if an open space is to be made at that point, the removal of the Arch is an essential condition. It is proposed that the Arch should be placed at the end of Constitution Hill—from the entrance to Her Majesty's Park at the end of the Hill. I have only to add that I fully expect that it will be found possible to remove the Arch bodily on the American plan. Whether it can be removed with the Duke upon it, I do not know; but I believe that the Arch itself can be removed bodily on the American plan.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that if it was found necessary to take the statue of the Duke down, it would be far better that it should not be put up again.
    MR. GLADSTONE: But when you get him down, what are you to do with him?
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he would leave both that question and the statue to Her Majesty's Government.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £25,000, Supplementary sum for Natural History Museum.
    (10.) £3,645, Supplementary sum for Public Buildings, Ireland.
    (11.) £27,000, Royal University, Ireland, Buildings.
    (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, 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 1883, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries abroad."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not think, he should be able to sleep comfortably in his bed if he did not enter his protest against a job which was being perpetrated by means of this Vote. Of course, he knew perfectly well that as it
    1568
    was the dinner hour, he could do no more than enter a protest, unless he could convince the Prime Minister that it would be desirable to withdraw the Vote altogether. They were all, to a certain extent, guardians of the public purse; but the Prime Minister was the natural and official guardian, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do him the honour to listen for a moment to an explanation of what the matter really was of which he desired to complain, because he thought he should be able to show the right hon. Gentleman that it was a job which ought not to be allowed by a Ministry who had come into Office on the ground that they were desirous of effecting considerable economies in the public expenditure. The question he was about to call attention to was a very old question—namely, the question of diplomatic residences. Personally, he thought it was a very great mistake ever to buy these residences. They certainly seemed to cost the country a very considerable sum in repairs. It would, he thought, be better to give the Minister a certain sum of money to pay for the hire of a house. In Rome it appeared to have been thought desirable to have a place for the English Ambassador. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government had purchased a plot of ground within the walls, but in a part of Rome where there was not much building going on. Attached to the house was a considerable garden. The plot was of an oblong form, and at one end, beyond the garden, was a wood. In this wood the members of the Embassy were accustomed to walk, and take their recreation. There was very little land in this direction which was built upon until recently, when, the town having spread, it became valuable as building land. The total value of the wood, which was of about the same size as the Ambassador's garden, was about £20,000, which would prove that the garden and ground on which the Embassy-house stood were also worth £20,000. He called particular attention to this fact, because the country was not only giving a large house to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, but was also giving him that which cost, putting it at 5 per cent upon the actual value, the sum of £1,000 per annum. Most persons in that House had no garden at all. They had to accept the fact that when a

    1569
    person came to live in a town he must make up his mind to be without a garden. But certainly a person with a garden worth £1,000 a-year might be supposed to rest content without requiring more land to add to it at the expense of the State. But not so the Ambassador at Rome. The land, which was at present a wood, was proposed to be built over. Through the middle of it it was proposed to run a road, and on one side of that road to erect a number of houses. Well, the country was now asked by Her Majesty's Government to buy one-half of this wood—that was to say, the half of it which would bring the Ambassador's garden down to the proposed new road. The reason assigned for the purchase was actually stated in the Vote, "in order to maintain the privacy of the British Embassy grounds in Rome." That was to say, that the people of this country were to pay £6,000 in order that no house should be built in Rome which should look, not into the residence of the Ambassador, but into this large garden, which the State had already provided for him, and which was worth something like £1,000 a-year. Now, what would anybody in that House do if he had a garden and somebody proposed to build a house that might overlook it? If he were a man of common sense, would he dream of spending £6,000 to shut it out? Nobody, unless he was able to put his hand into the public till, would ever dream of any extravagance of the kind. He would build a wall or plant some trees, and shut out the obnoxious building by that means. This was the ground on which he appealed to the Prime Minister on the subject. He (Mr. Labouchere) knew that social influences had been at work in order to induce the Chief Commissioner of Works, not alone the right hon. Gentleman now upon the Treasury Bench (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), but others who had held the same position, to induce him to agree to these jobs; and he knew how difficult it was to resist them. But he would appeal to hon. Members on either side of the House whether he had not fairly made out his case, and whether it was not amply sufficient for Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome to have given to him by the country, not only a house to live in, but a garden and land worth £1,000 per annum, without being called
    1570
    upon to dip their hands still deeper into the public purse, and hand over a further sum of £6,000 for the purchase of additional land, in order that our Representative might throw it into the existing garden and prevent the inhabitants of the houses which were being built in the neighbourhood from occasionally having a peep into his grounds. He asked if it was considered necessary that every diplomatist employed by the country should be able to surround himself with a species of secrecy even in his own garden? He (Mr. Labouchere) certainly could not understand why an Ambassador, more than any other person, was not to be looked at. He contended that the Government had no right to take the public money for any such purpose. Even the building of a wall was not necessary; but it would be quite sufficient to run up a few palings and plant a few trees. The houses might then be built up, and the Ambassador would be perfectly safe from vulgar intrusion. But he did protest most strongly against any Government Department being called upon to spend a large sum of the public money upon such a purpose. It was all very well to say that it was only £6,000; but when they had £6,000 spent here and £10,000 spent there, upon little jobs of this kind, the total soon mounted up to a very considerable sum per annum. Unless the consideration and discussion of the Estimates in that House was to be regarded as a perfect farce, they ought to resist a Vote of this kind; and he should therefore ask the Committee, unless the Prime Minister would withdraw the Vote and undertake to take the matter in hand, to divide upon the question. In any event, he should record, his own vote against this wasteful expenditure.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he agreed generally with the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), but feared it was pretty certain that the Committee would not support the proposition of his hon. Friend and reject the Vote. He knew something about the particular locality referred to, and in regard to this and other instances he had observed the great pressure which was brought to bear upon Her Majesty's Government by our Representatives abroad. He remembered a case which occurred some time ago in

    1571
    which a little difficulty arose. It was a case in which a Minister lately representing Her Majesty in a distant part of the world had become so Oriental in his habits that when the Ambassador of the Porte thought proper to erect an Embassy at a distance of half-a-mile from the British Embassy in Teheran, he at once appealed against any such interference with the amenities of the English Embassy, and applied to the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to relieve him from the dreadful oppression and indignity-he was likely to suffer in consequence of some objectionable Turks being able to look over his grounds from a distance of half-a-mile. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) believed the matter was inquired into, and that the claim was rejected. He thought the House had become somewhat lax in regard to its acceptance of Supplementary Estimates. Members on both sides of the House were, perhaps, to blame for having been too ready to adopt the Estimates which had been presented, at all events without making a due investigation. He was of opinion that on this occasion they ought to unite in making a protest.
    SIR HENEY HOLLANDsaid, he thought it was necessary that for the future expenditure of this nature should be looked into in the hope that some reduction might be effected. This was not the case of a very large expenditure; but he certainly thought it ought to be saved. He knew the locality well, and he could not conceive why, if the Minister wished to walk about in his garden, he did not put up a palisade. That was all that could, be really necessary to secure privacy, and he could not help thinking that the proposed expenditure was throwing away the public money.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he should like to know what was the size of the present garden, and how far the house of the Ambassador was removed from the piece of garden it was proposed to purchase?
    Mr. E. N. FOWLERsaid, he was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that Her Majesty's Embassy in Rome was now suitably located. He remembered being in Rome at the time when Lord Derby was Foreign Secretary in 1874, and, having occasion to call upon Her
    1572
    Majesty's Representative, he had to go a long way round before he could find the Embassy; and then, after going up three pairs of stairs, to ring a bell for half-an-hour before it was answered; and it certainly struck him that it was not a place that accorded with the dignity of a British Minister, as he was not then Ambassador. Whatever the expenditure might be now, there must be a large credit to the Embassy of Rome for the penuriousness of former days.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I must repudiate altogether the remark of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that there has been any job in this matter. I am quite sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member will say that the word was not used in the ordinary sense of the term, and that, in the observations he has felt it necessary to make, he had no real intention of accusing Her Majesty's Government of having perpetrated a "job." I can assure my hon. Friend that it was with great hesitation that the Government consented to this expenditure. For my own part, I may say that when I came into Office I found that an agreement had already been arrived at by the Government, authorizing the expenditure of even a larger sum of money, for the purchase of a larger piece of ground than it is now proposed to purchase. The plot of ground it was originally intended to obtain would have cost £10,000, and that expenditure was agreed to by my Predecessor, on the application of the Foreign Office, and with the concurrence of the noble Lord the Head of the Treasury (Lord Beaconsfield.) I found the negotiations in that state; but they fell through, and then it was suggested that a smaller piece of land, that would cost £6,000, should be purchased. The state of the case is this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has pointed out, the site of the Embassy was bought for £80,000; and I think it is hardly fair to speak of it as a garden, because it is the site of the Embassy, including the house.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: But it is a garden.
    Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: No doubt part of the site consists of a garden. Beyond the garden is a piece of ground which has been used by the Embassy; but recently the owner determined to

