Commons Sitting of 7 August 1884

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—REVENUE DEPARTMENTS—CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS—CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE—CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
Resolutions [August 2, 5, 6] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£37,827,299, Consolidated Fund.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Bristol Corporation (Docks Purchase).
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) [314].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Disused Burial Grounds [46], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BRISTOL CORPORATION (DOCKS PURCHASE) BILL [Lords] [by Order].

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration read.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that before the Bill was considered, he wished to say that he had felt it a public duty to call attention to this Bill on the second reading. The opposition which he had then offered had been still further confirmed since. In support of the statement he had made on the second reading he had now received a further Petition, signed by 1,090 of the ratepayers of Bristol, which he held in his hand. This was in addition to a Petition with 5,600 signatures, lodged in the Private Bill Office, and another Petition, bearing 1,500 signatures of ratepayers and owners of property, which he had presented on the second reading. Consequently, more than 8,000 of the ratepayers of Bristol had adopted this method of expressing their opposition to the Bill, having been deprived of the opportunity of being heard at the general meeting, and of stating their grievances, owing to the violence of a number of persons, who, he presumed at the instigation of the Dock Company and of others who were interested in the Bill, interrupted the proceedings and overawed the meeting. The result had been that the opponents had had no opportunity of stating their case, and they felt that they had been very unfairly and unjustly treated by the Corporation in the matter. He had no wish to occupy the time of the House further. The docks which were to be taken over by the town were incomplete, and would not afford accommodation for vessels of more than 3,000 tons; and hitherto they had never been made to pay. He believed the proposal to purchase these docks to be a gigantic job. It was altogether wrong that a Corporation should be allowed to trade in this manner, and this particular trading concern had never yet been prosperous, nor would it prosper in the future. The enlargement of the docks would necessitate going down into the solid rock, and would, consequently, entail an enormous expense; and for all these reasons—although, perhaps, it might be a profitable transaction to those who sold the undertaking

    87
    to the Corporation, it would remain a standing charge upon the ratepayers of Bristol. Perhaps his predictions, like those of Cassandra, would be disregarded; but for all that they would be fulfilled. Out of respect and consideration for the House, and for the Committee who had been deluded by the arts and wiles of the promoters into passing the Bill, he would not divide the House; but he had pleasure in recording his strong protest against the measure, and the expression of his conviction that the time would come when the ratepayers of Bristol would understand the matter a great deal better than they appeared to do now.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause added.
    Amendments made.
    Ordered, That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be read the third time To-morrow.—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he rose to present the Petition presented against the Bill by the 1,090 ratepayers of Bristol to whom he had referred in his remarks.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and learned Member, that if the Petition relates to a Private Bill, he will not be in Order in presenting it to the House. Petitions against Private Bills are lodged in the Private Bill Office.

  PARLIAMENT—SELECT COMMITTEES.

    MOTION FOR RETURNS.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in moving for a Return of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1884, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees, &c., said, the addition was required in order to include in the record of Sessional work the names of those hon. Members who served on Standing Committees and on the Court of Referees up to the present Session. The Return was limited to Select Committees; but the practice of the House naturally changed with changing circumstances, and it was only fair that the names of those hon. Members who undertook such useful and laborious functions, should also appear in the Return.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Return be laid before the House 'of the Number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1884, including the Standing
    88
    Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of Witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Committee; also, the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.113, of Session 1883).'"—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked that, under the present mode of appointing Members to serve at the same time on two or more Committees, the duties, if well and effectually performed, fell very heavily upon certain Members of the House. He knew, from his own experience, that it was utterly impossible, in such circumstances, to discharge the duties satisfactorily, and no Member ought to be appointed upon more than one Committee sitting at a time. The Return should, therefore, distinguish those cases in which Members had double or treble, or even more, duties to perform.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) for the handsome manner in which he had met his objection to this Return yesterday. The point of his objection—and he still thought it was an important one—was that it was wrong for any Member of the Government, or for any person in an official position, to put down a continuation of a Parliamentary Paper, and then at the last moment propose an addition to it, however good the addition might be. It was the practice to assume that a Paper which purported to be a continuation of a Parliamentary Sessional Paper, was in exact conformity with the Papers of previous years, and he could not help feeling that there was some little irregularity in making an alteration at the last moment. He had no wish to put the House or the hon. Baronet to any inconvenience, and, therefore, he would not oppose the Motion now.
    Motion agreed to.
    Return ordered.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELY DISPENSARY, DERRYGONELLY—USE OF BUILDING FOR PARTY PURPOSES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  89
  If he has observed, from The Fermanagh Reporter of 17th July, that, notwithstanding what has taken place with regard to the Ely Dispensary, the usual Orange displays were made on the 12th instant; and, if he can now say what will be done by the Local Government Board?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): I believe it is a fact that on the 12th of July an Orange flag was hung out of the window of the room used by the Orange Lodge. The power of the Guardians to interfere depends upon the fact whether or not they rent the whole house for dispensary purposes. The original agreement is not now forthcoming; and it appears that the Orange Lodge, so far back as 30 years ago, and long before any part of the house was occupied by the dispensary, made use of a room in it. When the Committee appointed by the Guardians to inquire into the matter meet on the 18th instant, some further light may be thrown on the matter; and when the Report has been received, the Board will advise the Guardians on the subject.

