Commons Sitting of 24 April 1883

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Canvey Island (Sea Defences) *; Metropolitan District Railway.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders* [142].

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  MR. HICKSsaid, that, in rising to move that the second reading of the Bill be put off until that day six months, he would venture to trouble the House with very few remarks, in order to explain why ho stood there in the position of Mover of this Amendment upon a Bill of such great importance, for the importance of the Bill was acknowledged by a considerable number of Members sitting in all parts of the House. He believed it was also acknowledged, in very strong terms, by the President of the Board of Trade. But when this Bill was originally put down for a second reading there was nobody in the House to object to the Motion, and he therefore took upon himself the duty of taking that course; and, having done so, he put down the Amendment which now stood in his name upon the Paper. He begged to move that Amendment; and he did so in the full confidence that the House would take care, before the Bill was passed, that justice was done to the ratepayers of this great Metropolis. In proposing the Amendment ho had no wish to stop legislation; but he wished to afford the promoters of the Bill an opportunity of coming to terms with the authorities of the Metropolis—namely, the Metropolitan Board of Works, who owned the road over the Embankment, and the Gardens which had been constructed upon it, and which had been made at great expense for the benefit, health, and use of the people of the Metropolis, and which it was most desirable should not be interfered with or destroyed. But he was sorry to say that up to this time no such agreement had been come to; but there were Amendments upon the Paper which might, and he trusted would, have the effect of carrying out the object he had in view, and which, if they had been accepted, would have rendered it unnecessary to press this Motion to a division. He
  1012
  begged the House to bear in mind the position in which they were now placed. They were told that they were trying to take away a privilege that had been conferred upon a Railway Company in a former Session. Now, he did not wish to do anything of the kind. He had too great a respect for the rights of property to wish to take anything away which belonged either to an individual or to a Corporation; but because he did not wish to have the rights of property taken away, that was no reason why he should confer further gifts; and, if those who had obtained powers without the knowledge of the House wore asking now for further benefits, he thought the House would agree with him that they were perfectly justified in refusing to confer those further benefits until the interests of the public were duly protected, and the power of injuring this Embankment and these public Gardens was taken away, or, at any rate, greatly modified. He had been told that it was the duty of the House to have known the nature of the Bill before they passed it. But was there anybody in the House who would contend seriously for one moment that it was possible, or in the power of any Member of the House, to read the contents of every Private Bill? Such Bills were sent up to a Select Committee; and up to this year Select Committees had never, apparently, for a long period felt themselves called upon to report to the House any special or particular circumstance connected with the Bills submitted to them. That course of proceeding, he was glad to say, had been considerably modified by the new Standing Order, passed this Session, with regard to Private Bills introduced into that House; and it would be the duty now of all Committees upon Private Bills to draw the distinct attention of the House to anything contained in the measure submitted to them of a novel or unprecedented character. He was quite sure that if the attention of the House had been drawn to any proposal calculated to injure and destroy the Thames Embankment, and the Gardens laid out upon it, the House would never have listened to it for a moment for the purpure of conferring a benefit upon a private undertaking. Hon. Members who would take the trouble to go and look at this Railway would find that some of

  1013
  those ventilators were placed within 140 yards of a station—for instance, the ventilator at Charing Cross was within 140 yards of the station, and the ventilator nearest to the House of Commons was within 220 yards of the Westminster Station, the opening over which the Railway Company were themselves proposing to make smaller than it was by constructing a bridge which would materially reduce its ventilating power. As he had said, he had no wish to stop legislation; and he hoped some arrangement would be come to, before a division was taken, by which the interests of the public might be fairly and duly protected. But until that arrangement had been come to he should persevere with the Amendment which stood in his name, and which he now begged to move—namely, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Hicks.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, who had moved the rejection of the Bill; and the only ground upon which the hon. Member appeared to have moved it was that certain powers had been given to the Railway Company without the knowledge of the House. He entirely denied that those powers had been conferred without the knowledge of the House, any more than that any provision in every kind of Bill they passed was without the knowledge of the House. He took it that everything they did through their Committee was done with the knowledge of the House, and was afterwards confirmed by the House when they consented to the second reading of the Bill. It was, therefore, quite an idle argument to say that anything done in that way was done without the knowledge of the House. If they once began this system of overhauling the work of the Private Bill Committees in these matters, where would it end? If, two years after, one of those Private Bill Committees had sat upon a question, had taken all possible evidence upon it, had sifted it to the utmost, and had given certain powers to a Railway Company—if, after
  1014
  such Bill had gone through the House of Lords, where it would have undergone the very same process of sifting and searching, and the powers were confirmed to the Railway Company, this House was to re-open such questions two years afterwards, in this way there would be no end to such an objectionable system. A great deal more had been made of this question than it deserved. A most absurd fuss had been made about a very small matter. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members who cried "Oh! oh!" he ventured to say, had not seen these structures. ["Oh! oh!"] Let hon. Members walk along the Embankment, and he was bound to say that if they did not go for the purpose of seeing these ventilators they would never see them at all. No doubt, the newspapers said they were to be 20 feet high; but the height of them was only eight feet, and they were about 20 feet long. They were to be covered with greenery; and in place of a building hideously ugly they would have a structure which would be rather ornamental than otherwise, or, at all events, not half as ugly as the long stretch of dead wall put up behind the Duke of Buccleuch's property and that of the Board of Trade. These structures would neither be so high or so ugly as that long dead wall, and not one-tenth degree as ugly as a certain hideous red brick building which had been put up at Charing Cross by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and yet the Metropolitan Board of Works came there protesting against the destruction of the Embankment, although they themselves had been erecting this hideous brick building. It was said that it was only a temporary building; but it was manifestly intended for a permanent one, and it would spoil the Embankment much more than these ventilators. It was a building 80 feet long and some 20 feet high, and hideously ugly in every respect. It had been said that the Railway Company had sold certain land which they might have used for ventilators, and that if they had used that land for ventilators it would not have been necessary have put up these structures. He should like any hon. Member who knew the fact to point out what land the Railway Company had sold. He was informed, and he believed it was true, that they had sold no land whatever East of Westminster Bridge

  1015
  that could have been so used. A great deal had also been said about certain girders being put up at the Westminster Bridge Station, which, it was asserted, would interfere with the ventilation of the Railway. They would not interfere in the least with the ventilation of the Railway; and, although it was alleged that they would interfere with the ventilation of the station, that also was not the fact. He should like to give the history of these girders, because it was a rather curious one, as far as the Metropolitan Board of Works were concerned. The Railway Company owned a piece of land on the north of the Railway facing the back street. They sold that land some years ago—six, eight, or 10 years ago—and they sold it under the condition that if the purchaser of the land ever required access to the Embankment, the Railway Company should allow him to bridge over the line so as to connect that piece of land with the Embankment. The only way he could get across the Embankment was by buying a piece of land belonging to the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Railway Company wanted to purchase the same piece of land for the improvement of their station; but the Metropolitan Board of Works would not sell it to the Railway Company, although they actually Bold it to the owners of the piece of land on the other side of the line, and by that sale they brought into play the old condition that the purchaser was to be allowed to connect it with the Embankment by a bridge over the Railway. Therefore, in reality, the connection was that of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and not of the Railway Company. It was, however, only 16 feet wide, and it was a mere passage that would not interfere with the ventilation of the tunnel or the Railway at all. He might say that he did not care a straw for the Railway itself. The Railway Company were well able to defend themselves, and it was not in their interests that he took up the question, or was induced to speak upon it; it was simply and solely in the interests of those who used the Railway. He used it himself constantly; and, therefore, he knew the enormous improvement which had taken place in consequence of the construction of these ventilators. There were probably more travellers who passed through that tunnel in the course of an hour than
  1016
  went along the Embankment in a week, and perhaps a great many more than that. The Railway actually carried 30,000,000 of passengers in the course of a year. There were 32 trains passing over the line, taking the two ways, every hour; and with trains passing every two minutes there must necessarily be a constant cloud of smoke in the tunnel. There was no time for it to escape; at least, there was no time for it to escape before these ventilators were made. There could be no time for the smoke of one train to escape before the smoke of another train filled the tunnel up again. The result was not only that the passengers down below were choked, but there was a very considerable amount of risk attached to the working of the line. The Railway officers could not see the signals, and there might have been any day, if anything exceptional happened, some terrible calamity. If the House wont back now upon this proposal and caused the ventilators to be shut up, they might depend upon it that some calamity of that kind might any day occur through their action, and he would ask thorn to think twice before they ran the risk of doing that; because, while there were 30 trains per hour now, there would be a great deal more shortly, and they would be every day increasing in number, until they became as numerous as it was possible for the Railway to run. Therefore, it was not only for the health of the passengers, but for the safety of the travelling public, that it was absolutely necessary these ventilators should be preserved. The history which had been given of the ventilators was not quite correct. The Committee of the House did not absolutely provide them; they did not fix the plans; but they simply gave the power, and desired the Railway Company to enter into negotiations with the Metropolitan Board of Works as to where the places should be, their position, and the nature of the openings. The Railway Company very properly went to the Metropolitan Board of Works; but the Metropolitan Board of Works kept them at arms' length, and declined to negotiate with them at all. At last the Railway Company were obliged to go to the Board of Trade to get an Arbitrator appointed to settle the matter. The Board of Trade appointed Captain Galton. Captain Galton went over the matter again, took evidence,

  1017
  and, after an inquiry, fixed the openings, and actually drew the plans for them. Captain Galton gave his award in February in this year, and it was only since then that the award had been acted upon. The Metropolitan Board of Works knew quite well for two years that the work was about to be done; and yet, after the Bill of the Railway Company passed, which it did in the year 1881, they did not offer to bring in a new Bill, nor did they in 1882 offer to bring in a new Bill; and it was not until after the month of February in this year that they attempted to get the Standing Order set aside in order that they might bring in a Bill to undo the work which the Railway Company were trying to do. The Standing Order Committee very properly refused to listen to their application; and he hoped the House would also refuse to do anything towards re-opening the question. He bad nothing more to say, beyond expressing a hope that the House would think twice before destroying the work of its own creation. He trusted the House would support him in maintaining the decision of its own Committee, and that it would refuse to adopt the Amendment which had been moved for the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. EVANSsaid, ho hoped the House would allow him to address them for a few moments, as he had been the Chairman of the Select Committee to which the Bill, which had been so much criticized, and which contained the power to construct the ventilators, had been referred. He was not in a position at that moment to go into the acts of the Committee, nor had he a copy of the Evidence; and if he had, he did not think the House would thank him very much if he were to lay before them the Evidence which induced the Committee to arrive at their decision. He would, therefore, only say that the whole matter was gone into very fully indeed, and that it was thoroughly sifted; and in the course of the inquiry all the different bodies and individuals concerned, not only on the part of the City of London, but of the Metropolitan Board of Works and private individuals, as well as the Railway Company itself, were represented before them, and all heard at great length. The whole matter was thoroughly and fully considered, and he might add that there was no difference of
  1018
  opinion on the part of any Member of the Committee, in the decision that was arrived at. The result, therefore, was that the powers now in question had been conferred upon the Railway Company with the full sanction of every Member of the Committee. At that time it was admitted on all hands to be a very desirable thing in itself that the Metropolitan Underground Railway should be thoroughly ventilated. An enormous number of the public made use of the railway. He made very little use of it himself; but he knew that others did, and the traffic upon it was so great that it was of the highest importance it should be well ventilated. There could not be two opinions about that. The only question was, how that ventilation could best be carried into effect; and whether it could be carried into effect without causing serious inconvenience to those who were accustomed to pass through the streets and gardens running over the top of the Underground Railway? The Select Committee wont into the question very carefully, and they came to the conclusion that the proposed plan would not cause any serious inconvenience, either to the public who used the streets, or to the gardens above the Metropolitan Railway. As the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had just stated, the Metropolitan Board of Works were applied to to arrange the mode in which the ventilators were to be constructed; and when it was found that they were unable to arrange it, the Board of Trade were applied to, and the Board of Trade referred the Company to Captain Galton as to the manner in which the ventilators were to be built. There appeared to be a great difference of opinion as to the effect produced by the ventilators since they have been erected. Some Gentlemen said they were a great nuisance and a great eyesore; whereas others said that if any impartial person would walk along the Embankment he would soon convince himself that they were no nuisance whatever. Now, he had walked along the Embankment himself, and he had certainly arrived at the conlusion that the nuisance and inconvenience caused by the ventilators had been very much exaggerated. If his attention had not been drawn to the matter, and if there had not been a discussion of it in the newspapers and else-