    1573
    lay it out as building ground, and then came the question whether a portion of it should be bought as an addition to the garden of the Embassy. The argument which weighed with the Government was this—that the addition of this piece of ground to the garden of the Embassy would considerably add to the value of the Embassy as a property. On the other hand, if it were not added to the Embassy, and were allowed to be built upon, the property of the Embassy would be very seriously depreciated in value. My hon. Friend has alluded to the fact of its being possible to build a wall at the end of the garden. That is quite true. The Government is under an obligation to the owner of the adjoining land to build a wall; and I am told that a wall sufficient to keep out of view the houses on the adjoining land will be erected, and will probably cost no less than £1,500. Therefore the whole of the £6,000 would not be devoted to the purchase of additional land, and the sum asked for is reduced accordingly to £4,500. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome has protested in the strongest possible terms against the building of houses—and houses, too, of an inferior class, which will be built very high, in accordance with the custom of Rome, and which will look into the gardens of the Embassy. He states that they would be of great detriment to the property, that the drainage from them will possibly flow through the Embassy gardens, that people will hang out their dirty linen within sight of the residence of the Ambassador, and that the amenities of the place will be so destroyed that it will be impossible to enjoy the garden in future. I may also mention another fact—that when houses are built in Rome, there is a municipal regulation that they should not be inhabited for a year; and this would also have a deteriorating effect upon the property of the Embassy. It has, therefore, been proposed to make an addition to the land already acquired, and which has cost a sum of £82,000. The land proposed to be purchased will add very materially to the value of the existing property; and, if not purchased, the value of that property will be seriously depreciated. The amount is not a large one as compared with the cost at Paris and other places. I think no one can doubt that, had it been foreseen that
    1574
    these building operations would have taken place so close to the land belonging to the Embassy, the Government of the day would have sanctioned a much larger purchase. The Government have entered upon the present transaction with great circumspection, and not until the most pressing representations had reached them as to the desirability of making this addition to the grounds of the Embassy.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he judged, from the figures which had been stated in the course of the discussion, that the size of the Embassy garden must be a very large one. He thought it was unreasonable that the country should be called upon to pay this additional sum of money for the Embassy at Rome.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, as they were about to divide, it was only right that the Committee should understand what they were going to divide on. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works had stated what were the reasons why they were to vote the money now asked for. In the first place, he said it would be an exceedingly good speculation to invest £6,000 in land in order to increase the value of the residence of the Ambassador at Rome; and, secondly, that representations had been made that it was very desirable to make this addition to the grounds of the Embassy. He called it a job when an Ambassador suggested that his garden ought to be enlarged, and a Chief Commissioner of Works assented without any reason to the proposition that the garden ought to be enlarged. However, when the amenities of a garden were before the Committee, he was most unwilling to say anything contrary to the amenities of debate.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that the Government were only doing what any prudent owner of a mansion and garden would do whose property was situated as the Embassy at Rome was situated—namely, take advantage of the opportunity of purchasing adjoining ground, which would enhance the value of the property, and prevent a nuisance being created which would deteriorate it. That being so, he thought there should be no hesitation on the part of the Committee to grant the money asked for.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 25: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 328.)
    (13.) £250,000, Disturnpiked Roads.
    MR. DODSONsaid, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that in the month of February last the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt) called attention to this subject, and gave Notice of an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply, which was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. That Amendment was in the form of a Resolution to the effect that, in the opinion of the House, some relief ought to be afforded to the body of ratepayers from the incidence of rates for the maintenance of disturnpiked and main roads in England; and his right hon. Friend stated at the time, or a little while afterwards, that his intention was that Scotland should be dealt with in a corresponding manner. Now, that pledge of his right hon. Friend on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was made conditional on the Government being unable to carry out what they intended to do—namely, to deal with county government, and to endeavour to place grants in aid on a better footing. That, as the House was aware, they had not been able to effect; and they were, therefore, called upon to redeem the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman on the occasion referred to. He would briefly state how it was proposed to distribute this grant in aid of disturnpiked and main roads, and then explain the reasons for that mode of dealing with them. The Vote was taken by way of a contribution to be paid in the course of the financial year ending on the 31st of March, 1883, in aid of payments by local authorities for the maintenance of the disturnpiked and main roads in the preceding year ended at Lady Day in England and Whitsuntide in Scotland. Now, the proposal with regard to England and North Wales was to give for roads in respect of which, repayment had been made during the year ending March 25, 1882, by the county to the road authority of a moiety of the cost of maintenance according to the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, to the extent of one-fourth of the cost of such main-
    1576
    tenance for the preceding year. In the case of roads in the Metropolis and Quarter Sessions boroughs, one-fourth of the estimated annual cost of the maintenance—understanding by maintenance, materials and labour—of the roads disturnpiked since 1870; and in the case of Scotland for the roads disturnpiked since 1860 one-fourth of the cost of maintenance—that was, of materials and labour—during the local financial year ending at or before Whitsuntide, 1882. He now came to the case of main roads in South Wales, and to these, following as far as the nature of the case would allow the precedent adopted in respect of the roads in England and North Wales, Her Majesty's Government proposed to give assistance at the rate of half the average amount which each county had been required to pay towards the maintenance of such roads since the year 1870. As the House was well aware, the cause of the complaint in respect of disturnpiked roads in England was the abolition of the tolls by which they were supported. It was complained that the maintenance of roads which were not merely local roads, but great highways of communication through the counties, and which were formerly paid for by the public by means of tolls, had been, by the abolition of tolls, thrown exclusively on the rates of the parishes or districts in which they happened to lie. The Act of 1878 recognized that there was a grievance on the part of the districts and parishes through which these roads ran, and charged half the cost of the maintenance of the roads disturnpiked since 1870 upon the county rate; it also gave discretion to the county authorities to relieve the local rates in the same manner in respect of those roads which had been disturnpiked before 1870, and in respect of highways which, from the general character of the traffic carried upon them, the county authorities might consider entitled to relief—those roads being called in the Act "main or disturnpiked roads." Thus the claims of roads disturnpiked since 1870 had been expressly recognized and compulsorily provided for by Parliament; and of the 15,000 miles of "main or disturnpiked roads," under the Act of 1878, in England and North Wales, upwards of 12,000 miles represented roads within that category. Well, in redemption of the pledge given by his right hon. Friend

    1577
    at the head of the Government that some further help should be given to the parishes and districts on which the burden of maintaining these roads had been thrown, they proposed, as he had already stated, to give half the amount received from the county rate—that was to say, an amount equal to one-fourth of the total cost of their maintenance, the word maintenance being understood in the sense in which it was used in the Act of 1878. The effect of that would be that the parishes and districts through which "disturnpiked or main" roads passed would be assisted, on the whole, to the extent of three-fourths of their maintenance—half of that assistance proceeding from the county rate, and one-fourth from the subvention now proposed. He ought to have stated to the Committee at first that his proposal was essentially and distinctly provisional, and that it was made in redemption of the promise of the Prime Minister given in regard to this financial year only. With reference to the Metropolis and Quarter Sessions boroughs, they would, as he had stated, receive in respect of their disturnpiked roads aid to the extent of one-fourth of the estimated annual cost of maintenance of those roads which had been disturnpiked since 1870. He believed that in Scotland the process of abolition of tolls had been going on since 1863, by means of local Acts in the first place; and, secondly, by the operation of the Roads and Bridges Bill passed in 1878, certain counties having adopted the powers given under the Act for the abolition of tolls, in anticipation of their compulsory extinction. Where Scotch counties had taken upon themselves the consequences of the abolition of tolls, the Scotch rates had a similar claim to assistance as the rates in England and Wales; and it was accordingly proposed to give them assistance to the extent of one-fourth of the cost of the material and labour for the maintenance of the roads. It now remained for him to speak of the case of the six counties of South Wales, which, as compared with others, was the most peculiar. Those counties had been since 1844, or at least for a long series of years, placed under an exceptional form of legislation. The roads in these counties were formerly maintained by tolls alone, the ratepayers being at no cost for their maintenance. But some years ago Parliament com-
    1578
    pulsorily reduced the tolls, and might thus be said to have disturnpiked the roads to a certain extent, and it expressly imposed on each of the six counties the burden of making good the deficiency which resulted. That deficiency having been created by Parliament, Her Majesty's Government thought it right that the rates in the six counties of South Wales should be likewise assisted, and accordingly they proposed to assist the county rates to the extent of half of the average annual deficiency which had occurred since 1870. The reason why they took, instead of the deficiency of last year, the average annual deficiency since 1870, was because the deficiency in respect of the various counties oscillated from year to year; and, therefore, to take the deficiency of a single year as a basis in calculating the assistance to be given would not effect the equitable distribution which they desired to carry out. Taking, however, the average deficiency since 1870, they arrived at what they believed to be a fair distribution over the different counties. He hoped he had made to the Committee an intelligible statement upon a subject which it was, perhaps, not easy to make clear in a short space of time, owing to the circumstance that the position of the various portions of the Kingdom, in respect of the roads to be maintained, was in each case different. The Government had endeavoured to apportion the assistance they had to give fairly and equitably to the circumstances of the different localities; and in that sense, he believed, he might commend that proposal to the Committee. He again reminded the Committee that the arrangement was provisional, and for one year only, because they still retained the hope of being able to carry out the intention they wanted to have fulfilled this year of placing main roads and grants in aid upon a more satisfactory footing. The Government had not proposed legislation on this subject; they simply asked for a sum of money for the purpose he had described, which he trusted the Committee would grant; and it would then rest with the Local Government Board to take upon itself the labour of distributing to each road authority its proportion of the grant.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, that there were some points in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman which

    1579
    he did not quite understand. Putting aside the case of South Wales and the more complicated points raised by the proposal of the Government, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say with regard to the English counties that one-quarter of the cost of maintaining the roads would be refunded by the Treasury. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean, in the case of roads costing £40 a-mile, of which £20 was paid by the county, that £ 10 of the latter sum would be refunded to the repairing authority—the Highway Board or parish?
    MR. DODSONsaid, that was not intended. Supposing the cost of maintenance, as defined by the Act of 1878, to be £40 a-mile, £20 of this would be paid by the county as hitherto; but the parish rates would be relieved to the extent of an additional £10 out of the grant.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, in that case the cost of surveying and similar charges would have to be borne by the parishes; it would have to be deducted from the relief given.
    MR. DODSONsaid, for the purpose of illustration, he assumed that the materials and labour required for the maintenance of the roads was £40 a-mile. The counties, as the hon. Baronet was aware, repaid one-half of the cost of labour and materials. The Government would pay a sum equal to one-half of that paid by the counties; and the parishes would, therefore, be relieved to the extent of three-fourths of the whole cost of labour and materials required for the maintenance of the roads.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, it was then quite clear that when the roads were damaged one-quarter of the cost of repairing them would be repaid out of this grant to the ratepayers. There was another point as to which he was in some doubt. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to treat the disturnpiked roads and the main roads as the same. There was, however, a large number of roads that were not main roads, but which had been disturnpiked—some 4,000 miles of them according to the figures of the right hon. Gentleman—and he was anxious to know how they would stand with reference to the grant.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he thought he had explained that point. The Govern-
    1580
    ment would pay half of whatever the county paid under the Act for maintenance of roads, whether they were main roads disturnpiked since 1870, and expressly charged on the county rate since 1878, or whether they were those roads which were dealt with by the county authorities under the enabling powers of the Act.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, the subject was a very complicated one, and he had no doubt that, on the whole, no better proposal than that put forward by the right hon. Gentleman could be made as regarded the mode of payment, especially as it was provisional; but he must protest altogether against the inadequacy of the amount. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that there were 12,000 miles of main road to be dealt with.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he had mentioned that, roundly, the total number of miles of main road was 15,000; of these 12,000 miles had been disturnpiked since 1870, and came compulsorily under the Act of 1878; but the grant applied to the whole 15,000 miles of road.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he was not aware that the number of miles of road was so large; the right hon. Gentleman's information, however, was probably better than his own.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the 15,000 miles of road he had mentioned represented the main roads under the Act of 1878. Of those 15,000 miles upwards of 12,000 represented roads disturnpiked since 1870; of the remainder the larger proportion represented roads disturnpiked before 1870, of which the counties felt they ought to assume the responsibility; and the smaller proportion, or about 700 miles, represented highways over which there was a great deal of traffic and which the counties also had taken upon their own shoulders.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, that, having regard to the future rather than the present, the proposed contribution was disproportionate to the amount of relief required; and not only disproportionate to the equitable amount required, but inadequate as regarded the Vote. It would not exhaust or represent the amount of the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman had given them no figures and no calculation as to cost per mile, or as to the cost that had been unjustly thrown upon the ratepayers, and

    1581
    especially the farmer. He found on inquiry amongst the farmers in his own county that before the present arrangements existed, the cost to them for the use of the roads was about 1s. a-week on the average; whereas they had now to pay three times as much, or £7 10 s. instead of the 50 s. a-year paid formerly. His own opinion, based on the figures and facts that could be demonstrated, was that a subvention of at least one-half of the cost was necessary to afford effectual relief. He believed that the proper basis for the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman would be a mileage rate.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Baronet that the Vote was insufficient for the relief of the localities. It should be remembered that the rural parishes, which, through their Highway Boards, complained most, had already had a subvention of very nearly half the whole cost of maintaining the roads by that proportion being thrown upon the counties at large. The effect of the Act of 1878 was to throw a considerable proportion of the cost of disturnpiked roads on a class of property which was peculiarly free from the obligation of paying for turnpike roads, because that property was situated in districts where there were very few turnpikes. It seemed to him very inconvenient that they should, at that moment, be invited to discuss a subject surrounded with technicalities, the details of which it was impossible to examine without full consideration. He could not help thinking that something in the nature of an official intimation of the Government intentions ought to have been given a week or 10 days ago, so that hon. Members might have had ample time to examine the details of the question, and, in case of need, bring forward an alternative plan before the Government proposal came forward in Committee. The proposal of the Government to increase the tax on carriages had, at any rate, a relation to the persons who used the roads; but their proposal to put the burden of relieving the rural parishes upon the shoulders of the Income Taxpayer appeared to him to have more of the character of simplicity than justice. He regarded the proposal as unfair, inasmuch as, in his opinion, if there were to be any subvention at all of the one-fourth of the whole cost of maintaining
    1582
    the disturnpiked roads, it ought to be given to the county rate, and not the local Highway Boards. Hon. Members who were interested in the latter would, of course, dissent from this view. It was notorious that when subventions of this kind were made from the Treasury there was a general rush and scramble to get as much as possible. He repeated his belief that the local Highway Boards had already had their share of relief, and that it would be more just if the urban authorities had been relieved in respect of their present contribution, instead of having to contribute further to the relief of the rural parishes. There had been a great deal said that would not bear examination as to the character of the disturnpiked roads, which, before the railway system was introduced, were main roads, but which, since the introduction of that system, had notoriously been reconverted into local roads only. There were, however, a few of these roads which had not lost their local character, amongst which he might instance the road between Manchester and Bury; but the general effect of the introduction of the railway system had been such as he had indicated, and, therefore, he contended that the cost of maintaining the roads in question should properly fail on the localities. There was another great injustice done to towns to which he would refer. In the case of London, they had not had such a thing as a turnpike gate within it since 1870; and he should very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board could point to one that had existed beyond the year 1870. The gates had been a nuisance, and a hindrance to the traffic, and were always being complained of. He should like to know how much of the £250,000 would go to London—the rateable value of which was more than one-sixth of the whole of the country. London, they must bear in mind, paid more than one-sixth of the whole of the Income Tax of England, and yet nothing like one-sixth of the £250,000 would go to the people of the Metropolis in relief of their rates. In the large towns of England, in the same way, there would be no relief to the rates. What relief, for instance, would Manchester or Liverpool get from this new Vote, although, of course, these towns would have to contribute their share to the Income Tax? They

    1583
    knew that the main roads were not only disturnpiked roads, but also such as were declared by the local authorities to be main roads. What guarantee was there as to the roads, which the magistrates in Quarter Sessions might declare to be main roads, that this apparently tentative and annual Vote would not slide into a thing as perpetual as the Mutiny Act, which was passed annually? What were they doing but giving power to magistrates in Quarter Sessions, by declaring a road to be a main road, to obtain this Vote from time to time? This Vote would make a precedent, and it was well known that there was nothing more attractive for the purpose of being made into a precedent than an arrangement which gave public money in aid of local rates. If they went into counties where there was a conflict between manufacturing and agricultural communities, they would find it a constant complaint that the magistrates and the Quarter Sessions were always doing something for the rural portion, whilst they did nothing to relieve the community in the large mining or industrial districts. It was useless to try to oppose the passage of this Vote he knew; but, at the same time, he could not help expressing an opinion that it was objectionable, and violated all principles of equity.
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) was evidently talking about what he did not understand when he said that the rural districts would benefit disproportionately by this arrangement. It was not the main roads in rural districts which would derive the greatest advantage. But he would like to know to what roads this grant would apply? He presumed it would only apply to roads which had been declared main roads at or before the Easter Quarter Sessions. But he would like a specific answer. Was it intended to include roads declared main at the Midsummer Sessions, or not?
    MR. DODSONsaid, he had stated that the Easter Sessions was the date intended.
    Mr. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) was beautifully clear as to the number of miles of road in England—as to the 15,000, the 12,000, the 700, and the 2,000; but there was one thing which was not at
    1584
    all clear from the right hon. Gentleman, and it was this—there was nothing whatever in what the right hon. Gentleman had said to lead one to know, or to lead one to imagine, what the cost per mile of these main roads would be. They were told that the counties of England and North Wales were to have a quarter each, and that South Wales was to have a half; and what he complained of was that the right hon. Gentleman did not put before them a single estimate of the cost of a single mile, whether rural or urban. If they had a simple multiplication sum put before them, both figures could be easily ascertained in the result. There was a result put before them; but he was at a loss to know how it was arrived at. No one could be more clear than the right hon. Gentleman when he liked. He was clear enough as to the number of miles, but was delightfully obscure as to the expense per mile. He (Mr. Warton) wished to make a practical suggestion arising out of what had been said by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton); he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better, if the amount in aid was to be £250,000, to divide it according to the mileage, which would give about £15 or £16 per mile? Was that sum of £250,000—that net round sum—an estimate, or was it not merely a guess in the dark? Was it a limited sum that could not be exceeded, or was it an estimate on the basis of paying a quarter in one place and a half in another? He wished to know on what principle the right hon. Gentleman was acting? The right hon. Gentleman did or did not know what the cost was to be. If he did not know, he ought to know, and if he did know, he ought to tell the Committee. The only object of the right hon. Gentleman now seemed to be to slur over the business as quickly as possible, and to give them no details for their judgment. They had a lump sum thrown at them just as they had in the case of the Post Office Vote, which was put before them in the absence of the Postmaster General. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) was above the matter of detail; but he (Mr. Warton) would ask him point blank, had he the slightest idea of what the counties had paid last year?
    MR. DODSONsaid, that, first of all, the hon. and learned Member had asked

    1585
    him why they did not pay so much per mile, instead of paying on the actual cost, and his answer to that must be that mileage was no test. One mile of road might have a great deal more traffic upon it than another. Then, again, the material for repairing one mile of road might be much more expensive than that for repairing another mile. Moreover, the mileage of a road took no account of the width of that road, and that was a very important point. The system adopted secured the best possible test. Local Government auditors were now auditing the accounts of every highway district and parish in the Kingdom. The calculation was based on the actual cost incurred in the latest year for which they had Returns.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give them the average cost per mile, or, at least, the full amount on which his calculation was based.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the county treasurer's Returns would give the amount paid per mile. The Government found that the county treasurer's accounts were below the amount they would have to pay; and what sum would be asked for over and above the amount stated by the county authorities he could not tell until further Returns were received. According to the accounts, what the Government would have to pay would be £145,000, which was half the amount paid by the counties; but the accounts were incomplete, and considerable margin must be allowed to represent the amount they might have to pay over and above the £145,000.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, there was no separate account kept of the maintenance of turnpike roads in boroughs. How would they arrive at that?
    Mr. WARTONsaid, he rose for the purpose of putting himself right with the Committee, because no one had a right to take up the time of the Committee without an object. The Committee would see that, by his having occupied their time, he had extracted one figure from the right hon. Gentleman. He had given them £145,000 as the half that the Government would have to pay. If he (Mr. Warton) had not been pertinacious, they would not have got that amount.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £90,000, 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 1883, as a Grant in Aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he intended not only to oppose this Vote, but also to take a division against it; and he must crave the attention of the Committee for a few minutes with regard to it, as the subject was one of considerable importance. Shortly after the Island was taken over, the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) made an official statement to the effect that the Island would probably pay its own expenses, or, at all events, to use the right hon. Member's own words—
    "It would leave an inappreciable portion of the charge to be borne by the taxpayers of this country."
    Well, last year the charge amounted to £78,000—that was the amount of the Vote which Her Majesty's Government then asked for. This year the Government made a claim for £90,000, showing an increase of £12,000 in a single year. That was the burden which the taxpayers of this country were asked to bear in respect of the Island of Cyprus; and he imagined, and in a few words would endeavour to show, that that was the average burden which the people of this country might expect to bear in regard to this Island, so long as it remained in its present political condition. With regard to the policy under which the Island was taken over, it was proclaimed at the time that the object of taking possession of Cyprus was to prevent the Russians from passing through the mountains of Asia Minor and Persia to India. That was a most preposterous suggestion; but it was made on the highest official authority. There was another plea put forward upon equal authority, and it was first heard of in the Guildhall of the City of London. It was said that the Convention we had entered into with Turkey was valuable, inasmuch as, before long, the City of Erzeroum would be the most powerful fortress in that part of Asia. From that