  1019
  where, he did not think he should have observed these ventilators at all as he walked along the Embankment. He did not mean to say that the structures in question were very beautiful; but he did say that they were not disfiguring, and they were not offensive; and when they were overgrown with ivy and other plants they would be far loss conspicuous than they were at present. He had examined them on various occasions, and he had certainly been able to see very little steam coming from them; so little, indeed, that it would hardly be noticed unless special attention was directed to it. That was all he had to say in regard to the ventilators. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), who had moved that the Bill now before the House should be read upon that day six months, did not appear to know anything about the Bill; and he (Mr. Evans) must say that it would be a very strong measure if the House rejected the Bill, which was unobjectionable in itself, because something had been done two years ago in connection with the Railway Company in applying for another Bill which was objectionable. Such a course would be most unfair towards the Company who were promoting the Bill. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, as far as he could understand him—and he had listened to the hon. Member's speech very carefully—did not mention a single objectionable feature of the Bill itself. All that the hon. Member said was that certain things had been done before, and that those things ought to be put an end to; but as to the provisions of the Bill itself, he had no objection to urge against them. Under those circumstances, all he (Mr. Evans) could say was, that if the House were to reject a Bill that was unobjectionable in itself, because something had been done that ought not to have been done two years ago, it would be a very strong measure indeed, and he hoped the House would not give its assent to such a course.
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAYdesired to say a word upon the matter, because he really thought the Motion before the House was a very unusual one, and required some notice from him in the position which he at present occupied. In point of fact, the question of the ventilators was not before the House at all.
  1020
  There was no question whatever in the Bill about the ventilators; and he hoped that now the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) had directed attention to the point which he wished to raise, he would not consider it necessary to persevere with the Motion that the Bill should not be read a second time. The Bill was drawn in the ordinary language, as far as he could see, that was contained in all Railway Bills; there was certainly no objection of such a nature as should induce the House to refuse to give a second reading to the Bill. As far as he had gathered from the speech of the hon. Member, his only objection was to the erection of the ventilators on the Embankment and in the City; but if the hon. Member were to succeed in inducing the House to reject the second reading of the Bill, by that very act he would stand in the way of bringing about that which he himself wished to do—namely, to produce that modification of, or to do away altogether with, the ventilators. It would be far better to read the Bill a second time, and then to proceed with another Motion which stood upon the Paper; because the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) would then move, after the second reading of the Bill, that an Instruction should be given to the Committee which would enable them to deal with that subject. They had excited themselves, if he were allowed to say so, somewhat prematurely upon the question of the ventilators; and he advised the House to confine themselves to the simple Motion before them, which was that the Bill, which, as far as he could see, in none of its clauses touched the ventilators, should be read a second time. He submitted to the House that there was no reason whatever why the second reading of the Bill should not be acceded to.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGjoined in the appeal of his hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) not to press the Amendment upon this occasion; and, in doing so, he felt called upon to take advantage of the opportunity for answering a few of the observations which had been made. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had tried to make out a case against the Metropolitan Baard of Works in regard to some red brick building which they had

  1021
  put up upon the Embankment. He did not think the hon. Member knew very much about the place. All that he could say was that it was only a temporary building to enable the Embankment to be lighted by electricity, and he hoped that it would not be a permanent one. His argument about destroying the Gardens and the roadway by the construction of these ventilators was a very different thing indeed from the question of this building, which was only a temporary measure in regard to the lighting of the Embankment in a better way than it had been lighted before. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had also spoken about the land; but where the hon. Member got his facts from he could not understand. He must have got them from his own imagination. The land was sold; and all he could say about it was that it was sold to the St. Stephen's Club for the purpose of enlarging their building. If they had not chosen to do so it was no fault of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He had no recollection whatever, and knew nothing about any arrangement that might have been made by the Railway Company in the event of access being required over the station to the Embankment. He thought the hon. Member made the case a great deal worse when he assumed that the Railway Company always had the intention, when they got a certain number of openings, of not utilizing them for their own purposes, but of selling them to some other persons, and then, when they had sold them, of trying to take away from the Gardens and the public the property for which they had not paid a single farthing, and for which they did not propose to pay anything. He made his hon. Friend a present of his own argument; but he did not think it would do him much good. All he could say was that when the Metropolitan Board of Works, together with the City authorities, came before the Committee, they called the most able engineers, who showed that there were plenty of means for ventilating the Railway without in any way erecting these hideous structures in the public streets and gardens. He might add that the Railway Company brought before Captain Galton 15 different kinds of ventilators, all of them hideous ones, and one of them of tremendous length,
  1022
  which was proposed to be put up opposite the House of Commons. He only wished, with all his heart, that Captain Galton had passed that one, because it would have brought home to the minds of hon. Members the destruction and disfigurement that were contemplated; and they would have seen that there were even more objectionable methods of ventilating the Railway than those which had been adopted. He hoped the House would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Arthur Otway), and that the division would not be taken upon the second reading of the Bill. He desired to show all fairness towards the Railway Company; and he thought the division ought to be taken upon the Instruction which the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) proposed to move. He certainly hoped that the House would pass that Instruction to the Committee not to allow these horrible structures to remain. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire [Mr. Hicks) would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. MONKsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to put a question to his hon. and gallant Friend who had just sat down. He was perfectly astonished to hear his hon. and gallant Friend say that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not received a large sum of money from the Railway Company.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he had never stated anything of the kind.
  MR. MONKsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend had kept back from the House a most important fact, because it appeared that the Railway Company had paid no less than £200,000 to the Metropolitan Board of Works, which covered permission to erect these ventilators.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, the hon. Member was entirely wrong.
  MR. MONKsaid, that sum was paid for the making of the Railway, involving, as he had supposed, leave to construct these ventilators.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he was entirely in the hands of the House; and if it was the opinion of the House that he should withdraw the Amendment—["No!"]—he should be ready to do so, on the understanding that the dis-

  1023
  cussion would be taken upon the Instruction to be moved afterwards by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). On that understanding he would ask leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment. As ho had stated when he moved the rejection of the Bill, he had been placed under the necessity of moving that Amendment simply from the fact that there was nobody in the House at the time the second reading was first moved to stop the further progress of the Bill. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? ["No!"]
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that upon that question he wished to make a remark in reference to something that had fallen from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Evans). He was glad to hear from the hon. Member that when the Bill was before the Committee, the erection of these ventilators was strongly opposed by the City of London; because it had been made a charge against the City that they had allowed the Bill to pass without opposition.
  MR. EVANSsaid, the statement he had made was that the City and the Metropolitan Board of Works were both heard.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the erection of the ventilators was opposed by the City of London, in concert with the Metropolitan Board of Works; and he wished to emphasize the fact that the Bill was passed by the House in spite of the opposition of the City and of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Against the wishes of both of those Bodies the House allowed these ventilators to be erected without any attempt to prevent it. the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) seemed to think that the ventilators were no disfigurement. He did not know whether the hon. Member ever went East from that House, because he was satisfied, from his own experience, that any hon. Member who walked from the House to Waterloo Bridge would find that the Embankment was very much spoilt by the ventilators; and, having occasion to travel very frequently by the Railway, he could not find that any inconvenience experienced from the bad ventilation of the line had been remedied by the course taken by the Railway Company.
  MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he had no wish to detain the House; but there were one or two points upon which he desired to say a word. It was said to be the desire of the Railway Company that the line should be properly ventilated; but the highest authorities almost universally concurred, whatever the opinion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) might be, that, practically, for the purposes of ventilation, these blow-holes were of no use. He also believed there was a general concurrence of opinion that it was most desirable that the public who used the Gardens, and passed along the roadway, should not be annoyed by the offensive fumes which were more or less throughout the day emitted from the ventilators. But the whole question which underlaid the matter was a very much larger question than that of the ventilators, and from that question the public would not be drawn aside. He would like to ask the Representatives of the Railway Company why, in erecting these ventilators, they took the public ground at all? Why did they not take land which belonged to private individuals? There was ample accommodation for them on such land. Why, for instance, should they not have gone to Whitehall Gardens? The reason why there was such a strong feeling in the matter was, that the Railway Company had practised upon the public something in the nature of a fraud. They had taken what belonged to the public, and they had not paid them for it. He hoped the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) would withdraw the Amendment, and that the issue would be taken on the question about to be raised by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). Although, as a general rule, it was undesirable that the House should reverse a decision given by a Private Bill Committee only two years ago, he thought, in tins instance, the House was justified in taking the strongest possible measures for the protection of the public against what might be regarded in the nature of a swindle upon the ratepayers of this great Metropolis.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, it appeared to him desirable, if there was any hon. Member present who was competent to speak on behalf of the Railway Company, that he should give the House some information as to what they pro-

  1025
  posed to do in reference to the ventilators. In that case the Motion might be withdrawn; but, if not, and if no offer was made on the part of the Railway Company, he did not see why they should not proceed with the Motion.
  MR. CROPPERwished to say one word in reply to the remarks of hon. Members who opposed the second reading of the Bill. In the first place, it was said by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) that, in the opinion of the very highest authorities, these ventilators were of no use in relieving the tunnel of foul air; but immediately afterwards the hon. Member said that the fumes arising from the ventilators were perceived by persons walking above. The assertion that a swindle had been committed by the Railway Company was simply outrageous. The Railway Company brought in a Bill, which went before Select Committees of both Houses, each of which considered the proposals contained in it. The question then went before an eminent engineer—Captain Galton—and everything was done in a fair and open way, the result being that the erection of the ventilators was sanctioned. He could not help thinking that this great Metropolis was immensely indebted to the Railway Company for the services it rendered to the public, and the House ought to bear with them. There was evidently some misapprehension as to the nature of the ventilators; and he thought if hon. Members would only go and look at them, they would not consider them to be the deformities they had been described. He had inspected them himself, and had travelled underneath them; and ho was convinced that the small eyesore they were was insignificant in comparison with the great advantage they conferred upon the millions who made use of the Railway. Surely it was not too much to give up a few yards of space in order to preserve the health of 30,000,000 of people who were travelling down below. So far as the smoke was concerned, he was satisfied that the steamboats upon the Thames produced far more, and made a much more offensive smell.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  MR. MARRIOTTsaid, that, in rising to move the Instruction which, stood in his name in regard to the Metropolitan District Railway Bill, he fully agreed that the House ought never lightly, and without good cause, to reverse its policy or repeal an Act it had recently passed. But, while he laid down that principle, he would also submit another proposition to the House—namely, that if the House, or a Committee of the House, had made a mistake they ought not to be above repairing it. That House was not absolutely infallible, and if it did make a mistake it alone could rectify it. The House was very much influenced by precedent; and in this case there were precedents, both of a Public Act and of a Private Act, to show that on occasion the House would reverse its policy. In the year 1854 a Bill was passed for regulating the sale of beer and other liquors on the Lord's Day. It was the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 79. In the year after—1855—that Act was repealed by the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 118, and the ground stated in the Preamble was that the Act had been found to be attended with inconvenience to the public. All he submitted was that if the Act of Parliament which had been passed allowing these ventilators to be erected had been found to work substantial inconvenience to the public, then it was clearly the duty of the House to step in— not in a vindictive spirit, nor with any desire to impose a fine on the Railway Company, but in order to do justice to all parties concerned by reversing their former decision. He did not think the House, at the present moment, was fully in possession of all the facts of the case. He was happy to find that there were hon. Members present who were on the Committee which passed the Bill, and which allowed these ventilators to be erected. He had said just now that there were two Acts of Parliament which established precedents. He had given the precedent of a Public Act which told very much, he thought, in favour of the course he was now asking the House to adopt; and he would now give the precedent of a Private Act, or rather of two Private Acts, one of them passed in 1879 and the other in 1881. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Evans) was, he believed, the Chairman of both Committees by whom those Acts were passed,

  1027
  He should be very sorry to say one word that was disrespectful towards the Committee who passed the Bill to which so much objection was now taken. He had no desire to join in any declaration, as was done on a former night, against the tribunal of Select Committees. He believed that Select Committees, in the long run, were most excellent tribunals, and that all the points which were raised before them received justice at their hands; but Select Committees might make a mistake sometimes. The ventilators in Victoria Street on the Thames Embankment, and in Queen Victoria Street, were erected under the Act of 1881. Before the Select Committee in that year there appeared the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Corporation of London, the Benchers of the Inner Temple, and the Vestry of St. George's to oppose. They called as witnesses Colonel Heywood, Sir Frederick Bram-well, Sir Joseph Bazalgette, and other independent engineers, who all gave evidence that there were plenty of other means of ventilation, and that these blow-holes would not ventilate the Railway properly. The Railway Company only called their own engineer, and nobody else. The Railway Company asked for other powers, besides the erection of these ventilators in the public streets; and he wished to call the attention of the House specially to this—that they asked for compulsory powers to take land belonging to private individuals, and also power to take a tunnel close to the new City of London School on the Embankment, which ran underneath from the Embankment alongside of the Railway. That tunnel belonged to the Corporation of London, and the Railway claimed power to take it over by agreement, or on the payment of a proper sum by way of compensation. He did not wish to say a word against the Committee who gave these powers. But what did they do? That was the important part of the matter. They allowed these ventilators to be made on the public ground. They allowed the District Railway to obtain power to purchase certain property belonging to private individuals, and especially this tunnel belonging to the City of London; but they prohibited them from touching the Temple Gardens, which were private property, or taking any land belonging to the Crown, or to the Office of Works;
  1028
  because if they had done so they would have gone through the gardens of the Duke of Buccleuch, and of several other wealthy men who inhabited the houses looking upon the Embankment. Then, what he had to say was this—that the Committee gave the Railway Company power to plunder the public, while they protected private individuals. He should be sorry to see the Gardens of the Inner Temple, which happened to be in front of his own Chambers, spoilt; and he was grateful to the Benchers for having opposed the proposal, and for having opposed it successfully. But he must ask, why were the Benchers of the Inner Temple, and the Duke of Buccleuch and persons who happened to live in Whitehall Gardens, to be spared, while the public gardens and highways were handed over to the Railway Company free and without cost? After the passing of this Act, what took place? the Railway Company made overtures to the Metropolitan Board of Works for the erection of these ventilators. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) said that the Metropolitan Board of Works held them at arm's length. Some remarks had been made in regard to the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works not having opposed the Bill. The fact was they did oppose it from the beginning in every possible way they could. There were only two ways in which they had not opposed it. They did not hold a public meeting in Hyde Park, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works did not march a mob down to Trafalgar Square with a drum and fife band. Putting away that class of agitation, they did everything they legitimately could to oppose the Bill. Then the hon. Member for Glasgow said they held the Railway Bill at arm's length. Now, what did they do? The Railway Company said—" We want 15 or 16 of these ventilators; will you allow us to put them up by agreement?" The reply was—" Of course not; we do not want one! "The Railway Company thereupon took the matter before Captain Galton, who cut the number down by probably more than one-half. If he had allowed many more the Railway Company would have simply disfigured the whole of the land, and especially the neighbourhood of the House of Commons. If Captain Galton had only