    1587
    day to this not a brick and not a stone had been put upon another in that fortress. If Russia were inclined to seize upon the City of Erzeroum, it was not the Convention that would prevent it; but our best assurance would be in the Concert of Europe, which Her Majesty's Government had done their best to build up and maintain. When he brought the subject before the Committee last year, and moved the rejection of the Vote of £78,000, they had another Under Secretary of State in Office; and it seemed to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to provide them with a new Under Secretary of State for the Colonies every year. This placed those who stood in his (Mr. Arthur Arnold's) position under some difficulty. They could not find it in their hearts to attack the present Under Secretary, as they believed him to be as blameless as a baby in respect of this Vote. When he was addressing his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) last year, he was obliged to make the same statement, and to say that he could not blame the hon. Gentleman, because he had only been in Office a month. But while he, for himself, repudiated altogether the policy of the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and desired from his heart that it had never been made, he did not take upon himself last year, and he had no intention of taking upon himself this year, to advocate that this Convention should be annulled and abandoned. He should not object to see such a policy adopted; but he did not last year, and he did not intend now, to press any argument on this part of the question. Last year he had ventured to lay before Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State, if he could reach so far, an alternative line of policy which, it appeared to him, might be adopted with advantage to the public purse. He had said that it was not for him to suggest the course which Her Majesty's Government ought to pursue with regard to Cypus, but that there were two courses left open to them, one of which was to compound with the Turkish Government for the tribute of about £85,000 a-year, and so end the most unfortunate agreement which had been entered into by the clever Grand Vizier of the Sultan; and, further, that Her Majesty's Government might lessen the terrible expense of carrying on the
    1588
    administration of the Island by assimilating the Government in some degree to that of the Ionian Islands belonging to Greece. The Government of the Ionian Islands was a liberal Government, the people were happy, prosperous, progressive, and the charge upon the Home Government was totally insignificant compared with the magnificent, but futile, and worse than futile, scale on which Cyprus had been administered. And what was the reply he received on that occasion? Why, Mr. Courtney stated that the Colonial Office had been endeavouring to carry out one of the suggestions made, and were setting their minds to the accomplishment of the other. Well, he must say that the mind of the Colonial Office moved very slowly indeed, because, not only were they without any shred of information as to what they were going to do with either one of these suggestions, but—and he thought the Committee had a right to find some fault with the Colonial Office for the fact—they were now bringing forward a Vote of £90,000 before the Report of the High Commissioner of 1881 had been presented to Parliament. That Report was not yet in the hands of Members; and, further, the Report of the gentleman from the Colonial Office who had visited Cyprus 12 months ago had not made its appearance. He must add that the statement made by Lord Kimberley on the subject of Cyprus had not by any means reassured him. The Prime Minister, in his Budget speech, had led them to hope that the charge for Cyprus in future would be £40,000 instead of £90,000 in one year. Now, the Prime Minister might do him the honour to correct him if he was wrong in supposing that the meaning of that statement was, that in future, by some arrangement made between the Treasury and the Foreign Office, in conjunction with the Porte, the payment of the interest which this country was under an obligation to pay in regard to her half-share of the guaranteed interest of the loan raised by Turkey during the Crimean War would be charged against the tribute which we had to pay for Cyprus. He should contend that was not a reduction of the charge. [Mr. GLADSTONE: It is not.] But Lord Kimberley had made another statement which, under the bellicose circumstances of the present time, had caused him

    1589
    some apprehension. Not long ago, in the House of Lords, the noble Earl stated that Famagousta might, at no great expense, be made available for the reception of a certain number of large vessels of war, but that it would be very necessary to construct protecting fortifications. Now, he would venture to predict—[Mr. WARTON: Don't.]—yes; in spite of the hon. and learned. Member for Bridport, he would venture to predict that if this Harbour of Famagousta remained in the hands of the British Government, and particularly if it remained in the hands of some other Ministry than the present, and actuated by the motives which seemed to influence Her Majesty's late Advisers, they would shortly see a repetition of the great failure of fortifications which they had seen in the Island of Alderney. If, in spite of their experience in the Island of Alderney, they should risk a similar failure in Cyprus, the cost of the Island of Cyprus to this country would be increased, and that was another reason why they should reject this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he hoped, would permit some subordinate Member of his Government to inform the House how, and by what means, it was that the Earl of Kimberley proposed to reduce the charge for Cyprus from £90,000 to £40,000 a-year. If it was not done by subtracting the interest on the Guaranteed Loans to Turkey, it would have a more satisfactory appearance; but it would not remove his feeling as to the utter want of economy in the manner in which the Island of Cyprus was governed. The scale of Government was monstrous. The proportion which the salaries of the Governor, the Chief Secretary, and the whole official Staff of the Island bore to the Revenue was simply ridiculous. When he read in the last Report that "the sanitation" of the towns was receiving considerable attention, those words struck him as being remarkably significant. In matters of sanitation, money went out with great rapidity. Scientific sanitation was nowhere inexpensive, and nowhere could it be less inexpensive than in an island where there were more goats than people. When Lord Salisbury most wisely abandoned, in his far greater knowledge of geography, the proposition his Leader had made as to the reason why the Government had taken
    1590
    over that Island, he stated that the great advantage to this country of the possession of Cyprus would be in connection with Egypt; and, no doubt, in time to come, they would hear a great deal about the immense benefit Cyprus had rendered to Her Majesty's Government during the present Egyptian campaign. Well, having the Island in their hands, if the Government did not make use of it he should censure such neglect, and the fact of their making use of it did not condone for one moment the means by which the Island was taken into our possession. And let him say that no single operation within the memory of any Member of that House, probably, had ever been conducted in the East of Europe without free use being made of adjacent territory for occupation by the belligerent of the West. There would have been no difficulty experienced by the English Government, if engaged in hostile operations in Egypt, as they were now, in obtaining standing ground which they could have used for hospital or other purposes, even if we had not had possession of Cyprus. That was the case in the Crimean War and in Greece. The vassalage by which we held the Island of Cyprus was of no advantage whatever. He had carefully noticed what had been done of late. He might be officially corrected; but he was under the impression that no British troops had made anything like a permanent landing or occupation of Cyprus in connection with the Egyptian Expedition. There had only been a rendezvous of British vessels such as took place at Suda. He hoped, therefore, the great mistake would not be made of supposing that the possession of Cyprus had been one of the advantageous incidents of the operations against Egypt. He doubted—more than doubted—the policy which had led to the occupation of the Island, and he felt very much dissatisfied at the absence of successful negotiations with the Porte for compounding the tribute, and at the absence of successful operations in Cyprus for bringing down the expenditure of the Government to a very much lower level. For these reasons, and because now and at all times he denied that the policy of the Anglo-Turkish Convention had been, or ever could be, beneficial to this country, he asked the Committee to reject the Vote.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that, though the hon. Member had imputed such designs to the Government, and had said that they changed the Under Secretaries of State for the Colonies so frequently because, having such a bad case, they thought it desirable, from time to time, to present a new cover, he presented himself to reply to two or three points the hon. Member had raised. It was not his policy, nor would he follow the hon. Member into the larger questions of the policy of retaining the Island, or of its utility. The hon. Member found fault with the Government for not having attempted to compound with the Porte for the payment of the tribute. The House had been informed last year that proposals had been made with that view. But, surely, the act of compounding was not so desirable a thing in itself that they should pay more than the thing was worth. The reason they had not compounded with the Porte was because the Porte had asked for a composition which was thought far above the proper price. When the Porte showed itself more reasonable, then, he had no doubt, the Colonial Office would entertain the question again. At the same time, while, to a large extent, the tribute money was being used for the payment of the Guaranteed Loan, it would be a losing game on our part to pay down a lump sum. Then it was asked why they did not assimilate the Government of Cyprus to that of the Ionian Islands. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) could not say of his own knowledge what the Government of the Ionian Islands might be; but this he would say—that Her Majesty's Government had thought it not only right, but absolutely necessary, to provide a Government for Cyprus that was infinitely superior to a Turkish Administration. He could only say that if his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) did last Session give what was called a pledge that the Colonial Office would march in that direction and attempt to improve the administration in the way of expense, the Colonial Office had amply carried out that pledge. The admirable Report by Mr. Fairfield would, he hoped—indeed he was sure—be the starting-point of a considerable reduction in the expenditure of the Island. The Government owed an apology to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur
    1592
    Arnold) for not laying that Report upon the Table before now. If it had been possible, the Report would have been laid on the Table before this discussion to-day; but they had been unable to do so in consequence of their not having received Sir Robert Biddulph's observations upon it. That brought him (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) to th6 speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in introducing the Budget, when he said he believed that the payment for Cyprus would only amount to £40,000 a-year. If the hon. Member would follow the Estimate for the ensuing year, he would find that the payment would only be £27,000. The Revenue was estimated at £76,000, and if they added the tribute to that it would make up a total of £219,500. The deficit for the coming year would be about £43,000; but he was happy to say that if the proposal suggested to them by Mr. Fairfield in his Report, which the hon. Member would have an opportunity of considering during the Recess, were carried out, the expenditure, including the tribute, would be reduced to something like £205,000, which would then cause their payment, in respect of Cyprus, to reach only the amount of £27,000 or £28,000. The payment they were asking the Committee to sanction to-day was a payment on account of the deficits of past years. He would only give his hon. Friend round figures; but since they had occupied Cyprus the total receipts had been £612,823, and the payments had been £426,709, leaving an excess of receipts over expenditure of £186,114. Therefore, he would point out to his hon. Friend that if there was no tribute in the matter these figures would represent a very handsome balance, and would show that the administration of the Island had not been one that could be found fault with. But now came the tribute of £92,440 a-year, which, added up for the period they had been in possession of Cyprus, made a total of nearly £280,000. When they deducted from that the £186,000, it left a deficit for which the Committee was now asked today to vote £90,000. Now, he would only just remark as to the point his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had touched on about the expenses of administration. He did not know whether the hon. Member was aware that for the future the salary of

    1593
    the Governor was, at his own request, to be only £4,000 a-year. This, he ventured to say, was a very reasonable salary, and they owed their thanks to Sir Robert Biddulph for having consented to such a reduction. Without going into the question of the policy of the annexation of Cyprus, he would just remind the Committee that there had recently been some very bad harvests in the Island, which would account for the Revenue not coming up to the Estimate. When the hon. Member read the Report of Mr. Fairfield, he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) trusted that he would take the same sanguine view that he did. A prosperous year in the cultivation of the vine, which was double the importance of any other cereal in the Island, would benefit the whole condition of the country. He could assure his hon. Friend that the Colonial Office was not neglecting the subject, and that they felt that this £90,000 was very much too large a sum to ask the House to vote for Cyprus. He believed that was the last occasion on which so large a sum would be asked for.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had made too good a defence—he had proved too much. He had shown that they could not get rid of the Vote while they held the Island. He (Sir George Campbell) was afraid that the sanguine estimate they had heard described could not be carried out to the advantage of the Island while it was burdened with this enormous tribute to the Turk. This payment was one from which the Island received no benefit whatever—not a single penny of it was available for the purposes of Cyprus; and as long as we held the Island we were bound, in justice, to pay this tribute to Turkey ourselves for our possession of this place of arms, or whatever they might like to call it. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies seemed to think that, by improved administration, we might manage to get a surplus out of the Revenue. Well, he (Sir George Campbell) had not paid much attention to the administration of Cyprus; but he had paid some attention to the administration of our other Colonies, and he found that some of them did not pay their own expenses. It was true that some did pay their own expenses; but his opinion of Cyprus was that, if it did so, it would be a very singular Colony indeed. He very much
    1594
    doubted whether we could manage to extract sufficient money from the Island to pay its expenses with justice to the inhabitants. Cyprus was not a very fruitful or a very productive Island, and if we managed to make it pay its expenses we should have reached a very satisfactory point. The Island was a kind of Old Man of the Sea. We could not hand it over to the Turks, for it would not be fair to the people; and whilst we retained it he was afraid we must lose money. He, therefore, earnestly hoped that Her Majesty's Government would get rid of it when they found someone who would take it, and in whose hands it would not suffer. Until they did do so, he thought they ought to be content to pay this money.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that whenever they got within a measurable distance of the end of the Estimates the House got impatient. Under the circumstances, the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Arnold) must be thanked for having made a speech on the matter. He (Mr. Labouchere) trusted this Vote might never be allowed to pass without a protest from the Radical Benches, in order that the memory might be kept green of the monstrous and absurd policy that led to the acquisition of Cyprus. They were told that the Revenue was likely to increase; but that was stated last year. It was then said that it was too bad to protest or vote against this proposal, because the expenditure had already been incurred. That was precisely the answer that the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) gave last year, so that although the Under Secretaries of State for the Colonies changed their arguments did not change. It appeared to him that they never would have an opportunity of entering a protest against this Vote if they were to accept that stereotyped argument of the Colonial Secretary for the time being. He had no doubt if his hon. Friend the present Under Secretary of State for the Colonies rose to some higher Office by next year, the new Under Secretary who took his place would say the same thing. His hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had said that greater economy should be practised in Cyprus, and that by such means they would be able to avoid some portion of this enormous payment the Committee was now called upon to make. He did not agree with his hon. Friend in that

    1595
    statement. We had no right to raise taxes beyond the sum that Turkey had raised in the Island by taxation, and if any reduction were made in the expenditure let the Cypriotes have the benefit of it. As to the tribute, we might, he thought, make a bargain with the Turks with regard to it. The tribute was £90,000 a-year; but of that £50,000 a-year went against the guaranteed loans of 1855. There remained, therefore, about £40,000 a-year, and his belief was, looking at the impecuniosity of Turkey, that if Lord Dufferin were allowed to offer him £300,000 or £400,000 in ready money, Turkey would give up its right to the tribute in a moment. He believed that all the more because, if he could believe the newspapers, he saw that this impecunious person, the Turk, was now borrowing money at 50 or 60 per cent, which was the price he usually paid for it. But he (Mr. Labouchere) was not sorry we had to pay this £90,000 a-year, because he believed that in the end it would save us a great deal more money, for the reason that it would be a standing monument as to the folly of having Conservatives in power. Hon. Members who supported the present Government would every year be able to say to their constituents—"You, gentlemen, have to pay a portion of this £90,000 a-year, which was involved in putting the Conservatives in power; therefore, never put them in power again, but elect us." He thought the argument was a good one, and he really thought, in the long run, the possession of Cyprus would save the country a great deal of money. It would do so if the constituencies only took this advice, because he had not the slightest doubt that if the Conservatives were again in power they would not have to pay £90,000 a-year, but £999,000 a-year for some other folly of that sort. Therefore, let this Cyprus Vote remain on record, let them every year protest against the Vote and renew this discussion, and every year let it go forth to the people that they were paying £90,000 a-year for a wretched, miserable, pestiferous Island, bought by the Conservatives when they boasted "that they had come back to England with peace with honour."
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he could not help taking notice of part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had
    1596
    just sat down, and that was the part in which he had suggested that we should acquire the Island of Cyprus. He was inclined at one time to say that it was of no use at all to us; but now he had suggested that we should buy it.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I want to buy this £90,000 a-year, and not Cyprus. I do not think Cyprus is worth 90,000 pence.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the hon. Member's desire appeared to be to buy up the tribute and then abandon Cyprus.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes; to the Greeks.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he did not think the present was a good opportunity of going back to the question as to what should be done with Cyprus. He thought that when the whole matter was brought up, there were some choice cuttings from the speeches of the Home Secretary which could be used. The Island of Cyprus was just now being very largely used by Her Majesty's Forces. ["No, no!"] Well, it was being used, and he (Mr. E. Stanhope) certainly did not wish to prevent its being used when required by Her Majesty's Forces by any discussion in that House, which would raise up a desire amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite to renew the discussions that took place two years ago. He should say that Cyprus was a very convenient basis for the operations that were going on in Egypt—[No, no!"] Well, that was a matter of opinion—["Certainly!"]—but if it should appear that Her Majesty's Government required a sanitorium and a place where reserves could be accumulated, Cyprus would be found of great convenience. He hoped it would not be required as a sanitorium during this campaign; but the experience of the campaign might possibly justify some further remarks upon the subject.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think there was anything before the Committee at the present time which would warrant any expression of opinion as to whether Cyprus was of any appreciable value or not to Her Majesty's Forces in regard to the military operations in Egypt. The Government were certainly not prepared to admit that up to the present time anything had occurred which would lead, so far as he knew, any of those who sat on the

    1597
    Treasury Bench to retract what they said in former years in regard to Cyprus. He was really anxious that should be understood without, at the same time, saying anything which was likely to raise debate or unnecessarily stir up the embers of the old controversy, which might not be dead, but which need not be revived at this moment. It might with greater advantage be revived after the Committee had seen what the experience of the next few months produced. He could not find fault with those hon. Members below the Gangway who had used this Vote as an occasion for protest, because they felt themselves in a position of great security, which the Government did not share. They had an immense advantage over the Government, because the Government were responsible for the fulfilment of the engagements of the country, and amongst the engagements of the country was certainly that of the reasonably good government of Cyprus. If it be true that the government of Cyprus was extravagantly carried on, the Government would welcome the help of all Members of the House in cutting down the expenditure; but he must observe that the position of hon. Members who had objected to this Vote was peculiarly felicitous, because they were able to enjoy the satisfaction of repudiating what they deemed a mischievous Vote, at the same time knowing they were not running the slightest risk of involving the Government in that breach of faith which would occur if the Vote were not agreed to.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he hoped his hon. Friends would be satisfied with having raised this discussion. He felt it would be impossible to go into the Lobby with his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold), although he felt strongly the force of the observations he had made. Upon a thorough examination he thought it would be found that Cyprus really cost not far short £150,000 a-year. The government of Cyprus was being carried on to the extent of about one-half by the taxes paid by the people of Cyprus, while the other half was paid by this country. The Committee was bound in justice to support the Government; but if these large Votes were to come up year after year, a decided stand would have to be taken and a reconsideration made of the whole question.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was always to him a matter of great gratification to listen to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), because he never forgot himself. The hon. Member told the Committee he did not wish to annul the Convention, as though it was a matter of any importance whether the hon. Member for Salford wished to annul the Convention or not. It was not of the slightest importance, because the hon. Member's repudiation of the Convention would not have the smallest effect on the Committee. The hon. Member actually read his own speech of a year ago, as, on the last occasion this Vote was before the Committee, he referred to his speech of the year before. He (Mr. Warton) rose to follow up, to a certain extent, what the Premier said with regard to the impropriety of raising this question at the present time. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had said Cyprus had suffered from bad seasons; but the hon. Gentleman did not mention one of the most important products of the Island—namely, the olive. The greatest plagues were the locusts; but, through the efforts of the Governor in offering rewards for their destruction, they were fast disappearing.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 21: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 329.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: This being the last Vote in Supply, the Question is that I report these Resolutions to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords.]
  (Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords.]

    [BILL 263.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he rose to move the rejection of the Bill. The Chief Commissioner of Works had rashly committed himself to the strange assertion that no one except the right hon. Member for "Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) objected to the Bill. He objected to the

    1599
    Bill on two grounds—first, for the slipshod way in which it was drawn. It was difficult to know what the House was asked to read a second time. It was a parti-coloured Bill, the black ink portion being the original, and the red ink the improved draft; yet the black ink part, in some cases, explained the red ink; and definitions of terms were given, the terms themselves not being found in the Bill. Secondly, he protested against the invasion of the rights of property which was to be carried out under the Bill in order to gratify the antiquarian tastes of a few at the public expense.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Warton.)
    [The Amendment, finding no Seconder, could not be put.]
    MR. HEALYsaid, he regretted that Ireland was not included in the Bill, as there were many monuments of great antiquity and interest in that country. The Round Towers and other remains were fully worthy of preservation. Although it was too late in the Session to attempt to move Amendments, he hoped that the measure would, on a future occasion, be extended to Ireland. He should support the Bill.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to state that they would accept an Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), which would have the effect of enabling other monuments to be brought under the Bill by an Order in Council. If, therefore, in the opinion of the hon. Member, any monuments were omitted which ought to be included, they might still be brought within the scope of the Bill. The Bill did not go quite so far as that which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had for so many years moved. It was not thought desirable to extend it to compulsory purchase. The Bill simply enabled the Government to appoint a person to report upon the condition of ancient monuments, and also enabled the owners of such erections to place them under the protection of the State, with option of purchase by agreement. He believed that the Bill, when passed, would be found to work very satisfactorily.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he desired to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the care and attention he had devoted to the subject. As regards the present Bill, while it was, no doubt, a step in the right direction, especially in providing for the appointment of an Inspector, he could not himself hope that it would prove altogether effectual. It was natural he should prefer the Bill which had been before the House in previous Sessions. At the same time, he knew that his right hon. Friend's desires and intentions were the same as his own, and he relied on the Government to introduce a stronger Bill hereafter, if the present measure failed to secure its object. When the Bill got into Committee, he would ask the House to consider some few Amendments, though he did not propose to suggest any which would affect the essential character of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the Schedule which he had himself proposed in previous years, and which had been prepared by very high authorities. But, though the list had been carefully drawn up, and was of a thoroughly typical character, it had no pretensions to completeness. In the previous Bill adopted by the House, there was a clause enabling other monuments to be added, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would propose or agree to some Amendment of that character. He was also anxious that the Inspector should have some more definite status than was indicated in the Bill, because he thought it would materially assist him in his efforts. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the prospect of carrying the Bill, and trusted the Inspector would be carefully selected, and that the Government would appoint someone whose heart would be in the work. Whatever the Bill might be, much would depend on the spirit in which it was worked; and he felt sure that his right hon. Friend would be anxious to make the Bill as effective as possible, and one which would really preserve these interesting monuments, which were the unwritten records of our early history, and some of the grandest and most interesting in the world.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.— [BILL 265.]
  [Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.— [BILL 265.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. MONKsaid, he wished to call attention to the unsatisfactory character of the Bill that had been withdrawn by the Government this Session. He held that Gloucester had been treated with exceptional severity. The Election Commissioners in the case of that borough made most exhaustive Reports, whereas in other places they performed their investigations most perfunctorily. In the case of Oxford the Commissioners stated their belief that 2,000 electors either received bribes or had been subjected to corrupt practices; but in the end only 55 voters were scheduled, as the Commissioners did not consider it a part of their duty to waste time in investigating the individual cases of corruption.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)rose to Order. The hon. Gentleman was not speaking on the Bill then before the House.
    MR. MONKchallenged his hon. and learned Friend to contradict his statements. The result was that in the case of Gloucester all the corrupt element would be eliminated by the disqualification of scheduled voters, and a perfectly pure constituency would remain; but how? —without any Representatives; while in the cases of Oxford, Chester, and Boston, the great majority of bribees would escape, and after this Parliament those unpurified boroughs would be in a position to return their Members as heretofore. He commended those considerations to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and hoped the Bill which would be brought in next Session would mete out equal justice to all.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Suspension of elections in certain cities and boroughs).
    BARON DE FERRIERESmoved to leave out all after "of," in line 23, page 1, and insert "the present Parliament." The Bill, as it now stood, proposed to suspend elections in the scheduled towns until seven days after the meeting of
    1602
    Parliament in the coming year. There was now no probability of a Dissolution, so that an objection to the Bill was that it would be open to any hon. Member, after seven days, to move for a writ to issue in regard to any one of the boroughs. The result would be that the boroughs would be kept in a state of uncertainty, and they would be obliged to keep all their election machinery at work. The object of his Amendment was that the scheduled boroughs should have no Member until the end of the present Parliament. By the adoption of the Amendment the Committee would not be dealing more harshly with these boroughs than the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to do in the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, leave out all after "of," and insert "the present Parliament."—(Baron De Ferrieres.)
    Question proposed, "That the word "of" stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was obliged to his hon. Friend for the good intentions with which he had introduced his Amendment. It was quite true it would relieve him (the Attorney General), personally, and the House from the trouble of next Session considering the matter. But the Committee would see this was a suspensionary Bill, and if they were to adopt the present Amendment they would really pass sentence on the boroughs, and that ought not to be the case within the limits of a suspensionary Bill. He would also remind his hon. Friend that the Committee would still have to consider the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONproposed to add, at end of line 25—
    "Provided, That in the event of another Parliament being summoned before the first day of February, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, writs shall issue for the election of Members for the cities of Canterbury, Oxford, and Chester, and the borough of Boston."
    He admitted that some few days ago, when he put the Amendment on the Paper, there seemed more probability of a Dissolution than at present; but, even now, such was the condition of the political atmosphere at home and abroad,