  1029
  allowed the Company to place one just in front of that House, hon. Members passing in and out of the House would have been able to appreciate the nuisance created. The award of Captain Galton was given in February, and what had the Metropolitan District Railway Company been doing all the time? They knew what would happen when the ventilators were once seen, and Parliament became acquainted with what was going on; therefore, if they did not actually proceed with the construction of the ventilators before the award was given, they took great care to shoot them up before the House met. Immediately after the award was given they were at work night and day in getting the ventilators erected. They were of opinion that if they made it a fait accompli, Parliament would probably in that case not interfere. He hoped, however, that that fact would not prevent the House from giving the Instruction which he proposed to move. The ground of complaint against the District Railway Company was this. They said they had the interest of the travelling public at heart; that so many thousands of persons passed over the line every day; and that they wanted to make the air pure for them. His answer to that was—"You did not want to make it pure as long as it would cost you a penny; but you will do it for nothing if you can." He had absolute proof in support of that assertion. The Railway Company obtained power to take certain private lands belonging to private individuals. Mr. Hubbard, junior, was the owner of a house near Eaton Square, which was occupied for the purposes of the Shoe Black Brigade, and was used in housing a number of boys. That gentleman received notice from the Railway Company, under the Act of 1881, that the House would be required for the purposes of those ventilators. When the notice was received Mr. Hubbard looked about for a now house for the Shoeblack Brigade, and, having obtained one, he vacated the premises the Railway Company required. He had since had the empty house upon his hands. He applied to the General Manager of the Railway Company to know when they were going to take it off his hands, and they requested him to see their solicitor. He went to the solicitor, and ho was then told that the solicitor could give him no information, but he
  1030
  must go to the General Manager, and the Railway Company were now applying for an extension of time for taking the land. Then, again, the tunnel close to the City of London School simply wanted a hole digging into it in order to provide a means of ventilation; but the tunnel would have to be paid for, and consequently the work was not done, and the Company had applied for extra time in regard to it as well. There were other instances in which land applicable to the purposes of ventilation was passed over, because the Company would not spend a farthing on land if they could help it, or if they could get it at the public expense. There was a more remarkable fact still. He had told the House that he would give them a precedent from a Private Bill, and that precedent was a Bill passed at the instigation of this very Company. In the year 1879 the Company got power under the 13th section of their Bill to make ventilators, and they also got power to make a new street, running from Trinity Square and Tower Hill to the King William Statue, at the foot of London Bridge. They were to make a railway under the street, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were to contribute a sum towards the making of the street. The Railway Company met the Metropolitan Board, and asked them—"How much are you going to give for the new street? "The Metropolitan Board said—" We will not give you anything if you are going to have ventilators in the new street, and therefore we will make a condition. We are quite willing to give £500,000—half-a-million of money—for the new street; but we will not have ventilators in it, under the 13th section of the Bill." The Railway Company agreed to take the £500,000. They came to the House of Commons, and last year an Act was passed, the 8th section of which said—
  "Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1879, or in other Acts, relating to the Railway Company, no opening or shaft for ventilation shall be made in any part of the new street, except with the consent in writing of the Board or of the Commissioners of Sewers."
  Therefore, the position of the matter was this. In the year 1879, having taken power to make ventilators and blow-holes in the streets, and requiring money from the Metropolitan Board to make a new street, they took the money

  1031
  and brought in a Bill repealing the Act of 1879. Now, if the new street was not to be defaced, why should the old ones be defaced? He did not know what were the artistic tastes of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson); but he would take these ventilators singly. Take, for instance, the one in Victoria Street, near the Station. It was a perfect nuisance. There was another close to the Westminster Palace Hotel in Tothill Street. It was an intolerable nuisance to the coffee-room of the hotel, but not one farthing in the shape of compensation could be claimed for it. Why was this? At the very place it was constructed the Railway Company had land of their own, which they sold to the proprietors of the Aquarium for a very large sum, and then they utilized a public street for their own purposes. The Broad Sanctuary promised to be one of the handsomest sites in London when the fine proportions of Westminster Hall were exposed, and it had just been ornamented by the addition of the statue of the Earl of Beaconsfield. Others might follow, and yet one of these suggestive structures had been put up there to destroy the appearance of the whole. The ventilator on the Embankment was, to his mind, the least nuisance of all, because the roadway was wide, and there was plenty of room; but the ventilator was only 200 feet from a Station, and at this moment the Railway Company were covering over the Station at Westminster Bridge, and were appropriating a larger area for building purposes than was required for the ventilators. The working classes of the Metropolis largely used the Embankment; and he thought the air they got in the Gardens was of more advantage to them than travelling in the tunnel. The Gardens were crowded in the summer time, and he hoped the working classes would be trained to admire them and make use of them. But they could not pass through the Gardens now without perpetually seeing jets of smoke coming out of the ventilators, and if they had a nose their nose could not help being offended. But the worst structure of all was that in Queen Victoria Street. Queen Victoria Street was necessarily a narrow street, because the value of property in that part of London was enormous, and the expense of acquiring it so
  1032
  great that the authorities of the City could not make it wider than it was. Nevertheless, the Company had actually had two ventilators put up—one 40 feet long and 6 feet wide, and another 20 feet long by 12 feet wide. In point of fact, this Railway Company had entirely destroyed the whole street for traffic, and had obtained the use of it absolutely free of cost. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow asserted that the Instruction was proposed in a vindictive spirit. He did not think the hon. Member could have read the Instruction, because it said that the ventilators were to be removed on such terms as the Committee might think reasonable. It did not even say that the Railway Company were to reinstate the property themselves. The Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London would be able to appear before the Committee, and the Committee might say a mistake had been made. He did not think the Railway Company should bear the cost of it; but the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London ought to pay for the reinstatement of this property into its original condition. Considering that this street improvement had cost more than £2,000,000, the City of London, he was satisfied, would be glad to pay all that was necessary to protect the property, upon which so much had been spent, from being completely destroyed. He trusted that this Instruction would be passed. It simply sought to give the Committee power to reconsider the matter, not vindictively or in the nature of imposing a fine, but in order to protect the Thames Embankment and this new street from being spoilt. He did not know whether hon. Members had read a speech delivered by the Chairman of the Railway Company (Mr. Forbes) the other day. Mr. Forbes, in that speech, seemed to regard the House of Commons as a piece of clay, and himself as the potter who was to mould it. Mr. Forbes was no respector of persons, and he took a fling at the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), whom he twitted with moving in the matter for the sake of his constituents. Now, he (Mr. Marriott) thought that a Member of Parliament owed as much to his constituents as the Chairman of a Railway Company did to his shareholders. Mr. Forbes had the unparalleled audacity to lecture no less a personage than the Pre-

  1033
  sident of the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Marriott) was not himself a slavish follower of the President of the Board of Trade; but when the President of the Board of Trade applied to the Railway Company the word at which Mr. Forbes took so much objection, he could only say that if the right hon. Gentleman had looked the dictionary through he could not have found a more appropriate one, when he said that the conduct of the Railway Company was "outrageous." The conduct of the Railway Company, represented by Mr. Forbes, was an outrage upon the House of Commons, and in many respects an outrage upon common decency. He begged leave to move the Instruction which stood in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it "be an Instruction to the Committee to which the said Bill is referred, that, provided the Standing Orders have either been complied with or dispensed with, they have power to insert in the said Bill a Clause making it compulsory upon the Metropolitan District Railway Company to pull down the ventilators, now erected or in course of erection in Tothill Street, Broad Sanctuary, Victoria Street, the Thames Embankment and Gardens, and in Queen Victoria Street, under the award of Captain Galton, and to reinstate the said streets and gardens, upon such terms as may seem reasonable to the Committee."—(Mr. Marriott.)
  MR. ANDERSON,in rising to move the Amendment which stood in his name, said, he did not intend to trouble the House with another speech; but there were one or two points which he felt called upon to allude to. He understood the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) to state, in the first place, that much as had been said in favour of the ventilators they were of no use as ventilators, and yet in the very next breath the hon. Member stated that the smoke and steam which came from them very much annoyed the people in the Gardens outside. [An hon. Member: Quite true.] But both assertions could not be true, because everything that went up the ventilators must tend to relieve the ventilation of the tunnel, and, therefore, the hon. Member had over-proved his case. It did not require a great engineer to show that there was no other means of ventilation except by creating currents, and artificial currents could not be created except by steam power. The question was, how were they to get that power? And
  1034
  if they were to depend upon artificial currents the result would be to compel the Company to establish air currents driven by steam power, and there must, consequently, be stationary steam-engines and high chimneys vomiting forth smoke, which would be considered a far greater nuisance to the public than anything they were proposed to remedy. The hon. and learned Member who spoke last said they were damaging the roadways and the Gardens above; but he (Mr. Anderson) contended that the Railway below, as a passage for the people, was of infinitely more value than the streets above. Thousands of person a travelled down below for each individual who travelled above. In point of fact, it was in the interest of the public, who used the Railway for travelling purposes, that he proposed this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the ventilators on the Embankment having been sanctioned by the House after full investigation of the facts by one of its Committees, and in order to promote the health and comfort of the millions who are travelling by the Underground Railway, the House declines, on mere ex parte statements, to upset the previous decision by an Instruction that would appear vindictive, as given on a Bill not relating to the subject,"— (Mr. Anderson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that as this was a matter in which he took some interest, he hoped the House would permit him to say a few words in order to explain why it was he gave his support to the Instruction moved by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). It was quite true that two years ago the Railway Company obtained the power now complained of—with the consent of the public in a certain sense—to make these ventilators. It might, therefore, be said that the public had no right to complain; but he ventured to say that the public had not been aware of what was taking place. He himself occupied a position of some importance in relation to public improvements; but he was totally unaware of what was being done. He did not know of the decision of the Com-

  1035
  mittee until it was given, because neither the Metropolitan Board of Works, nor the City of London, had applied to him for assistance. He very much regretted that the Metropolitan Board did not think it right to appeal to the House against the decision come to by the Committee. He had been under the impression that as the matter had been referred to an arbitrator, no arbitrator would be found who would exercise his discretion so unwisely as to permit the construction of these ventilators; and he believed if the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had appealed to the feeling of the House it would have been in his favour; and, so far as he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was personally concerned, he should certainly have endeavoured to use all the official influence he possessed for the purpose of supporting his hon. and gallant Friend on such an occasion, in inducing the House to undo the mistake which had been committed. It was not until the autumn of last year that he heard, for the first time, of what was intended. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works then applied to him for assistance; and he thought it his duty to go before the arbitrator and explain, in the strongest manner he could, the injury which he felt would be done to the public interest by the erection of ventilators. He asked the House to consider the difference between the relations of the Metropolitan Board of Works in regard to public Gardens—such as those upon the Embankment—and the relation of the First Commissioner of Works towards the Royal Parks. If such a thing had been proposed in reference to the Royal Parks, he, as First Commissioner of Works in respect of Crown property, would have had an absolute veto in the interests of the public against the encroachment of a Railway Company or any other person who endeavoured to invade the Royal Parks. No interest or property of the Crown in the Royal Parks could be taken away, even by an Act of Parliament, without the consent of the Crown, and no Committee of the House could overrule the Crown in this matter. As Representative of the Crown, therefore, his veto was absolute and conclusive. Without such a veto, the First Commissioner of Works would not be able to preserve the Royal Parks from
  1036
  the continual attempts which were made to invade the rights of the Crown. The Gardens upon the Thames Embankment were quite as important as the Royal Parks; but the Metropolitan Board of Works had no equivalent power of veto over the Embankment. There were nearly 4,000,000 of inhabitants in London; but if they came before a Select Committee their wishes were liable to be overruled by a body consisting of four Members of the House of Commons, who would probably have no special knowledge of the subject. Now, he ventured to say that that was not as it ought to be, and that far greater deference ought to be paid by Committees of the House to the opinions of those who represented the ratepayers of the Metropolis; and for this reason he thought that a grave mistake was made in 1881. He entirely concurred in all that had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott), that great injury had been done by the erection of those ventilators to the Thames Embankment Gardens, to Parliament Square, Queen Victoria Street, and other places; and he believed it would be wise to refer the matter again to another Committee of the House. He sincerely hoped that a new Committee would overrule the decision come to by the Committee of 1881. In taking this course, no hardship was contemplated to be done to the Railway Company. After all, the Railway Company only did what was within their right; and if a mistake had been made, the Committee would take it into their consideration, and provide that due and ample compensation should be given to the Railway Company in respect to any expense to which they might be put by the action of Parliament. At the same time, he believed that a grave mistake had been made, and he ventured to hope that it was not too late to rectify it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there was one point in the speech which had just been delivered which was open to comment—namely, that the case, as made out by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works, contained no argument to justify the conclusion arrived at. He wished to point out the extraordinary position which the First Commissioner of Works appeared to occupy. The right hon. Gentleman told them that although, in his official capacity, he had taken the greatest interest

  1037
  in the Embankment, that interest was not sufficient to enable him to know what was being done in the House of Commons. Surely in his official capacity the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made himself informed as to the proceedings of the Select Committee, and if he objected to the decision they arrived at, he ought to have opposed it. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Metropolitan Board of Works had resisted the decision of the Committee he would have supported them. But why should not the right hon. Gentleman have taken the initiative, especially when he admitted that he was officially connected with the matter?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, ho had not stated that he was officially concerned in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked if he was to understand that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was made purely in a private capacity? If so, the whole speech was altogether inappropriate. What could the right hon. Gentleman mean about having a veto in regard to the public Parks? Turning from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to the speech of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Marriott), the hon. and learned Member began by saying that he had considerable respect for the Committee which arrived at the decision he wished to overthrow. He was glad his hon. and learned Friend had respect for the Committee, because they never could have guessed it from his speech. His hon. and learned Friend was not content with differing from the decision of the Committee, but he actually brought an accusation against it of a kind that had never been brought against a Private Bill Committee of the House. He deliberately accused the Committee which sat on this matter of having been afraid to deal with the property of a wealthy Corporation and of wealthy individuals, and of having turned their attention to the property of the public only. His hon. and learned Friend said that the Committee were afraid to touch the Temple Gardens, or the property of the Duke of Buccleuch, and therefore they contented themselves with appropriating the public property.
  MR. MARRIOTT: I did not say it in that way. I said, as a matter of fact, they did not.
  MR. A. J.BALFOURsaid, he thought the criticisms he had made were amply justified by the facts of the case. Perhaps the House would now allow him to explain the history of this Bill. The Temple Gardens were not touched simply for this reason. The Metropolitan District Railway Company had promised, when their line was originally made, to respect the property of the Benchers of the Temple, and it was on that condition that the Benchers of the Temple withdrew their resistance to the original Bill of the Company. He was speaking from recollection, but he thought he was right. As to the Duke of Beccleuch, the question of interfering with his property never came before the Committee at all. There was no proposal to do it; and his hon. and learned Friend knew enough of the conduct of Private Bill Business to be aware that it was not for the Committee to suggest that the private property of A or B should be taken, when no such suggestion was made by the parties who appeared before them. He would pass now to the general merits of the question, upon which he intended to be very brief. He knew no spectacle which, on the whole, was less edifying than that of the British public in one of its artistic moods. They would allow the most monstrous things to be done by their Representatives and by private individuals, and never say a word. But somebody read an article in a newspaper, an agitation immediately sprang up, and the inhabitants of the Metropolis suddenly discovered that they were more sensitive in regard to the beauties of Art than any other people in the Kingdom; and, on behalf of the British public, it was felt to be the duty of such 13odies as the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works to take up a prominent position in such matters. It certainly amused him to hear the Representatives of the City say that their delicate susceptibilities were offended by these ventilators, when he recollected that they had only recently pulled down that magnificent work of Sir Christopher Wren at Temple Bar, which, at this moment, was put by in some back-yard, and had stuck up in its place a most extraordinary abomination. Nor did he think that the Metropolitan, Board of Works were much better. He recollected perfectly well that it was only by a threat of determined resistance on

  1039
  the part of that House, that the Metropolitan Board of Works, with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) at their head, did not destroy the Portico of that magnificent Church of Saint Mar-tin-in-the-Fields, at Trafalgar Square. When he looked at those astonishing houses of portentious vulgarity which they had allowed to be constructed on their land at Northumberland Avenue and elsewhere, he really was amazed at the face with which the Metropolitan Board came down to the House and expressed their horror of the unoffending brick erections which had been placed upon the Embankment for the ventilation of the Railway Tunnel. Ho would tell his hon. and learned Friend what it was that destroyed the beauty of the Thames Embankment, and, he was afraid, would ever destroy it. The Embankment was for ever destroyed beyond redemption by that enormous erection, the Charing Cross Railway Station, and the hideous Girder Bridge which connected it with the other side of the river. Had his hon. and learned Friend ever made the least effort to remedy that great blot as regarded the action of Parliament in that matter? Ho (Mr. Balfour) was influenced by no love of the Railway; but he confessed to having a certain aversion towards these two powerful Corporations—the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London. The interests, however, for which he pleaded at that moment were not the interests of the Railway, but the interests of the millions who travelled by it. One hon. Member in one sentence asserted that these ventilators did no good, and in the next he stated that the fumes which were emitted from it were most offensive to the people who used the Gardens upon the Embankment. He failed to see how the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) could reconcile these two statements. Certainly what came out, if there had been no ventilators, must have remained in. All the sulphurous fumes now emitted by the engines on that Railway must come out some time or other. They did not congeal in the tunnel, but they came out and polluted the air some time or other. The only difference was, whether they were to be be let out before they suffocated the 30,000,000 of people who used the Railway? Had hon. Members reflected what
  1040
  it was to say that 30,000,000 people travelled annually by a Railway? It meant, roughly speaking, that nearly 100,000 persons a-day travelled by it; that more than twice as many individuals travelled by that Railway per day as all the people, man, woman, and child, of the borough of Northampton, in whose interests they were so anxious to legislate The House was asked to legislate now for the people who drove about the Embankment in their carriages, and the roughs who lounged about it at night. He did not moan to say that they had not got interests which ought to be protected; but he did say that the interests of the public, those interests, which were increasing every day as the suburbs increased, and as the means of connection between London and the outlying districts were getting more and more gorged, required their first care and consideration. It was, therefore, in the interests of the public at large that he hoped the House would refuse this Instruction to the Committee, which was not only infringing the well-established practice of Parliament, but doing something that would materially injure the very large and important body of people living in the Metropolis. He therefore hoped that the House would agree to the Amendment.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, the real difficulty he had in arriving at a conclusion upon this question was that which had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and which had been commented upon also by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott), as to the impropriety of interfering with the authority of their Select Committees or of reversing their action. He might have some difficulty in supporting the Instruction if the action of the new Committee were likely to entail additional cost upon the Railway Company; but he understood, from the observations of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, that that difficulty would not exist. If it did not exist, then as to the merits of the case he had no manner of doubt whatever. It was true that he occupied the position of one of those for whom so much sympathy had been expressed. He was one of the 30,000,000 who, day by day, travelled by this Railway; and he had certainly tried, during the last few weeks, with some anxiety to ascertain

  1041
  the effect their ventilators was producing, and whether the air was now much purer or better. But he confessed that he had not noticed very much change. He did not think that the air was very much purer; and, therefore, as a matter of fact, these ventilators, as they were called, had not been a success, and the arguments which were based on the interests of the millions who travelled underneath might be dismissed from the consideration of the House, because the millions who travelled underneath were not of opinion that the ventilators were doing much good. As to the construction of the ventilators, a great deal had been said before the Committee; but he believed that the Railway Company adopted them, because they were cheapest, in preference to other methods of ventilation which would have rendered the air perfectly pure. In the Mont Cenis Tunnel the air was kept perfectly pure, and air-engines had proved an entire success in the State of New York, and in other parts of the world. Any person who was acquainted with the first elements of the science of ventilation knew that an engineer could easily have constructed channels from the tunnel itself, and carried them up alongside the houses by means of air currents, by means of which a draught would have been produced which did not now exist. Again, and beyond all that, anyone familiar with the ventilation of collieries must know that there were many methods by which, if the Railway Company had chosen to incur the expense, and to show that they had the interests and health of the public at heart, they might have provided ventilation and kept the tunnels perfectly clear. The Railway Company were not entitled, upon any ground, to the sympathy of the House of Commons, and certainly not in the matter of these ventilators. When leave was obtained to construct this Railway, and £200,000 was paid in respect of it, what was that money paid for? It was paid for the purpose of constructing a Railway in accordance with certain plans deposited with the Metropolitan Board of Works. In those days the Railway Company were perfectly willing to place themselves, and they did so, at the feet of the Metropolitan Board as suppliants for the purpose of obtaining their consent to the construction of the Railway. If they
  1042
  had then suggested that they intended to construct these ventilators they knew perfectly well that they would never have obtained the consent of the Metropolitan Board. Therefore, no suggestion of the kind was then made. In regard to the question of ventilation itself, the Company had at that time the example of other Railways to guide them. The Metropolitan Railway had already been constructed, and the foulness of the atmosphere upon that line was notorious. The Metropolitan District Company, therefore, ought to have taken precautions to secure that proper ventilation upon their system was provided. He had only one other point, and it related to the Committee. It appeared that two of the so-called representative City authorities—namely, the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, with all the panoply of counsel, did appear before the Committee. How it was that in a matter so simple as this the Committee came to the conclusion they did he was not prepared to say. He certainly should not join in any reflection upon them; but he thought there could not be a more remarkable argument in favour of the proposition which he hoped might be made some time for the simplification of the government of London than the fact that four hon. Gentlemen, the Members for South Derbyshire (Mr. Evans), Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), and one of the Members for Cornwall, had decided upon the question whether the open spaces in London should or should not be interfered with. He should have thought it was desirable that such a matter should have been decided by the House, and perhaps much blame rested upon the Metropolitan Members for not reading carefully the clauses of every Metropolitan Bill that might be introduced in Parliament. Speaking as one of the 30,000,000 who travelled upon this Railway every day, he had come to the conclusion that the ventilators, on their own merits, were not a success; and he trusted the House would support the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott).
  Mr. W. H. SMITHwished to say a few words upon the question, and to express a hope that the House would consent to give the Instruction moved for by the hon. and learned Member

  1043
  for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). His hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who had made a most interesting and amusing speech, as ho always did when he addressed the House, had disappointed him. There was no desire on the part of those who objected to these ventilators to overrule the determination of the Committee of 1881. All they asked, on behalf of the Metropolis, was that power should be given to the new Committee appointed to consider the present Bill to rehear and retry the case. Hon. Members who hesitated to vote for this Instruction should realize what it was. It was an Instruction to the Committee that they should have power to consider the case that would be put before them by the Representatives of the Metropolis on the one hand, with full power to the Railway Company to make their case good on the other hand. There could be no reflection upon the Committee of 1881 in the Metropolis desiring a rehearing of the case at its own cost. Let it be understood that the Metropolis did not ask or suggest that the Railway Company should be put to the cost of reinstating the Gardens or roadways in their former position, or that they should suffer loss; but simply that the case should be retried, so that if it was found by the Committee before whom the whole case was to be brought that wrong had been done and that a mistake had been made, the only result would be that the costs which the Railway Company had incurred would be repaid to them, and the position of affairs would be precisely what it was before these structures were put up. He did not think it was unfair or unreasonable that the interests of the many thousand persons who used the Embankment, and who regarded it, as they regarded the Royal Parks, in the light of a breathing place, and as a necessity for the inhabitants of this great Metropolis—he did not think it was unreasonable that the interests of those people should be duly regarded by the House of Commons and the Committee, and that the whole matter should be fairly dealt with. He, for one, should regret very much if, from any feeling of sensibility or annoyance, the House should reverse the decision already arrived at improperly; but he thought the matter might be reconsidered and retried with fairness to all parties. He
  1044
  had said that he would not occupy the attention of the House at any length, and ho would, therefore, not go into a question which had been raised as to why the Railway Company could not have ventilated the line in any other way; but ho could not help remarking that some inconvenience had arisen from the decision at which the Committee had arrived. The Committee did not sanction these particular works, but said there should be ventilation, and if the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Railway Company could have arrived at an agreement, well and good; but, if not, then they left it to some third person to decide what the ventilation should be. He thought that a most inconvenient course, and probably it was one which had brought about the present agitation. If the Committee had sanctioned deliberate plans, which he thought they might have done, the House would then have understood exactly where they were, and there probably would not have been an appeal to the House to reconsider the matter. He hoped the House would consent to the Instruction which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott).
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the House was not called upon to decide between the merits of the contending parties upon this question. They were not asked to take part either with the Metropolitan District Railway Company or the Metropolitan Board of Works or the First Commissioner of Works, but to consider simply the best way of removing the enormous nuisance which had grown up so swiftly and stealthily. All they had to do now was to consider the best means of getting rid of it, because it was perfectly impossible to leave the matter as it stood. Taking the direct roadway between that House and the City, it was no exaggeration to say that the value of the space in Queen Victoria Street was equal to what it would be if paved with gold, and yet that street had been taken up, and a large amount of space had been appropriated by the Railway Company for the erection of these horrible abominations. It was at all times inconvenient to pass through that narrow street, down which there was scarcely room for more than one carriage to pass. It was hardly possible to pass through Queen Victoria Street without finding an obstruction

  1045
  where the ventilators were so placed as to leave scarcely room for two carriages. Carriages habitually did not run close to the side of the street; and now that the width of the street was reduced by the Railway Company's inclosures or chimney, it was impossible for one carriage to pass another in the same direction. Then in regard to the inclosures on the Embankment, he could conceive nothing more idiotic than the way in which these ventilators had been flanked with massive projections of granite which effectively and gratuitously took away something like two feet from the already diminished width of the street. He was of opinion that, at whatever cost, and upon whatever terms they could arrange, it was necessary that these abominations should be removed.
  MR. WIGGINsaid, he rose, not on behalf of the Railway Company, in whom he had not the slightest interest, but to say a word on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who travelled daily on this Railway. He would appeal to hon. Members in that House who were in the habit of travelling by the line, and would ask them if the atmosphere they were compelled to breathe was one which conduced to their health or comfort, seeing that they were compelled to breathe an atmosphere charged with carbonic acid gas and sulphurous fumes? He thought the House ought to do all they could to enable the Railway Company to clear the tunnel of these obnoxious and unhealthy gases. Whatever decision the House might arrive at, he hoped they would not reduce the number of ventilators, which he should prefer to see largely increased. He had nothing to say against the Company paying for them; but it was on behalf of the travellers who used the line that he asked the House not to send this question back again to a Committee. He thought they ought to stand by the decision of a Committee of the House who had done their duty well and faithfully. It would be unfair to treat any Committee in the way in which it was proposed to treat this Committee. He trusted that the House would support the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he had been a Member of the original Committee, and he wished to say a word in their defence.
  1046
  He altogether disagreed with many of the remarks which had been made. He did not think that this was a question which would best be considered by Metropolitan Members, who might be influenced by the separate and distinct interests of their constituents. Hon. Members who lived at a distance were quite as capable of judging of the merits of a Private Bill. The Committee had before them the Representatives of the City, and they heard them most patiently, and he must say the City authorities were entirely exonerated for not having done all they could to advance the supposed interests of the ratepayers; but the Committee found that there was a great want of ventilation upon the Railway, and that the Railway Company were bound to provide it. But they were not responsible, as the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) stated, for the position of the ventilators. All they had considered was the comfort of the many, and not that of the few; and, in coming to the conclusion they did, they were actuated by the feeling that what might be a private injury might be for the public advantage. He did not think the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) could tell him of a single railway that was ever made that did not inflict some injury for which no one was entitled to compensation. If these ventilators had been placed on public ground, rather than on private ground, it was Captain Galton who decided the matter. He would say, further, that the injury to the Embankment Gardens had been immensely magnified. He went over them very frequently from Charing Cross; and since the question had been agitated he had purposely watched the action of the ventilators, and he was able to say that they were by no means as injurious as they had been represented. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton said the Metropolitan Board of Works had done all they could to stop the construction of the ventilators, except by calling a meeting in the public Parks; but if they had called a meeting in the public Parks the people who attended it would have been with the Railway Company, because it was for their advantage that the ventilators were erected. As to the argument of the hon Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), that the ventilators did no