    1603
    that it was quite possible, when the House re-assembled in October, Ministers might have some singular announcement to make. His Amendment would do no harm, and it carried out the very wish of the Attorney General himself, as far as related to the four boroughs named in the Amendment. He was only carrying out the wishes of the Government, by providing for a contingency which might happen. If the Attorney General could, with that prophetic foresight of his, say that a Dissolution would not take place, well and good. He, however, thought the Government would show their consistency by adopting his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 25, at end, add,—"Provided, That in the event of another Parliament being summoned before the first day of February, one thousand eight hundred and eighty three, writs shall issue for the election of Members for the cities of Canterbury, Oxford, and Chester, and the borough of Boston."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, one reason amongst others why he should not support the Amendment was that it included the borough of Boston. It was not now the proper time to consider the iniquities of that borough; but, still, the Committee would like to hear why that very corrupt borough was to be spared.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there were two practical reasons why this Amendment could not be accepted. The first was the reason he had given before—namely, that this was a suspensionary Bill, and the second was that it would grant to the corrupt portion of these constituencies, in case of an election, more power than was given to the purer part.
    Amendment negatived.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [Lords].— [Bill 191.]
  (Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [Lords].— [Bill 191.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL(who, on rising, was met with cries of "Oh, oh!") said, that hon. Members who said "Oh,
    1604
    oh!" might leave the House. He certainly had not the smallest intention of letting this Bill pass without a reasonable discussion. It was a Bill of enormous importance. He might say that it was as important as all the other Bills that had passed the House since this Parliament began. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but that was his opinion. The Bill might be right or might be wrong; but it created a social revolution that affected almost every family in this country, and was being passed through the House without one man or woman in a million having any idea of what was being done. ["No, no!"] "Well, that was his opinion. The Bill came down from the House of Lords, was put on the Paper the same day, and passed its first stage at 2 o'clock one morning without challenge or discussion, and now the second stage came on at a time when Members were impatient of everything, and when the Bill could not receive the discussion it required. Although it was useless to attempt to discuss it, he wished to say a word or two about it. He was quite willing to admit that the Bill was, to a certain extent, a reverting to old lines. It reverted, he might say, to the form of marriage which existed a few thousand years ago. There was a time when marriage took the form of capture, and after that it took the form of contract, which this Bill now proposed to give it. There was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question; but he thought that there were considerable difficulties about this "chumming" arrangement. In his opinion, take it all in all, the Christian form of marriage, under which there was complete community between the married parties for life, was the best form of marriage. But he was free to confess the current was running the other way—that the "women righters" had been exceedingly energetic, whilst the friends of the poor married man were indolent, so that the case of the poor married man was hopeless. He felt that he was only wasting the time of the House; but he had made an attempt to obtain a small measure of justice for the poor, unfortunate married man. Those who proposed this Bill desired that the woman should have all the privileges of the man, the control of her own property, and none of the man's liabilities. He had an Amendment on the Paper which he hoped the House

    1605
    would adopt. It was none of his own devising, but was deliberately drawn and put in the Scotch Bill that passed this House last year by the Select Committee who dealt with the subject, and it was only in the House of Lords that it was thrown out. That Amendment would impose on a married woman who possessed all the privileges of a man, and who retained all her property, the same liabilities as her husband. If his right hon. and learned Friend in charge of the Bill would accept that Amendment, he would withdraw his opposition to the measure. Meanwhile, by way of protest, although he did not expect to carry the Amendment, he would formally move that the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Bill on that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir George Campbell,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he must protest against the remarks of the hon. Member—that the Bill had not been heard of before, because it had passed through two Select Committees in successive Sessions, and would have become law before now but for the state of Public Business. If the House looked at the Bill they would see that it did not deserve the character given to it. It was just that a woman who inherited or acquired a small property should have the same protection which the rich could secure by means of marriage settlements and trustees. The people of Scotland last year obtained this protection; and he would put it to the hon. Member whether it was fair that he, a Scotchman, should interpose to prevent the English women having what the Scotch women got last year? It would be one of the most useful law reforms which had been carried for many years.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the measure one of the utmost importance, which required much fuller consideration than it could receive at so late a period of the Session. The 3rd clause of the Bill would, in effect, act in restraint of
    1606
    marriage. No man would marry a woman with property, knowing that she could set him at defiance so long as the marriage continued. It would change the position of the sexes, and make the woman, instead of a kind and loving wife, a domestic tyrant. Scripture was opposed to the Bill—
    MR. THOROLD ROGERS: I beg to ask you, Sir, whether this conversation on the part of the hon. and learned Member is relevant to the Question before the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member's speech is certainly very discursive, and I must invite him to address himself to the Question.
    MR. WARTONsaid, in that case he would only add that the fact that the Bill had been hurried through the House of Lords was not in its favour; and he would, therefore, beg the House to pause before sanctioning a social revolution.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, it had been complained that this Bill came on at this late period of the Session. Whose fault was that? The Bill came down from the House of Lords as early as the 3rd of June, and it was immediately blocked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who represented a constituency which had no interest whatever in this Bill, and which, moreover, already enjoyed the benefits proposed to be conferred by the Bill on English women. It was also blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who blocked every Bill, good, bad, or indifferent. It was not the case that the question had not been discussed—indeed, few questions had been more often debated. The Bill had been considered by two Select Committees—one of the House of Lords and one of the House of Commons, and had been approved both by the Lord Chancellor and by Lord Cairns. In such circumstances, it would be a positive scandal if it did not now pass.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSwished to say that he had never, in the whole of his Parliamentary experience, heard a more distinctly obstructive speech than that of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Married woman to be capable of holding property and of contracting as a feme sole).
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to insert, in line 11, after the word "woman," the words, "married after the passing of this Act." He urged that if there was to be a social revolution, it should be with regard to those who were going to be married, because those who were married had entered into marriage with their eyes open as to the state of the law. If they could not protect those who went before them, at any rate let them protect themselves; and he would call the attention of the Attorney General, or of the Judge Advocate General, who was in charge of the Bill, to the 1st clause, which said—"Every woman who marries after the commencement of this Act." "Why should they go back to those who were already married under the existing law? That would be ex post facto legislation. He quite saw what the feeling of the House was, and he would not press a point which the House was clearly opposed to when he had had a clear statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Hitherto, there had only been indiscriminate probation of the Bill; but when the Bill was considered step by step, it would be seen how far the House really approved of it. He would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the limitation in the clause, and to accept his suggestion.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 11, after the word "woman," to insert "who marries after the commencement of this Act."—(Mr, Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as it would destroy the Bill. The hon. and learned Member misunderstood the clause. It only declared, in general terms, the capacity of a married woman to hold property without the intervention of a trustee. The subsequent clauses defined the extent of this right in the several cases of a woman married before and after the Act.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was easy for a Minister to get up and say an Amend-
    1608
    ment would destroy the Bill; but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why persons who were already married should have the benefit of this Act? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was a stock phrase, and would apply to every clause; and, therefore, he must press for an explanation.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he thought the Bill was all right as it stood. Suppose a married woman to-morrow received a sum of money which had been left to her, it was quite right that she should have the same protection as an unmarried woman.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WARTONmoved, in line 12, after the word "married," to insert "and hereafter acquired." This Amendment, he thought, would meet the case of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). He quite saw the hon. Gentleman's point, and perhaps this Amendment might compromise the matter. It was quite right that a married woman should have protection for property put in her hands.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "married," insert "and hereafter acquired."—(Mr. War-ton.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Execution of general power).
    MR. WARTONasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he restricted this power by will, or whether he would not make it by deed? Powers were often conveyed by will; but why should a man be restricted to that form?
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, this clause only applied to deceased persons. It dealt with the administration of the assets of a deceased person; and, therefore, the hon. and learned Member's point did not arise.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the clause said nothing about deceased persons.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that before the clause could apply the person must have died.
    MR. WARTONasked why the case had been overlooked of a married man, who, as might often happen, wished to