  1047
  good, how was it that so much vapour, as represented, came from them? He thought the House were not taking a dignified course in practically asking the Company to remove these ventilators, or the House would not grant them powers in a totally unconnected matter. If the ventilators were wrong, let there be some separate action on the part of Parliament in regard to them. It was not denied that this Railway was properly managed in other respects, unconnected with the question of ventilation. If there was to be an Instruction given to the Committee, the proper Instruction would be that they should inquire into the operation of the ventilation, and report upon it. That would be all very well; but the hon. and learned Member for Brighton asked that the Committee should have power to order their removal, and not to inquire fairly and impartially into their operation, and report to the House. He trusted that hon. Members would take an opportunity of looking at the ventilators for themselves, and would not accept, without investigation, the exaggerated complaints they had heard. He had himself stood by them, and had seen train after train pass by with hardly any smoke or vapour appearing from it. He desired that every Member should judge for himself, and he trusted that they would take an opportunity of doing so before anything was done. He certainly thought if that was done they would come to the same conclusion he had, that if there was anything disagreeable about the ventilators, as he did not deny there was at times, it was more than counter-balanced by the immense advantage they were to the people who used the Railway. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Brighton would modify the Amendment to this effect—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to investigate and report to the House upon the action of the ventilators." That would be a very different thing from empowering the Committee to order their removal.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, he ventured, even at that late hour, and even when the House was probably weary of the discussion, to ask for its attention for one moment. There had been a complaint against one or two of the speakers that, on the one hand, they had declared that the ventilators were
  1048
  of no use; while, on the other band, they contended that the foul air emitted from them spoilt the atmosphere of the Embankment Gardens. Now, the fact was that the ventilators did emit those horrible fumes, and spoil the atmosphere in the Gardens; and, at the same time, he would observe that experience had proved the ventilators themselves to be absolutely useless, and that they did not ventilate the Railway. He was speaking in the presence of engineers, and he nevertheless ventured to say that the very idea of ventilating this Railway in the manner now adopted was absurd. The only way in which to ventilate the Railway was by the erection of long shafts to draw away the foul air and bring in the fresh air necessary to replace it. That was the only scientific principle The proper way of doing this was not merely to open a hole in the top of the tunnel, and then to expect that the foul air would go out; but to erect a shaft somewhat conveniently situated for the purpose, and to make an opening into the tunnel half-way between two Stations, and by means of a tube to connect this ventilator in the Railway with that shaft, and then to draw out the foul air by means of agencies similar to those employed in mines. Fresh air would then flow in at the terminal openings and the foul gases be delivered into the upper air above the shaft. That would have been a complete solution of the difficulty, and the House would not have been placed in what he was bound to say was the somewhat undignified position it occupied at the present moment. ["Divide!"] It was very rarely he addressed the House, and he hoped he might be allowed to say a few words without interruption. There was only one other point he wished to comment upon. When the Underground Railway was first constructed, they were told that the Railway Company intended to introduce a new principle in locomotives, and that there would be locomotives which would consume their own smoke, and condense their own steam, without pouring out into the air carbonic and sulphurous acid gases, and even the more deleterious carbonic oxide. They promised to relieve the travelling public from the unpleasantness they would otherwise suffer in consequence of inhaling these obnoxious gases. But what had been the result? For some

  1049
  time the Metropolitan Railway was kept comparatively clear of these foul gases, with hardly any extraneous means of ventilation being provided. The Metropolitan Line was originally much less disagreeable to passengers than it was now with all its ventilators. The reason was obvious. The Railway Company would no longer take the trouble or incur the cost of providing engines that would do the work without being a nuisance; and the more holes of this kind the Legislature allowed them to make, the more would they ask to convert their underground tunnels into open cuttings, and the worse would be the result, and the fouler the air above them. He thought they ought to be compelled to return to their original condition, which was the condition upon which Parliament gave permission for the construction of the Railway. They might now do this by the aid of other agencies than the steam locomotive; such as by the use of compound air or of electricity. The arguments which had been brought forward were sufficiently strong to induce him to vote, to compel the Railway Company, if it be possible, to go back to their original condition. He thought the supporters of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) could show that they had common sense on their side, and that the Instruction itself ought to meet with the full approval of the House.
  SIR GEORGE ELLIOTsaid, he did not like to remain silent upon a subject on which ho had a right to speak. He thought the means provided by the Railway Company for ventilating this tunnel and Railway were not adequate. All that was necessary was a simple operation—namely, the erection of long chimneys in spots little frequented by the public. The opening of ventilators of this kind, to disperse the filthy and foul atmosphere generated by the locomotives employed in working the traffic of the tunnel, was altogether insufficient for the purpose; and he remembered very well pointing that out to the engineer of the Company, who told him what he was going to do. He (Sir George Elliot) stated at the time that the ventilators would be a failure; and that instead of having these very low chimneys, or blow-holes, they ought to take off a piece of land, laterally from the Railway and erect a high chimney
  1050
  in a place where it would not be an eyesore. There would then be a ventilating power resulting from the differences of level between the Railway and the tops of the chimneys or tubes, as in the case of the shot-towers on the other side of the River. Assistance might also be procured from the action of furnaces.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 200; Noes 110: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 70.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the said Bill is referred, that, provided the Standing Orders have either been complied with or dispensed with, they have power to insert in the said Bill a Clause making it compulsory upon the Metropolitan District Railway Company to pull down the ventilators now erected or in course of erection in Tothill Street, Broad Sanctuary, Victoria Street, the Thames Embankment and Gardens, and in Queen Victoria Street, under the award of Captain Galton, and to reinstate the said streets and gardens, upon such terms as may seem reasonable to the Committee.
  Ordered, That leave be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London to appear, by their Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, before the Committee on the Bill in support of any Petition which may be presented by them respectively on the subject, notwithstanding that such Petition has boon presented after the period limited by the Standing Orders for the presentation of Petitions against Private Bills.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYasked whether ho would be in Order in now making a Motion which stood in his name upon the same subject?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if the noble Lord desired to address the House on the matter, he would be in Order in doing so.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYthen rose to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to inquire what powers, if any, the Metropolitan District Railway Company now possess enabling them to cover in or build over the open cuttings on their Railways; and, if the Company has such powers, that the Committee have power, upon the Standing Orders being complied with or dispensed with, to amend or repeal the section or sections of the Act or Acts giving such powers with such provisos and upon such terms as may seem reasonable to the Committee."
  The noble Lord said, that after the lengthened debate which had already taken place, he would not think of de-

  1051
  taining the House at any length; but he felt it his duty to move this Instruction, because it dealt with another portion of the question of this Railway different from that which had been referred to in the previous debate. In the case tried before Mr. Justice Fry, the Railway claimed to have the power to which his Instruction applied. He had no desire to discuss the legal powers of the Company at the present moment, because if the power was possessed by the Railway Company, it could not be injured by an inquiry being made into it; and if it wore not possessed, it would probably be unnecessary to legislate upon the subject. But, assuming that the Railway Company had the power, it was necessary that it should be exorcised under some proper control, because the only plea the Company could put forward for taking the public property, for the purpose of ventilating their line, was that they could not ventilate it by any other means, in consequence of its being so much in tunnel; and yet at the moment they wore appropriating the public property, they wore covering over open spaces of their own property within 200 yards of the ventilator on the Embankment, and close to that hideous erection, the ventilator in Parliament Square. It was said that these matters had nothing to do with the present Bill. That appeared to be a reason why a special Instruction should be given to the Committee, and it was not unreasonable to ask Parliament to consider under what conditions the fresh powers asked for by the Company should be granted to them. He was sure that he was only expressing the opinion of a very large number of the inhabitants of the Metropolis when he said that at the present moment, and under the present condition of affairs, the interests of the public were being sacrificed to the interests of the shareholders of the Railway Company. He begged to move the Motion which stood in his name.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to inquire what powers, i£ any, the Metropolitan District Railway Company now possess enabling them to cover in or build over the open cuttings on their Railways; and, if the Company has such powers, that the Committee have power, upon the Standing Orders being complied with or dispensed with, to amend or repeal the section or sections of the Act or Acts giving such powers with such pro-
  1052
  visos and upon such terms as may seem reasonable to the Committee.
  Ordered, That leave be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London to appear, by their Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, before the Committee on the Bill in support of any Petition which may be presented by them respectively on the subject, notwithstanding that such Petition has been presented after the period limited by the Standing Orders for the presentation of Petitions against Private Bills. — (Lord Algernon Percy.)

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, AND COURTS OF JUSTICE, AND LEGAL PROCEDURE.
  Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure have leave to print and circulate with the Votes any Amended Clauses of the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, and the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill, from time to time.—(Mr. Sclater Booth.)
QUESTIONS.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL—THE PICTURES.
  GENERAL BURNABYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Where is the picture (which was in Greenwich Hospital in 1864) of "The celebrated victory obtained by the British Fleet, under command of Earl Howe, over the French Fleet, on the glorious 1st of June 1794," and which is distinguished from any other picture by representing the death of Lieutenant Neville, of the "2nd Queen's Royals," then serving as Marines on the Fleet?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Careful inquiry has been made, and no record has been found of the picture to which the hon. and gallant Member refers having at any time formed part of the Collection at Greenwich Hospital.
  GENERAL BURNABYsaid, he should call attention to the subject on a future day.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—TYPHUS FEVER IN DUBLIN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a letter in the "Evening Mail" of the 12th instant, from which it appears that a larger number of persons caught typhus fever, in consequence of the outbreak in Jones's Court, Dublin, than was at first supposed; whether he will inquire into the truth of the allegation that the two ladies, proprietors of the

  1053
  place, caught the infection from going there, and died, and that their sister, who brought some of their belongings to her own home, also took it and died; and, whether he will cause a full inquiry to be made into the circumstances by a Local Government Inspector?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have seen the letter referred to. I had previously been aware of the allegation that the ladies who were proprietors of the tenements where the fever broke out, caught the disease by going there and died of it. But it was reported to me, upon the authority of the doctor who attended them in their last illness, that they died of pulmonary complaints. However, as the allegation is repeated, it and the several other statements in the letter to which the hon. Member has drawn attention are being further inquired into by a Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board. If the result is to show any ground to alter the opinion arrived at after the former inquiry— namely, that the disease was spread mainly by reason of concealment on the part of the families first affected, and not in consequence of the wake—I shall not hesitate to say so, and to state whether, in my opinion, there is ground for censuring any public official.

  CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, DUNDRUM — POST MORTEM EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state how many post mortem examinations took place at the Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Dundrum, within the last year and half, by whom they were made, what was the charge for each, who received the fees, and from what source were they paid; whether, in the recent case of Mr. Daid, it was stated by the resident medical officer he was killed by a large nail; whether any other medical or surgical authority concurred in or differed from that opinion; and, whether the coroner threatened to lock up the jury for the night unless they gave a verdict in accordance with his wishes?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The total number of such examinations held during the period stated was 18. Of these the first 15 were conducted by the resident physician of the asylum, the fees—one guinea in each case—being received by
  1054
  him. Two were held by that officer in conjunction with the district dispensary doctor, the fees—three guineas in each case—being shared between them. In the most recent case which has occurred the examination was conducted by the dispensary doctor alone, who received a fee of two guineas. In all cases the fees were paid by the County Treasurer on the order of the Coroner. The opinion given by the resident physician as to the cause of M'Daid's death is correctly quoted. The visiting physician, who afterwards saw the body, expressed doubt that a nail was the actual weapon used. The Coroner was not dissatisfied with the verdict itself; but he at first declined to receive with it a rider which he thought illegal, but as to the reception of which he finally yielded to the wishes of the jury. Measures have been taken by the Government for holding post-mortem examinations by other members than by the resident officer.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any truth in the rumour that it is intended to introduce considerable changes into the organisation of the higher ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, whether, having regard to the effect on zeal and efficiency often created by uncertainty, he will take a very early opportunity of announcing the designs of the Irish Government in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A Bill on this subject is in course of preparation, and will be introduced with as little delay as possible.

  THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government can give the House any information as to the Commercial Treaty which has recently been concluded between Mexico and the United States; whether that Treaty does not secure preferential treatment to American commerce; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps in the matter on behalf of the commercial interests of this Country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A Commercial Treaty has been recently sigued between the United States and

  1055
  Mexico; but the ratifications are not I exchanged, and the consideration of the subject has been put off by the United States Senate till December. It is stated that under the terms of this Treaty differential treatment is accorded on principles of reciprocity to the subjects of the two States in question. The relations between this country and Mexico are being closely watched in connection specially with commercial interests; but I am not in a position at present to make any further statement.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CASES OF MICHAEL SHEEHAN AND JOHN LINANE.
  MR. KENNYask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the decision of Majors Evanson and Irwan, special R.M.'s, at Limerick, on April 13th, in the case of Messrs. Michael Sheehan and John Linane, charged with assaulting a man named M'Grath; if it is a fact that a sentence of two months' imprisonment, with hard labour, was passed upon Sheehan and Linane was discharged; if the only evidence against Mr. Sheehan was that of M'Grath, who swore that he was assaulted by the prisoners on the road between Clonlara and Limerick on the afternoon of March 31st; if it is a fact that evidence was produced to prove that M'Grath had no sign of violence upon his person as late as 11 p.m.; that he spent the night drinking in Limerick until 11 o'clock p.m. when he was refused further drink; and that he was found next morning at 6.30 a.m. asleep outside the door of a public house; if it is a fact that M'Grath is a notorious and incorrigible drunkard, and has been fined upwards of fifty times for drunken and disorderly conduct; if Mr. Sheehan has appealed against the sentence of Majors Evanson and Irwan; and, whether, if the facts be as stated, he will recommend to the Lord Lieutenant to order that no further proceedings be taken against Mr. Sheehan?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This case was hoard and disposed of on the 13th of April, as stated in the Question; but as the magistrates' decision is now the subject of an appeal now pending in a Court of Justice, I must obviously decline to make any statement as to the facts or merits of the case.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY —THE POLICE FORCE (ARMAGH).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the county inspector, the sub-inspector, head constable, mounted constable, infantry constable, and acting constable, are all Protestants at the head quarter station, Scotch Street, Armagh; that the present county inspector, who is only in charge of the county for about six months, has during that time promoted five Protestants and only one Catholic, although the Catholic members of the force comprise about seventy per cent, of the county force; that the county inspector has within one month tranferred three Catholics out of Armagh, replacing them by two Protestants and one Catholic; that the entire Catholic force of the county is so dissatisfied with County Inspector Garrett as to be in a state bordering on insubordination or resignation; and, if an inquiry would be granted into the facts specified, and if the examination papers of the men promoted, and of the Catholic men rejected, could be submitted to an impartial tribunal?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the fact that the members of the Armagh force, mentioned are Protestants; but the hon. Member's informant has apparently omitted to tell him that there are three Roman Catholic constables serving at the same station, which, of course, has an important bearing on the apparent proportions of the members of his religion. The present County Inspector took charge in October last, and in December he held an examination; and after careful inquiry and consultation with his officers, he placed upon his promotion list the names of 48 men, of whom 26 are Roman Catholics and 22 Protestants of different denominations. He placed them in what ho believed to be their order of merit, and without for a moment considering their religious persuasions. Of these six were promoted last month, of whom five are Protestants and one a Roman Catholic. The Catholic proportion of the force is overstated in the Question. It is about 59 per cent, not 70. There are now 13 Catholics and 10 Protestants serving in the town of Armagh. During the last two months three Catholics have been transferred out of the town, and replaced

  1057
  by two Protestants and one Catholic. One of those transferred was an acting constable who, on promotion, was sent at his own request to an out station, where he could have accommodation for his family. All the transfers were made upon consideration of the claims of senior men, and with a view to accommodate them. I am happy to say that no part of the county force is in the condition described. I see no reason for directing a special inquiry into this matter, or for producing examination papers. I may state that the complaints of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary with regard to the present system of promotion were carefully inquired into by the recent Committee; and the Government hope that the recommendations of that Committee will equalize and systematize the promotion in a manner which will be satisfactory to the Force.

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—NEW GUINEA—PAPERS, amp;c.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table further Papers or Correspondence, if any, relating to New Guinea, in continuation of the Papers presented to Parliament in 1876?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir. As soon as they can be printed, I will lay on the Table of the House the Papers and Correspondence that we have at the Colonial Office in continuation of the Papers of 1876.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—ZULULAND—REPORTED FIGHTING.
  MR. A. P. EGERTONasked the Lender Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any confirmation of the report that there has recently been severe fighting between the troops of Cetewayo and those of some of the Chiefs in the Reserved Territories?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The news we have received is to the effect that the Usutu party—that is to say, the young and violent section of Cetewayo's followers—made an attack upon Usibebu on his own territory, in the north-eastern corner of Zululand. Cetewayo professes that it was done without his knowledge; but I doubt very much whether this is the truth. The House may remember that when this Chief Usibebu was, for
  1058
  various cogent reasons, left in possession of the territory over which he had been the appointed Chief, it was understood that he was both able and willing to hold his own; and this turns out to be the case, because this attack of the Usutus has been most successfully repelled, and I hope that their defeat may be a lesson to them.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHHILLasked if the attention of the Under Secretary of State had been drawn to a telegram from a correspondent of The Daily News, who was usually well informed, to the effect that Usibebu had attacked Cetewayo?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am glad that the noble Lord has given me the opportunity of saying that the correspondent in question is never well informed.

  SPAIN—HOMICIDE OF THOMAS MITCHELL, A BRITISH SUBJECT, AT MALAGA.
  MR. HENDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made with the subscription proposed to be raised, in May last year, on behalf of Mitchell, Engineer of the steamship "Tyrian," who was shot, by a Spanish sentry, at Malaga in December 1881; if he will state the amount contributed by the Spanish Government, in fulfilment of their promise; and, if he will lay the Correspondence on the subject upon the Table of the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Secretary of State has been in communication with Sir Robert Morier as to the best means of raising a fund for the relatives of the sufferer in this unfortunate case; and, after full consideration, he has come to the conclusion that it would be best that the proposed subscription should be started in this country, and I shall be glad to communicate privately with my hon. Friend on the subject. We do not, however, feel justified in incurring the expense of printing the Correspondence relating to this much-to-be-regretted incident.

  MADAGASCAR—CLAIMS OF FRANCE ON THE NORTH-WEST COAST.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government still adhere to the statements

  1059
  made by Lord Granville in his Despatch of October 7th 1882, to Lord Lyons, that—
  "Her Majesty's Government recognise the Queen of Madagascar absolute Monarch of the whole Island, and are unaware of any Treaty stipulations in virtue of which the French Government could properly claim territorial jurisdiction over any part of the mainland of Madagascar?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer to the same Question, which was put on his behalf on the 2nd instant. The position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the French claims is fully shown in the Papers already presented to Parliament.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he had repeated the Question because the noble Lord did not answer it before. As he could not obtain a simple statement from the noble Lord as to the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Sovereignty of the Island, he should repeat the Question to the Prime Minister at an early date.

  AFRICA (THE CONGO)—FRENCH ANNEXATIONS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information regarding the recent French annexations North of the Congo, and regarding the relations of Mr. Stanley and M. de Brazza?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A report reached Her Majesty's Government some days ago that the French had occupied Amloango, Black Point, to the north of the Congo, and beyond the limits of the territory claimed by Portugal. The French Government, in answer to an inquiry addressed to them by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, state that they have received no intelligence of the alleged occupation. Her Majesty's Government have no information respecting the relations of Mr. Stanley and M. de Brazza.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIERENTS—APPEALS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has had his attention drawn to the official records of the Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," with reference to
  1060
  "Appeals re Fair Pent, amp;c.;" whether he has observed that whereas the total number of Appeals lodged, up to the 31st ultimo, was 7,060, the total number heard was but 1,542, and the number withdrawn 1,013, leaving the number of Appeals not then in any way disposed of 4,505; whether he has observed that the number of Appeals not disposed of was, on the 24th Feb. 1882, 648; on the 15th April 1882, 1,181; on the 30th June 1882, 1,929; on the 31st July 1882, 2,002; on the 31st Aug. 1882, 2,626; on the 30th Sep. 1882, 2,733; on the 31st Oct. 1882, 3,281; on the 30th Nov. 1882, 3,757; on the 31st Dec. 1882, 3,843; on 31st January last 3,771; on the 28th of February last, 4,096; and, on the 31st ultimo, 4,505; and, in view of the continuous increase of arrear of business, under this head, and of the fact that the demand for judicial action is several times as great as the supply, the Government will take steps to remedy the in competency of the Irish Land Commission Court to deal with this part of its functions?
  MR. BRODRICKwished, before the Prime Minister answered the Question, to ask him, Whether the appeals were not mainly due to the hasty and ill-considered decisions of the Sub-Commissioners; and whether he would undertake that no further pressure should be put upon the Sub-Commissioners to force them to decide a larger number of cases per diem?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that he was not aware of any pressure having been put upon the Sub-Commissioners to force them to increase the number of cases decided per diem; nor was he aware that the number of appeals in the vast number of cases before the Sub-Commissioners was any proof of their decisions being either hasty or ill-considered. He could give no opinion on those subjects, and it was his duty, in the absence of information, neither to affirm nor contradict the assertions of the hon. Member. With respect to the original Question, he had no fault to find with the statement of fact, which he believed to be correct. With regard to the closing part of the Question, whether—
  "In view of the continuous increase of arrear of business, under this head, and of the fact that the demand for judicial action is several times as great as the supply, the Government

  1061
  will take steps to remedy the in competency of the Irish Land Commission Court to deal with this part of its functions?"
  he was afraid that the Government had no power, as an Executive Government, to apply any remedy to what he felt to be a serious inconvenience. As at present advised, he did not know of any remedy that could be suggested except such remedy as would require legislation. The hon. Member was in as good a position as himself to form a probably correct estimate of the difficulties which lay in the way of fresh legislation, in addition to the questions already before the House. Therefore, although he could hold out no immediate prospect of legislation, he could assure the hon. Member that the subject was one which would demand the careful consideration of the Government.

  UNITED STATES—DYNAMITE CONSPIRACIES.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have made any communication to the American Government with respect to conspiracies formed in America against life and property in England; and, whether any communications were made in 1881, upon the subject, to the American Government; and, if so, whether the Papers can be produced? The right hon. Gentleman said he gave Notice of the Question for Thursday, and it was in that day's list by mistake. If the Prime Minister desired it, he would postpone the Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think there is any reason to suppose that our position will be altered on Thursday; and I think I have only to refer to the answer which was recently given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who stated that he did not think it would be for the public interest that, at this moment, we should make any communication or statement on the subject. I have only to repeat that answer.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE TENANTS COMPENSATION BILL AND THE LONDON CORPORATION BILL.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whe-
  1062
  ther, in view of the urgent necessity of legislation with respect to compensation to tenants for unexhausted improvements, Her Majesty's Government will give priority to the "Tenants' Compensation Bill" over the "London Corporation Bill" in arranging the business of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to this Question, I am not prepared to treat it as a subject of precedence between the Tenants' Compensation Bill and the London Corporation Bill. I have nothing to say upon that subject at the present time; but what I have to say is that the introduction of the one measure is evidently a different and a much simpler matter than the introduction of the other measure, the Tenants' Compensation Bill not being, in all probability, a matter of great complexity or requiring any great fulness of detail upon the stage of introduction. Therefore, I do not think it will be necessary for us long to delay the introduction of the Bill of Compensation. Of course, that does not imply giving it the first place on the Orders of the Day.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. SCHREIBERwished to put a Question to the Prime Minister of which he had given him private Notice. Having referred to Hansard for an authentic report of the words used by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War in reference to the comparative unimportance of the Parliamentary Oaths Act (1866) Amendment Bill, he should wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he was still in the position to disclaim, on the part of the noble Marquess, the statement which he had attributed to him the other day? The words of the noble Marquess to which he desired especially to call attention were as follows:—
  "It is always a matter of discretion with the Government what measures ought to be named in the Speech from the Throne. It is not usual to include measures which are not considered to be of general or great importance; and this Bill is certainly one which we do not consider to be of great importance, or worthy to find a place among the measures usually enumerated in the Queen's Speech."—(3 Hansard, [276] 120.)
  He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, now that those words had

  1063
  been brought to his notice, he adhered to his declaration of the previous day?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member has given me what he terms private Notice of this Question, and I must say that in this case the term private Notice seems to require some authentic exposition. On my entrance into this House this evening the doorkeeper placed in my hand the Notice to which the hon. Member refers, and since then I have not seen my noble Friend, who is not in the House, and the matter remains exactly in the same position as it was when the hon. Gentleman addressed me before and without Notice. That is to say, I am required at this time to say what were the words used by the noble Marquess in a speech which he made in this House while I was out of it. In these circumstances, I would venture to refer the hon. Member to my noble Friend himself; or, if he would prefer it, I will communicate with my noble Friend.
  MR. SCHREIBERwished to state that, in the note he had sent to the right hon. Gentleman, giving him Notice of the Question, he furnished a report of the words he had quoted.

MOTION.
  STEAMSHIP "LEON XIII."