    1609
    give something to his wife by deed or will; and why there was no power for conveying by deed?
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6 (As to stock, &c. to which a married woman is entitled).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 2, line 38, after "commissioners," by inserting "for the reduction;" and in page 3, line 2, after "the," by inserting "sole."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 3, after "any," insert "Municipal Corporation in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, he thought some alteration of the wording of this clause was required—"interest in the securities of a Corporation" seemed to be what was intended rather than "interest in any Corporation."
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, if the hon. Member would look a little further on in the Bill, he would see that this point was met.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 3, line 13, after "woman," by leaving out "without the name of her husband;" in page 3, line 15, after "empower her," by inserting "to receive or transfer the same, and;" in page 3, line 16, after "thereof," by leaving out from "and" to "same" inclusive, in line 17.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (As to stock, &c. to be transferred, &c. to a married woman).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 3, line 28, after "any," by inserting "such Municipal Corporation as aforesaid or in any;" in page 3, line 31, after "the," by inserting "sole;" and in page 3, line 42, after "bye-law," by inserting "Articles of Association."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Investments in joint names of married women and others).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 4, line
    1610
    3, after "Commissioners," by inserting "for the reduction;" in page 4, line 7, after "any," by inserting "such Municipal Corporation as aforesaid or in any;" in page 4, line 10, after "the," by inserting "sole;" and in page 4, line 12, after "the," by inserting "sole."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (As to stock, &c. standing in the joint names of a married woman and others).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made in page 4, line 27, after "standing in the," by inserting "sole."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Fraudulent investments with money of husband).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 4, line 33, after "any," by inserting "such Muncipal Corporation as aforesaid or in any."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Moneys payable under policy of assurance not to form part of estate of the insurer).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 5, line 17, after "not," by inserting "so long as any object of the trust remains unreformed."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 12 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 24 (Interpretation of terms).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 10, line 13, at end of Clause, by adding "The word 'property' in this Act includes a thing in action."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 25 (Commencement of Act).
    MR. WARTONproposed to substitute "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five" for "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three," in order to give people who were contemplating matrimony time to change their minds when they found the law altered. If a man found the law constantly altered he might make a good plea to that effect, although, of course, everybody was supposed to know the law.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 15, to leave out "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three," and insert "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That 'one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he proposed to insert a new clause which, after having been accepted by this House, was thrown out by the House of Lords. Some time ago, this House had learned that they could disagree with the House of Lords with success, and he should be glad to do so on this occasion. The clause would be thoroughly understood by anyone who knew his own language, and really spoke for itself. It proposed to make the estates of husband and wife jointly and severally liable for maintaining the spouses and family; and in all cases where a wife was legally entitled to order goods to be supplied or services to be rendered to the husband, or any member of his family, the creditor should have a claim against both the estates, whether the goods or services were ordered by the husband or wife, but reserving to the one from whose estate payment might be recovered the right to rateable contributions from the estate of the other, provided that such claims should suffer prescription after the lapse of three years from the date of payment. He hoped this clause would be accepted, for, although Clause 22 went a considerable way to meet the object he had in view, this new clause much more distinctly removed all doubt, and made quite clear what the liabilities of the parties were, and put the parties on a footing of equality.
    Amendment proposed,
    After Clause 21, to insert the following Clause:—" The estates of husband and wife shall be jointly and severally liable for the maintenance of the spouses and family, and in all cases where a wife is by law entitled to order goods to be supplied or services to be rendered to the husband, or any member of his family, at his cost, the creditor shall (whether the order were actually given by the husband or by the wife) have a joint and several claim against the estates of both for such goods and services, reserving to the spouse from whose estate payment may be recovered his or her right to rate-
    1612
    able contributions from the estate of the other, provided that such claims of contribution shall suffer prescription after the lapse of three years from the date of payment."
    New Clause—(Sir George Campbell,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, it was quite impossible to accept this clause. It would introduce the most serious complications into a subject in which simplicity was of paramount importance.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 260.]
  (Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 260.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. HEALYasked for a few words in explanation of the objects of the Bill.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, this was a Bill to enable the Court in Ireland to carry out the purposes of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. That Act contained a clause enabling the Supreme Court to reorganize its staff within two years, and to consider what officers should be removed within two years of the commencement of the Act. It had now become necessary to make further alterations in the constitution of the staff; but the Law Officers were of opinion that they could not carry out those changes under the present Act, and this Bill was brought in to enable them to do so.
    MR. HEALYasked whether the proposed changes would involve an extra charge on the Consolidated Fund or the Estimates?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): No, Sir.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Robert Duff.)
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    [BILL 240.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, in moving the second reading of this Bill, he desired to say a few words in explaining the objects of the Bill, because there had been some misunderstanding in various quarters on the subject. The object of the Bill, as it would appear from its terms, was to establish a Fishery Board for Scotland, directly to deal, not only with the subject of the herring fisheries, but also with deep-sea and coast fisheries, and also with the salmon fisheries. These objects, he was sure, would commend themselves to the House as desirable to he carried out. He ought to say, by way of explanation of the principal reasons which led to the Bill being introduced, that there had been, for a great many years, a Fishery Board in Scotland. That Board, however, had had cognizance, almost exclusively, until the year 1868, of the herring fisheries; but since then it had had, in a certain degree, cognizance of the deep-sea and coast fisheries, but never had anything to do with salmon fisheries. It was a very large Board, too large for sedulous attendance and active work. It consisted of 18 or 20 members. The retirement of the most efficient secretary, who had so long and so well fulfilled the duties of his office, was thought by many persons, and, amongst others, by the Scottish Members in this House, a fitting occasion to place on a more satisfactory footing a Board intended to deal with fishery matters in Scotland. The result had been the introduction of this Bill. He must also say that there was in the Report of the Herring Brand Committee, presented in June last, a recommendation that it would be an advantage to the fisheries in Scotland if the functions of the Board in Edinburgh were extended, so as to take cognizance of the coast and deep-sea fisheries; so that it was not only in pursuance of a very prevalent desire on the part of the Scottish Members and the Scottish
    1614
    people that this Bill had been introduced, but also in terms of the direct recommendation of a Select Committee sitting a year ago. He did not think that, as regarded that part of the Bill, he needed to say anything more. The Bill was not intended to alter, in any respect, the law of herring fishery, or the deep-sea fishery, or of salmon fishery. It was merely to set up an administrative body, which should have cognizance and supervision of these fisheries. The particular manner in which those duties would be performed were intimated in the Bill itself. There was one point on which he desired to say a few words, because it was one in which there had been most misapprehension—that was the question of salmon fisheries. He knew there had been a considerable prevalence of the idea that in some respect the law of salmon fishing was to be altered by the Bill. That was not the case. Salmon fishing had always been regarded in Scotland as a matter of national concern. It had not been left to be dealt with entirely by the owners of the rivers or sea coasts; but for centuries there had been many regulations, by enactments and otherwise, directed to secure the free access of the fish to the upper waters, and to secure the propagation of the breed, and its preservation as an article of food. But, while that had been the case, there had not hitherto been any Board in Scotland which had cognizance of the salmon fishing. This was thought a fitting occasion to place under the care of the Board the supervision of these fisheries as well. It was not the purpose of the Bill to supersede the District Boards, which had the direct administration of the affairs of the different rivers in Scotland. As far as salmon was concerned, it was to supervise the manner of fishing and the methods adopted in the different rivers, to see that the law was obeyed, and to collect information and to make suggestions, with a view to the amendment of the law. On this point, also, it was no purpose of this Bill to charge the Board with the duty of watching the rivers. The Bill had been criticized in the idea that the duty of watching was to he performed in some way by the Fishery Board, and that, in consequence, it would become a charge on the fund. That, also, was an entire misapprehension; so he did not think he need say

    1615
    anything more on that point. Of course, it might be necessary, and, indeed, would be proper, to amend the Bill in various particulars in Committee, so as to take away any grounds for the misapprehensions which had arisen in regard to it; and any Amendments which might be suggested from private Members would be carefully considered. The proposal was to constitute a Board—not of eight members, as stated erroneously in the Bill, but of nine members. The constitution of the Board was indicated, although not worked out in detail, in the Bill. As the Bill was introduced, it was made applicable to the Tweed; but it was found there was a prevalent objection to that by those interested in the salmon fisheries of that great river. It had to be kept in view that the Tweed had always been under separate legislation, and not under the general law of Scotland, in regard to salmon matters; and, having regard to that fact, and to the prevalent objection which appeared to exist, the Government were willing to exempt the Tweed from the operation of the Bill. He begged to move the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he did not think it was at all clear that the Tweed Commissioners wished to be exempted. He knew the Chairman and Vice Chairman both very much wished that the Tweed should be in the Bill; and he hoped, if the Bill was not passed this year, that next Session they would again find the Tweed in the Bill.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he had an Amendment to the Bill, but it was not that he objected to the Bill. He approved of it, and he only wished it could be properly discussed. What he would like to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate was whether the Commissioners would have power to inspect the sea fisheries inshore as well as river fisheries? He explained the other night, on the Fishery Board Vote, that his constituents were anxious to stop beam-trawling; and he would like to know whether the new Fishery Board would have power to recommend, in proper cases, the abolition of beam-trawling inshore?
    MR. A. ELLIOTsaid, he had to express his thanks to the Lord Advocate for having intimated that when they got into Committee he would exempt the Tweed and its tributaries from the operations of the Bill. He put a block against the Bill, but removed it when he heard that the Tweed was to be exempted. The feeling was intensely strong against dealing in this way with the Tweed Fisheries Acts, which had already given considerable dissatisfaction. If these Acts were to be taken up, it was hoped they would be dealt' with much more thoroughly than was now proposed.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, the Lord Advocate had acted wisely in agreeing to throw out the Tweed Fisheries from the purview of the Bill; but he sincerely hoped that if an attempt was made, here or "elsewhere," to throw out all the salmon fisheries of Scotland, that attempt would be strongly resisted. It would make the Board weak and useless, and the same amount of good would not be done if the salmon fisheries of Scotland were exempted from the operation of the Bill.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, there was a great want of some general authority to regulate the salmon fisheries of Scotland. He was connected with a river which could be made a good salmon river if only a proper authority were constituted to look after it. With, regard to deep-sea fisheries, he entirely agreed with what had been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Alexander), that it was most desirable some authority should have the power to look into the question. At present, there was no question which was more obscure or difficult, and he hoped the Bill would give the new Board the power needed in this matter.
    MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that, in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander), he had to say that the matter of inshore-trawling was more or less regulated by an Act which was passed last Session, under which, if a trawler was found within three miles of the shore, the local authority had power to apply to have certain restrictions placed upon trawling in the district. In this Bill there were no provisions directly interfering with trawling; but, at the same time, it was perfectly competent for the new Board to suggest regulations. He presumed these regulations