    RESOLUTION.
    DR. CAMERON,in rising to call attention to the case of the "Leon XIII.;" and to move a Resolution, said, this case was one of very considerable international importance. The Leon XIII. was one of a Spanish line of steamers trading between Liverpool and the Philippine Islands. She carried as engineers John Wardrop, of Glasgow; John Hodgson, of Birkenhead; and James Baker, of Southampton. They were men of character and reputation, men who had served on board such lines as the Inman and the Cunard—and Wardrop had been appointed by the builders of the vessel, Messrs. Elder of Glasgow, as their guarantee officer on her first trip to the East. In December, 1881, when off Suez, the boiler tubes of the vessel sprang a leak, owing—the engineers said—to the unsuitable coal she was using, and she was obliged to put into Aden for repairs. A survey was held,
    1064
    and the surveyors certified that the engineers were absolutely free from blame for the occurrence. The captain, however, suspended the engineers, and appointed two Spanish engineers in their places. These proving incompetent, after some delay he got two other engineers from Bombay to set matters right and to take charge of the vessel. In the meanwhile, at the British port of Aden the captain took it into his head to arrest the engineers on a charge of mutiny and drunkenness. It was an important point in connection with this case that the offence, if any, of these men was committed in Aden. Application was made to the Police Superintendent there, and he could not see why the offence, if committed at all, could not have been cognizable by the British Court at Aden. However, he had to state, in passing, that not one particle of evidence was produced in support of the charge brought against the men in the whole of the papers, and that at the trial of the men afterwards at Manilla the charge was never even mentioned in the judgment pronounced upon them. He might also mention that the men's story was very different from that of the captain. Their story was that the chief officer, overhearing and not understanding a conversation between two of them, concluded that they were saying disrespectful things regarding him; that he ordered the ship's crew to arrest them; that the ship's crew rushed upon them with knives, putting their lives in danger, and took them prisoners, and they were locked up in their cabins. In his case, however, he omitted all question of the illegality of those proceedings, and he based his contentions on what occurred after the vessel arrived at Singapore. The Spanish Government contended, and he was quite willing to admit it for the sake of the argument, that men committed for an offence on the high seas, though he could not see how the vessel at Aden could be said to be on the high seas, were amenable to the Spanish powers in regard to that offence; but, as he had said, lie based his case entirely on what had occurred after the vessel arrived at Singapore. The vessel arrived there on the 14th of March, 1882. The captain had forbidden the men while at Aden to communicate with the shore, or with anyone but the Spanish Consul. They had,

    1065
    however, been able to smuggle to the shore a letter addressed to the Association of Engineers at Singapore, whom it happened to reach. On the arrival of the vessel at Singapore, the Association of Engineers obtained a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the captain to produce the bodies of the three men before the Supreme Court, and show cause for their detention. The writ was duly served. It was the duty of the Consul at Singapore to advise the captain, being within the jurisdiction of the Court, that he was bound to obedience. But the Consul advised disobedience. Having waited some time and the captain not putting in an appearance, on learning that an attempt was being made to run off with the vessel, the Chief Justice issued a writ of attachment against the person of the captain for contempt of Court. The officers intrusted with the service of the writ were boarding the vessel, and as they stood upon the gangway the captain made a diabolical attempt to plunge them into the water between the vessel and the quay by casting loose the gangway. This might have cost them their lives; but they luckily avoided the danger by jumping on board. Again, he said it was the duty of the Spanish Consul, who was present at the transaction, to have advised the captain to obey; but he once more told him that he was not bound to do so. But there was force at hand, and the captain made his appearance before the Court. He was defended by English counsel, and that counsel advised him that he should produce the men in Court; but again the Spanish Consul interfered and prevented his doing so. After considerable argument the case was adjourned until the following day, the captain being detained in custody on the understanding on the part of the Chief Justice that the vessel was to remain in port until the case was decided. Intimation was also made by the authorities that the vessel was not to leave the port until the case was decided. Nevertheless, the second officer, again acting on the instructions of the Spanish Consul, procured two engineers from the Spanish war vessel which happened to be lying at Singapore, and steamed off with the three English engineers prisoners on board, leaving the captain in the hands of the Sheriff. When the Court assembled the next day, these facts were stated, and the Chief
    1066
    Justice sentenced the captain to six months' imprisonment for contempt of Court, on the understanding that he should be liberated when the offence was purged by the surrender of the three Englishmen whom he had been ordered to produce. This statement embodied substantially everything that was essential to his case—that the writ of habeas corpus had been disregarded and trampled under foot by the direct, repeated, and admitted interference of the Spanish Consul. According to the Statute of 1679, any person who should knowingly detain, transport, or imprison any person or persons in defiance of a writ of habeas corpus, or should advise, aid, or assist therein, became liable to heavy pains and penalties, and was rendered incapable of holding any office or authority in Her Majesty's Dominions. The Spanish Consul at Singapore had clearly brought himself within the penalties of that Statute, and yet he still remained at the place as Consul. The question of the rights or wrongs of these men's imprisonment had nothing to do with his case; the question of the ultimate jurisdiction of the Spanish Court over them was practically beside the question. All that they had to concern themselves with was this faot—that an outrage had been committed upon the authority of the Supreme Court of one of our Colonies and upon the most sacred of our British laws. And yet, would it be believed that the first communication that passed between England and Spain as to this case was an angry protest on the part of the Spanish Government against the outrage which they said had been committed against the person of the captain in his imprisonment for defiance of our laws? The protest appeared so preposterous that he (Dr. Cameron) thought that on the interchange of communications the protest would have been entirely withdrawn. But, after clear and repeated explanations on our part, the Spanish Government still maintained its attitude of injured innocence, and unreservedly endorsed the action of the Spanish Consul in violating the English law. He confessed that, even after reading the despatches of the Spanish Government on the question, he entirely failed to see how any men not utterly blinded by partizanship could maintain the position which the Spanish

    1067
    Government had taken up. The position taken up by Spain rested on four contentions, each of which was absolutely untenable. The formality of the writ was questioned; but that point had been raised before the Supreme Court at Singapore, and that was the sole tribunal competent to pronounce an opinion on the point, and it overruled the objection. Another objection raised was that the Leon XIII. was a mail ship, and was as such entitled to certain immunities. There were Conventions with other countries granting immunities to mail steamers in the matter of jurisdiction; but we had no Convention with Spain, and, even if we had, at that particular time the vessel had no mails on board. There was also a question raised as to the competency of the tribunal to try the men; but that was practically what our Court was called on to decide. And there was the final contention that the Consul had been treated with discourtesy, which, if it had been proved, would have had no bearing on the case. The whole of the Spanish case was repudiated again and again in the correspondence which had taken place between the two countries. Their case was based on contentions which were entirely beside the subject; and yet on the strength of that case the Spanish Government had the modest assurance to propose to this country that we should make reparation to the captain of the vessel for the outrage inflicted upon him. When the vessel left Singapore, thus illegally carrying off those English subjects, the Governor of the Colony sent a telegram to the Admiral in command of our China Meet suggesting that it would be well for him to send a war vessel to Manilla, whither the Leon XIII. was bound, to offer moral support to our Consul there when he came to deal with the case. The Spanish Consul at Singapore got hold of a wrong version of the story, and telegraphed to the Governor of the Phillippine Islands that orders had been given to arrest the Leon XIII. on the high seas, and requesting permission to order a Spanish warship to escort her on her voyage. Luckily the Governor of the Phillippine Islands happened to be a cool-headed gentleman, and he gave orders that nothing of the kind was to take place; and finding that gunboats had been despatched from Hong Kong, he had an
    1068
    interview with our Consul, and pointed out that the presence of ships of war would make the matter very difficult to deal with. It was then decided that the men should be handed over to their Consul on their arrival. The gunboats were recalled, and after a day or two's delay our Consul asked and received the surrender of the imprisoned engineers. The arrangement was telegraphed to Singapore, whereupon the captain of the Leon XIII. was brought up before the Court, and was liberated after nine days' imprisonment. By the diplomacy of the Governor General of the Phillippine Islands the release of the captain was obtained two days before that of the engineers, and the Spaniards had pointed to that fact as showing that we were in the wrong; that, however, was a very minor and immaterial point. But although it had been distinctly understood, when the men were handed over to our Consul at Manilla, that they should not be further molested, it seemed that it was necessary, according to Spanish notions, that the matter should be wound up with a sham trial. Accordingly, the men were detained a month at Manilla, while a Naval Court inquired into their case. They were never brought before the Court during the whole investigation; and at last, when the sentence was pronounced, it contained no reference to the charge brought against them. It laid down the proposition, however, that they had expiated their unknown offence by the punishment they had undergone on board the Leon XIII., and that it was not necessary to inflict further sentence. The men applied for payment of wages, but were refused; and they were consequently sent on to the Singapore at our Government's expense as distressed mariners. From that place they were forwarded, at the expense of the Colony, to England, on their own undertaking that they would repay the money if they recovered it from the owners of the Leon XIII. There was no question about this fact—that everything that occurred subsequent to the abduction of the men from Singapore was absolutely illegal. They were carried off from that place on the 16th of March, and were not allowed to depart from Manilla until the 21st of April. Their wages were refused; and they were sent home penniless and heavily in. debt. After their

    1069
    arrival they raised an action in the English Court of Admiralty; but, again, on the intervention of the Spanish Consul, judgment was given against them on the ground that they must raise their action in a Spanish Court. In their fruitless endeavours to secure the protection of the Law of Habeas Corpus, and to obtain payment of wages admitted to be due, these men had been compelled to incur heavy expenses, which it would take two or three years of their earnings to wipe off. They had suffered cruelly by confinement in close cabins in tropical regions, with armed sentinals placed over them; and were subjected to every kind of indignity. The interest which our country had in insisting on reparation for such an insult was not to be measured by Spanish dollars or pounds sterling. To leave matters as they were was impossible. The Spanish Government not only backed up its Consul, but had actually lectured us on the inconvenience which the Law of Habeas Corpus inflicted on Spanish vessels in British ports; and had expressed the hope that Her Majesty's Government would adopt such measures as might be necessary to prevent any further conflict of jurisdiction by abolishing the applicability of the Law of Habeas Corpus to Spanish vessels in British ports. In his opinion the Government might as well abolish the habeas corpus as not obtain reparation for such an offence. He was glad that they had taken a decided stand in the matter. Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, in his last despatch, wrote—
    "While Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to avoid any conflict of jurisdiction or any legitimate ground of complaint on the part of commanders or crews of Spanish vessels, they could not hold out any hope that any restriction will he placed on the protection afforded by the Law of Habeas Corpus in British dominions, which, of all the Constitutional safeguards of the liberty of the subject, is the one most highly prized by the Government and people of the United Kingdom."
    Those were brave words; and he asked the House to affirm that the Government should act up to them. He entirely approved of the tone of the English despatches contained in the Papers which had been submitted to the House. He must call attention, however, to the fact that the last of these despatches was written four months ago, and no action had been taken since then; and he asked the House to affirm that the
    1070
    matter should not be allowed to drop. He could not understand the action of the Colonial Office in the matter, and why the exequatur of the Spanish Consul at Singapore had not been withdrawn. He could not understand why the Spanish Consul had not been dismissed. By the despatches he had proved himself ignorant of the first duties of a Consul, and regardless of the laws of the people among whom he resided. He had proved himself a dangerous enemy to international law and order; and in consequence of his decoration by the Spanish Government, he was a standing insult to the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements. How were we to get redress? Spain had recently "given us a lesson on that point in the case of the Tangier. The Tangier was an English vessel trading to Spain, and in November last she was at Carthagena. At that port there was a regulation that a vessel should have a pilot on board while unmooring. The pilot wished the officer of the Tangier to employ a lighter to assist, and on his refusal to do so left the vessel. The captain thereupon assumed command, and proceeded to take the vessel to sea. What occurred subsequently he would describe in the language of the account given in The Nautical Magazine. In approaching the seaway between the piers the vessel was hailed by a boat. The "hail" was in the Spanish language, which the captain did not understand. The vessel was a long one, being 280 feet over all. To bring to in that position would inevitably land her upon one of the piers, and there was not sufficient space to turn in—consequently he kept on. To his astonishment fire was opened upon him from two armed boats. The bullets struck the ship, and the funnel was scarred with them, One member had his hat shot through, and the captain ordered all hands below. He himself retained the bridge, but had to duck his head, as he saw in the moonlight a rifle deliberately aimed at him. He slowed down outside the piers, with the intention of bringing to; but the hail of bullets increased, and as he was covered by the big guns of the fort outside, the prudent course was to put on all speed seawards. He learned afterwards that the fort was signalled to fire upon him, and the result of that might have been the sinking of the steamer with all on board. On

    1071
    reaching Valencia a Spanish gunboat hove to alongside, and with shotted guns was set to watch him. On reaching the Consulate Captain Neate found that a telegram had been received ordering the detention of the vessel, on the ground of the captain of the port at Carthagena having been insulted. There were other trifling charges—damages to the quay, and such like. After negotiation he was permitted to return to Carthagena to load for Philadelphia. On reaching that interesting port Captain Neate was placed under naval arrest, notwithstanding his protest and that of the British Consul. He was brought before a sort of drumhead court on board a man-of-war, and condemned to fine and two months' imprisonment. The charges were not read, and he was not allowed to have counsel or cross-examine witnesses. On the intervention of the British Consul the Captain was liberated, and the Tangier allowed to depart, but not until a bond had been given over for £8 10 s., the amount of the damage alleged to have been inflicted on the quay wall of Carthagena through the illegal action of the captain in defying the orders of her harbour master. That was the course of action that Spain had set for our example while we were endeavouring to instruct her in our Law of Habeas Corpus, and were endeavouring to justify our Supreme Court at Singapore. The fact that nothing had been done in the case of the Leon XIII. during the four months that had elapsed since the last published despatch, showed that something stronger should follow. What that something was he would not say. But with the case of the Tangier before us, we could not but feel that if our case had been the Spanish case she would not have waited so long before bringing about some settlement of the matter. He did not presume to tell the Government how they should vindicate our outraged law or secure compensation to our injured countrymen; but he affirmed that, acknowledging as they had done the existence of the outrage and the injury, they were bound to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, and that was why he asked the House to strengthen his hands by adopting the Resolution which he had on the Paper.
    MR. H. LEEsaid, he wished to second the Motion which his hon. Friend had
    1072
    so ably put before the House. The case i showed the intolerance of the Spanish Government, and the necessity of dealing firmly with them, as they evidently considered themselves at liberty to take a course which was contrary alike to law and justice. One of the three engineers was a constituent of his at Southampton, and he came up specially that day to plead that justice might be done him—that he might be compensated for the injuries ho had sustained, and that the Government ought to insist upon some reparation being made to all three of the men for the manner in which they had been treated by the Spanish Government. He trusted the Government would accept the Resolution of his hon. Friend, and would take such steps as would place the matter in a more satisfactory condition than it was in now.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, bearing in mind the manner in which Spanish Law was recently enforced in the case of the English steamer "Tangier," this House looks to Her Majesty's Government to uphold English Law, seriously violated in the case of the Spanish steamship "Leon XIII.," and to obtain compensation to the British subjects damnified in that case for the suffering and loss inflicted on them through the action of the Spanish Consul at Singapore."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDdesired to say a few words on the Motion before the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State gave an official answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow. Ho entirely concurred in the strong—but not too strong —condemnation of the conduct of the Spanish Consul at Singapore. He thought there was quite sufficient ground for withdrawing his exequatur; and upon this point he was disposed to find fault with Her Majesty's Government for not having taken a more decided action. If the Consul was to be continued in office by the Spanish Government, he should be removed elsewhere, and take his decoration with him. But the misconduct of the Consul did not cover the whole of the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow; and while he (Sir Henry Holland) heartily concurred in the first part of the Motion—
    "That this House looks to Her Majesty's Government to uphold English law, seriously violated in the case of the Spanish steamship, 'Leon XIII,' "
    he desired to point out that there was some difficulty in calling upon Her Majesty's Government—