    1617
    would be subject to the conditions of the Act of last year, and also to the approval of the House. With regard to the exemption of the Tweed, the Government had been pressed not to include the Tweed in this Bill. He believed that the Bill had been generally approved throughout Scotland, subject, of course, to the exemption of the Tweed.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  CITATION AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 267.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  CITATION AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 267.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    COLONEL ALEXANDERasked, in reference to what was said last night by the Lord Advocate, whether it was intended to provide compensation for the messengers-at-arms, who would, by the Bill, be deprived of a considerable portion of their income?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was afraid it would not be in the power of the Government to give any compensation to that very meritorious class of persons, whose gains would be undoubtedly diminished by the Bill. It was, unhappily, one of the results of beneficent legislation that it did, in many cases, to some extent take away from the emoluments of certain classes of persons. That was certainly one of the results of the change now proposed; but he was afraid the Bill could not be abandoned on that account. It must be kept in view that under the terms of the Bill a messenger-at-arms could be employed, if it was thought fit to do so.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Citation may be by registered letter.)
    On the Motion of The Lord ADVOCATE, Amendments, made in page 1, line 13, by leaving out "a court of justice," and inserting—
    1618
    "Any court or before any person or body of persons having by Law power to cite parties or witnesses;"
    in line 15, after "witness," by inserting "or warrant of service or judicial intimation;" and in line 15, by leaving out "court," and inserting—
    "The court from which such summons, warrant, or judicial intimation was issued, or other officer who, according to the present Law and practice, might lawfully execute the same."
    MR. WARTON (for Mr. BIGGAR)moved to leave out, in lines 15 and 16, "or a law agent." He did not think the House was sufficiently careful of vested interests. These messengers-at-arms had now certain gains; but through no fault of theirs they were to be deprived of them, or the major part of them. He hoped men of all Parties would see the cruel injustice of depriving people of rights that they had hitherto enjoyed.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "or a law agent."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Lord Advocate if it was not possible to put words in the Bill which would preserve the rights of messengers-at-arms in districts where they existed.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment, or even make such alterations as had been suggested by his hon. Friend (Mr. Dick-Peddie). The principle of the Bill was to substitute notices by registered letter for the former execution by messengers-at-arms. If that was a sound principle it would be inexpedient to frustrate it by requiring the intervention of a messenger-at-arms for the purpose of posting a letter. If a notice by a letter posted and registered was a sufficient method for giving notice of citation, surely the act of posting and registering the letter could be accomplished as well by a law agent as by a messenger-at-arms. One of the advantages of the proposed change was that the new procedure would be much less expensive than hitherto. Provision was made against an abuse of the alternative power by limiting the rate of charge to that of the less expensive method, even

    1619
    although the more expensive method might be adopted.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 14: Majority 35. — (Div. List, No. 330.)
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the Bill proposed to use means for the delivery of writs which could only be described as somewhat risky. He thought that provision should be made for sending the writ through the post enclosed in a registered letter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that great delay arose from both trains and steamers stopping, apparently without any reason, at unusual places in Scotland. He moved the omission of all the words from line 27 to the end of the sub-section.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 27, to leave out all the words to the end of the sub-section. — (Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he opposed the Amendment on the ground that they had already agreed to allow a margin of 24 hours to be introduced into the Bill. Although exceptional delay sometimes occurred in reaching the remoter parts of Scotland, he thought the period named was, on the whole, a very fair one, and trusted the hon. Member opposite would, on reconsideration, not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of The Lord Advocate, the following Amendments made: —In page 1, line 15, leave out "a," and insert "by an enrolled;" line 17, leave out "such person," and insert "the person upon whom such summons, warrant, or judicial intimation is to be served;" line 18, after "citation," insert—
    "Or to the office of the Keeper of Edictal Citations, where the summons, warrant, or judicial intimation is required to be sent to that office;"
    line 19, leave out "citation or;" line 20, leave out "or notice;" line 21, after "served," insert—
    1620
    "With the proper citation or notice subjoined thereto, or containing such other citation or notice as may be required in the circumstances;"
    and in line 23, after "business," insert—
    "Or at his last known address, if it continues to be his legal domicile, or other place of citation."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Execution).
    On the Motion of The Lord Advocate, the following Amendments made: —In page 1, line 26, after "copy," insert "or other citation or notice required in the circumstances;" line 28, after "appear," insert "or lodge answers or other pleadings;" line 29, after "appearance," insert "or lodging answers or other pleadings; "page 2, line 1, after "from," insert "twenty-four hours after;" line 6, leave out "of court," and insert, in new line, "The execution may be in the form contained in the First Schedule hereto;" line 10, leave out "summons or;" after "to," insert, "or intimation from;" line 12, after "and," insert "office or;" line 14, leave out "cannot;" after "be," insert"not;" line 18, after "refused," insert—
    "Or because the address is not within a postal delivery district and the letter is not called for within twenty-four hours after its receipt at the post office of the place to which it is addressed; "
    line 22, leave out "who applied for," and insert "at whose instance; "leave out "or;" after "warrant," insert "or intimation was issued or obtained;" after "shall," insert "where the order for service was made by a judge or magistrate;" line 24, leave out "or;" after "warrant, "insert" or intimation;" and in line 35, after "the," insert "second."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Fees).
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made: —In page 2, line 38, after "citation," insert "and warrants of service judicial intimations."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    On the Motion of The Lord Advocate, the following Clause inserted after Clause 5:—
    "(Definition.)
    "The word 'person' shall include corporation, company, firm, or other body requiring to be cited or to receive intimation."
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In Schedule, page 3, line 4, before "Schedule," insert "Second;" after line 12, insert in new line—
    "(3.) Post Office charge for registration and postage of letter;"
    line 26, after "and," leave out "debt," and insert "debts;" and after line 33, insert in new line—
    "(3.) Post Office charge for registration and postage of letter."
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Schedule was also inserted:—
    "First Schedule.
    "This summons, or warrant of citation, or note of suspension, or petition, or other writ or citation executed [or intimated] by me [insert name] messenger at arms [or other officer or law agent] against [or to] [insert name or names] defender [or defenders, or respondent or respondents, or witness or witnesses, or haver or havers, or otherwise as the case may be], by posting on last, between the hours of and at the post office of a copy of the same to him [or them], with citation [or notice] subjoined, [or citation or notice where no copy is sent], in a registered letter [or registered letters], addressed as follows, viz.;
    "Signature of officer or agent."
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLONIAL INQUIRIES) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 235.]
  (Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLONIAL INQUIRIES) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 235.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Colonial courts or tribunals to have jurisdiction to make inquiry into charges of misconduct or incompetency and shipping casualties in certain cases occurring outside the limits of the colony).
    Amendment proposed, at the end of Sub-section (vi.) add "and who are competent witnesses."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY, Amendment made, after Clause 5, by inserting the following Clause:—
    (Appeal from Colonial Courts.)
    "Whenever any inquiry authorised by or in pursuance of this Act has been held, a rehearing of the case may be ordered, and if an application for such rehearing has not been made or has been refused, an appeal shall lie from any order or finding of the court or tribunal holding such inquiry to the following court, namely, the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England.
    "Provided always, That no appeal shall lie from any order or finding in an inquiry into a casualty affecting a ship registered in a British possession, or from any decision respecting the suspension or cancellation of the certificate of a master, mate, or engineer, unless such certificate has been granted under the authority of 'The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854,' or any Act amending the same, or of 'The Merchant Shipping Colonial Act, 1869.'
    "Any such appeal shall be subject to and conducted in accordance with such conditions and regulations as may from time to time be prescribed by general rules made under section thirty of 'The Merchant Shipping Act, 1876.'"
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that, on behalf of shipowners and other persons connected with the Mercantile Marine of the country, he sincerely thanked the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) for his successful endeavour to pass this useful piece of legislation through the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.
  (Mr. Pendarves Vivian, Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. Agar-Robartes, Mr. Borlase.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.

    [BILL 95.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow."—(Mr. Pendarves Vivian.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving that this Bill be taken on Monday next. His objection to its being taken on Saturday was that

    1623
    the day had been always reserved for Government Business. He admitted that the rule had not been observed very strictly this Session; but his objection to taking Private Business on Saturday remained, and he should take the sense of the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for "West Cornwall.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," in order to insert the words "upon Monday next,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Bridport would not press his Amendment, particularly as this was the last Saturday of the Session, when it was always usual for the House to sit, and afforded the only chance the hon. Member would have of getting the Bill through the House. He believed the measure was very much desired by the majority of the people of Cornwall, and by hon. Members connected with, that district.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 8: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 331.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read a second time Tomorrow.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
  (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr Jacob Bright, Mr. Passmore Edwards, Mr. Buchanan.)
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.

    [BILL 206.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time time To-morrow."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time on Monday, and he did so for the purpose of remarking that the Government had distinctly stated that nothing but Government Business would be taken on Saturdays. He had this year introduced a little Bill, which was read a second time; but he moved the discharge of the Order, because he was too honourable to bring it forward on Saturday.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," in order to insert
    1624
    the words "upon Monday next,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, during an experience of eight years he never remembered a Private Bill of a contentious character being brought in on a Saturday. There was good reason why Private Bills should not be taken on Saturday, and that was that Saturday Sittings were only taken under pressure of Government, and nominally, at least, for Government Business.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) was entirely mistaken. In olden times it was the practice of private Members to put down the Bills on any day the House sat. He had passed Bills repeatedly on Saturday, and it was an innovation to say that a Saturday or any other day should be confined strictly to Government Business.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, the Prime Minister certainly stated that when the Government asked for a Saturday Sitting it ought to be for Government Business.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, if it was an innovation to say that nothing but Government Business should be taken on Saturday, it was a very wholesome one.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, hon. Members must remember that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill occupied a great deal of a Saturday Sitting last year. There had been no breach of faith on the part of the Government, for the declaration of the Prime Minister referred to a particular Saturday.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read a second time Tomorrow.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)moved that the Lords Amendments to this Bill be now considered. He had communicated with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and he had no objection to the course now proposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill be considered forthwith."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment to the Bill to the effect that the suspended rent for seven years should not exceed the amount of judicial rent, if the judicial rent be declared on the holding. He understood it could not be moved, and, of course, there was no use his objecting to the Bill being taken now.
    MR. WARTONwished to enter a most earnest and deliberate protest against this very improper way of doing Business. The Business of the House ought to be done in a way in which Members might know what was going on, which was certainly not now the case. It was also most objectionable that the Government should make arrangements with private Members as to the progress of a particular Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, the sum of £34,357,774 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    INDIA (HOME CHARGES ARREARS) BILL.
    Resolution [August 10] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and The Marquess of HARTINGTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 272.]

    EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
    Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament relating to the Revenues of India be referred to the Consideration of a Committee of the whole House.
    Committee thereupon upon Monday next.—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.