    1073
    "To obtain compensation to the British subjects damnified in that case for the suffering and loss inflicted on them through the action of the Spanish Consul at Singapore."
    There were mixed questions of fact and law in the case. One question of fact was whether the three engineers were guilty of the charges brought against them by the captain of the Leon XIII. He did not suppose that any Member who had read the Papers would entertain any doubt that the charge was unfounded. The story of the engineers was corroborated by the statements of Messrs. Whitehead and Cameron, and was further strengthened by the action of the Court at Manilla. It seemed tolerably clear that that Court felt that there was no case against these persons, for they did not venture to call them at the so-called trial; but determined the case in their absence and upon depositions. The proceedings were most irregular, and the trial little better than a farce. But still, assuming, as he did, that the engineers were innocent and grossly ill-treated on board the vessel, there would be some difficulty in framing a claim for compensation against the Spanish Government on the ground stated in the hon. Member's Motion. The alleged offence was committed on the high seas, or, at all events, not within the Straits Settlements jurisdiction. If, then, the writ of habeas corpus had been obeyed, instead of being set at naught by the Consul, the engineers would not have obtained their freedom at Singapore, unless, as was most improbable, the captain had admitted ho was wrong, and that he had illegally detained them. The Supreme Court of Singapore was not, and could not, be called upon to take cognizance of the alleged offence; it could not do so, as the offence was committed outside the Colonial jurisdiction; it had to deal solely with the writ of habeas corpus, and to determine whether the engineers were in lawful custody. If the captain persisted in the charge, that charge could only be tried in Manilla. Admitting, therefore, the misconduct of the Consul, it did not make their detention up to the arrival at Manilla illegal, and did not give the engineers legal ground for compensation against the Spanish Government for their detention up to that place. Their remedy was against the captain of the vessel for his misconduct. The only ground apparently
    1074
    for compensation against the Spanish Government would be that they had not had a fair trial at Manilla, which was not the ground stated in the Motion before the House. He (Sir Henry Holland) was not at that moment aware of any precedent for such compensation, unless in some very special case. As to the compensation referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow for wages and sufferings, he was afraid that the engineers would only have a remedy against the captain of the Leon XIII. The case of the Tangier, relied on by the hon. Member, was not in point, as the damages in that case were recovered against the captain of the vessel, and not against the English Government, and were recovered, as he understood, under the decision of a Court of Law. Before sitting down, he wished to say a few words upon another point in the case upon which at onetime the Spanish Government seemed inclined to lay some stress—namely, that the steamer being a mail steamer was on the same footing as a ship-of-war, and that a writ of habeas corpus could not be issued in such a case. Now, in the first place, we held it to be quite clear that, according to international law, a mail steamer was not, in the absence of any special convention or arrangement, on the footing of a ship-of-war, and that she was not exempt from the territorial jurisdiction of the harbour or port in which she lay. She was subject to the general law applicable to merchant vessels. But even assuming that she was in the same position, and entitled to the same rights and immunities as a ship-of-war, still the writ of habeas corpus would properly run. This point came under the consideration of the Royal Commission on Fugitive Slaves in 1876, of which he had the honour of being a Member, and it might be taken that it was in substance decided by the great majority, if not all, of the Commissioners that a habeas corpus would run to test the legality of the detention of a person on board a ship-of-war. He would conclude by expressing a hope that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, some compensation would be awarded by the Spanish Government.
    MR. JERNINGHAMsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow deserved credit for bringing forward this subject. There had been too many cases of this kind against the Spanish Government.

    1075
    He thought he was not putting the case too strongly when he said this was an iniquitous case from beginning to such end as we had arrived at. Without entering into questions of law, he believed the facts proved that the imputed offence and the punishment of it occurred in the port of Aden, and not on the high seas as held by the Spanish Government. He confessed that Sir Robert Morrier was more than justified in trying to impress upon the Spanish Minister what the Law of Habeas Corpus was, and it struck him from that despatch that it was not understood up to the present day by the Spanish Minister, and that it would take him a long time to understand it. Under the circumstances, he feared that the House would be unable to do more than to give expression to the first portion of the Resolution—namely, that, having take a notice of this particular case, they should record their disgust at the treatment which those men had suffered without trial during three months and a-half of imprisonment. The statement of the Spanish Government, that they were satisfied that the prisoners had expiated an offence against their law without specifying that offence, was eminently unsatisfactory. He must impress upon the House the necessity of letting foreigners know that there was a limit to leniency. He had spent a long time abroad, and he could assure the House that when this country spoke seriously there was not a foreigner that did not listen. If, however, this country spoke and did not mean to act, then the foreigners saw through it. The Government, he thought, were quite right in looking upon the Consul at Singapore as a zealot; but his exequatur should have been withdrawn. He should like to hear the Government express their resolve not to allow a case of this kind to occur again, without taking more serious notice both of the case and of the Government which allowed it.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that the discussion had been a useful one, and he was obliged to the hon. Member for Glasgow, not only for bringing it forward in a calm and temperate manner, but for the fact that he had called attention to it, because such cases were usefully discussed in the House. It was well that English subjects generally, and more particularly English sailors, who were exposed to
    1076
    great perils, should know that, occupied as the House of Commons was, it was nevertheless possible, in the last resort, to find time to consider grievances of this kind. Such cases had been too frequent of late in Spain, and the hands of the Government were undoubtedly strengthened by discussion, especially when there was no difference of opinion about the merits of the case in this country. The hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), to whose speech he had listened with the greatest interest, had pointed out that there were certain objections to the Motion, and with those objections he himself agreed; but the object of the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion was not to take a division, but to ventilate the subject. There were two points involved in the proposal. First of all, there was the position of the British Government over against the Spanish Government on this question, and then there was the position of the men themselves, and it was necessary to distinguish these points. In regard to the position of the British Government over against the Spanish Government, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow seemed to be fully satisfied with the conduct of the Government up to the time where the despatches published terminated; because, as ho pointed out, nothing could be clearer than the language of the concluding paragraph of the last despatch. The Spanish Government had apparently been unable to understand the English doctrine of habeas corpus, which was one of our most cherished legal doctrines, the result of the historic growth of the liberties of this country. Nevertheless, although they might forgive that inability to understand, it was not, of course, to be tolerated for a single instant that we should waive one jot or tittle of the territorial extent over which the English doctrine of habeas corpus obtained—that was to say, that we could not hold for a single instant that in the territorial waters of a British port it should be held that the doctrine of habeas corpus ceased on board a foreign ship. Sir Robert Morier was, therefore, instructed to inform the Spanish Government that, while Her Majesty's Government were most anxious to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction, they could not hold out the remotest hope that any restriction would ever be placed

    1077
    on the remedies accorded in the Law of Habeas Corpus in Her Majesty's dominions.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEresumed: At an early point of the negotiations Lord Granville said he was not disposed to insist upon the withdrawal of the exequatur, because it would appear that the Spanish Consul, though acting in a mistaken manner, had, on the whole, acted bonâ fide. A good deal of indignation had been caused by the persistent attitude of the Consul in this matter, and there was an impression that he had been decorated by the Spanish Government in consequence. He was not sure whether the Consul had been decorated or not; but he did not wish it to be supposed that because there was no further mention of the subject of the exequatur in the Papers, that incident was entirely closed. It must depend upon ulterior considerations, and it was receiving the closest attention of the Secretary of State. He would now turn to the grievances of the English engineers against the Spanish employers and officials, as distinct from the grievance of the English Government against the Spanish Government. In passing, he might pay a tribute to the judgment displayed by the Captain General of the Phillippine Islands; because he believed that if the Spanish Consul at Singapore had acted in a similar manner to this eminent man, the question of the Leon XIII. would never have assumed its present gravity. The Papers presented contained a despatch from Consul Wilkinson, of Manilla, who had shown great judgment in difficult circumstances. He wrote that a Naval Court was called together, and that after waiting some considerable time he received a copy of the judgment of the Court, stating that the punishment the men had already undergone was deemed by the Court sufficient expiation of their offence, and that the Court no longer deemed detention necessary. No mention was made of the nature of the charges for which the men were put upon their trial, nor were they asked to be present during the hearing of the case. They were not even present while the depositions of their accusers were taken. They were
    1078
    refused their wages, and had to be sent on to Singapore at the public expense, while throughout the case they had no opportunity whatever of clearing their characters. Then arose the series of circumstances which had already been detailed to the House, upon which hung the question of what claim these officers had upon the Spanish Government. There could be no doubt that the claim of the engineers, in the first place, was against their Spanish employers, as they had originally entered into a contract with them. He believed they had found that such an action would not lie in this country or in an English Court; but this was a question with which the Foreign Office had nothing whatever to do. But one thing was certain, that until these men had exhausted their proper legal remedy it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to say what further steps it might be necessary to take. The House must be aware that interferences in matters of this kind were delicate, difficult, and rare; and the House would no doubt hesitate to press upon Her Majesty's Government the adoption of any particular course at this moment. He thought he might fairly ask the House to believe that Her Majesty's Government were not only well acquainted with the facts of the case, but that they were also fully aware of their importance, and would continue to watch them as they proceeded. He ventured to make one further criticism of the Motion. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had set before Her Majesty's Government the conduct of the Spanish Government in the matter of the Tangier, he would not say as an example for them to imitate, but as a kind of guide which they would do well to follow. He was sure that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but the Motion was open to that construction. The case of the Tangier, he considered, was an example to be avoided, because the proceedings were high-handed and hasty. This question was, he was happy to say, in a fair way to a favourable settlement, and he would have been able to present the Papers on the subject, only that they related to a pending negotiation. But he hoped before long, in answer to a Question or otherwise, to be able to acquaint the House with what had been determined as to the Tangier. It was only due to Her Majesty's Minister at

    1079
    Madrid to say that, with regard to these matters, which were exceedingly difficult, involving questions of private international law, and a most complicated series of facts, the Papers showed that he had known how to assert the dignity of this country, to support the great Constitutional doctrines which they all valued, and, at the same time, to maintain that conciliatory attitude which officials in foreign countries were bound to observe with regard to the Government to which they were accredited.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he did not think, after the remarks of the noble Lord, that the House would be disposed to carry the matter much further. He wished to endorse all that had been said by the noble Lord with respect to Sir Robert Morier, who was distinguished not only as a Diplomatist, but as a Constitutional lawyer, and deserved thanks for the action he had taken on this question. The conduct of the authorities at Singapore also deserved commendation, because they took a proper view of the doctrine of habeas corpus, and carried out that view in a proper manner. He said the same of the conduct of our Consul at Manilla. Although the House appeared to have derived some benefit from the discussion, there were three persons who seemed to have little chance of receiving an advantage from it. He referred to the three English engineers, for whom the noble Lord held out no prospect of anything being done by Her Majesty's Government. He feared the noble Lord had spoiled their chance of obtaining any compensation whatever from the Spanish Government. He quite agreed that it was necessary to ask the Spanish Courts for a decision before they could go to the Spanish Government for compensation; but there was one point that had not been mentioned, and that was that if the Spanish Court at Manilla did keep those men in custody, a question arose between this Government and the Spanish Government as to whether a legal and just claim did not exist on that ground. That was a point which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration. He hoped the anticipations of the noble Lord would be realized, and that the discussion which had taken place would not only have a beneficial effect as to the question of compensation, which might hereafter be obtained for these unfor-
    1080
    tunate persons, but would teach the Spanish Government that they must give certain instructions to their officers abroad, so as to avoid the violation of the most cherished principle of British freedom.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he merely wished to say, in answer to a remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that he could assure him that Her Majesty's Government had not put out of sight all possibility of being able to support the claim for compensation against the Spanish Government. His noble Friend did not intend that construction to be put upon his words.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKdesired to enter his strongest protest against some of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). He differed entirely from the view that they had no claim against the Spanish Government. The men had been imprisoned for four weeks, and, therefore, they had a claim on the ground of international law. He had had several cases before him, including those of the Cagliari, the Orwell, and the Tornado. In the case of the Tornado, the Spanish Government did exactly what they had done now, and absolutely refused to have the case investigated. That case was almost on all fours with the present. Still later was the case of the Mermaid, in which no compensation was awarded. The Secretary of State at that time was Lord Derby, a Minister in whom he had no confidence then, and had none now. Lord Derby told the House of Commons that the Spanish Government had been guilty of a great act of hardship and ought to pay compensation, but that they had refused to do so. He then asked what was he to do? The Spanish Government would not pay, and the only alternative was war, and to that he would not assent. The Government, if satisfied that there had been a denial of justice in such a case, ought to take a firm stand, and insist on justice being done. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson) and the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) were constantly saying—"Oh, what does it matter; British subjects have no business to trade, no business to go into the service of other countries, no business to make foreign investments; if they do they are fools for their pains." That

    1081
    was language which, unfortunately, too frequently proceeded from the opposite Benches, and he was very much afraid it affected the Government. He regretted to see the empty state of the Benches on a question of such importance. If the debate had turned on the wrongs of a Dissenting chapel, or on the Contagious Diseases Act, it would, no doubt, have been otherwise. He hoped the noble Lord would not relax his efforts on behalf of these unfortunate men; for there was a substantial grievance and a positive denial of justice.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, it was important that in making a demand on a Foreign Power, there should be no vague language of declamation, such as had been indulged in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and that the Government should take their stand upon clear and definite principles. The present question had not been lost sight of by the Government, but had received their careful consideration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to several cases as precedents on which the Government should act; but all cases of this kind must be dealt with according to their particular circumstances. However, none of the cases referred to were in any way parallel to the present case. It was not right to say that because compensation had been obtained in one case it ought to be obtained in another.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clook.