PUBLIC HEALTH—SEWAGE OF THE METROPOLIS.
MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether a proposal has been made to that body for dealing with the sewage of London at Crossness, and for finding a suitable monetary guarantee that it shall be done effectually; and, if so, what are the intentions of the Board on the subject?
SIR JAMES M'GAREL HOGG: I beg to inform the hon. Member that the Metropolitan Board has had under consideration from time to time proposals and schemes for dealing with the sewage of the Metropolis at the outfalls, but none, in its judgment, of a thoroughly practical and satisfactory character, and that the particular Company presumably alluded to by the hon. Member some years ago made experiments at Crossness, the result of which did not encourage the Board to look for a solution of the difficulty in that direction.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE DUBLIN AND CORK MAIL SERVICE.
MR. MARUMasked the Postmaster General, Whether the populations of
90
Ballyragget and Castlecomer, Lisdowney and Freshford, in the county of Kilkenny, besides those of Abbeyleen, Durrow, Ballinakill, and Atlaugh, in the Queen's County, on whose behalf a resolution adopted at a large and influential public meeting has recently been forwarded to him, will be absolutely un-provided for and wholly deprived of any benefit under the proposed new Mail Service from Dublin to Cork, unless the Mail Train stops at Maryboro' as prayed for; and, whether he will undertake that no final decision be arrived at until there shall be afforded an opportunity of a further expression of the public opinion of the South East of Ireland upon this subject of vital interest?
MR. FAWCETT: The Question of the hon. Member indicates the difficulties which are always associated with any scheme to accelerate a mail service. Such an acceleration as that which is contemplated to Cork can only be secured by running the trains at a higher speed and by requiring them to stop at fewer places. If the new trains stopped at all the places where the existing train does, a considerable part of the acceleration would be lost. I regret the places referred to should not derive any advantage from the new service. I am very anxious that there should be no delay in bringing the new service into operation; but I shall be prepared to consider any representations which may be forwarded to me by the hon. Member or others who are interested in the districts to which he refers.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. ALEXANDER MORPHY, CROWN SOLICITOR.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Alexander Morphy, Crown Solicitor, is an uncertificated bankrupt; and, if so, why he has been retained in the Service?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): Mr. Morphy was never a bankrupt, much less an uncertificated one. He became embarrassed in 1872, whereupon he voluntarily allocated four-fifths of his salary to pay in full his unsecured creditors. On one single creditor declining to abide by this offer, Mr. Morphy sought the protection of the Court as an arranging debtor to give

91
effect to his proposal. His arrangement was then carried unanimously, and Mr. Morphy has paid in full all his creditors. As he paid 20 s. in the pound, there was no object in taking out the certificate. At the time of the arrangement the Government of the day fully inquired into the matter, and decided that no case had arisen for taking any action against Mr. Morphy, who appears since to have honestly discharged all his debts.
MR. HEALY: Was he ever suspended?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): No.
MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that I will ask further Questions on this subject, as I cannot appreciate the nice distinction of the hon. and learned Genman.

IRELAND—QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY—PROFESSOR GEISSLER.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has had any further communication in reference to the alleged degree and academic status of Mr. Geissler, Professor, Queen's College, Galway; and, whether he can promise an investigation?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has received within the last two days a communication with regard to Professor Geissler's degree and academic status. When asking about the appointment in 1868, the Government acted upon the testimonials and opinions of men of great eminence now dead. Having regard, however, to the position of the matter and the responsibility he assumes, an investigation will be made.

LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND)—RESEALING OF IRISH PROBATES OR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION.
MR. GRAYasked Mr. Solicitor General, Whether he is aware that numerous English public companies refuse to transfer shares on Irish probate or grants of administration without having the same resealed in England at considerable unnecessary expense; and, whether such demand is legal?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that English
92
Public Companies were acting quite legally in refusing to transfer shares on Irish probate or grants of administration without having the same resealed in England. The Companies were not bound to wait until the probate had been granted; but they could do so as an extra precaution. The law upon the subject applied to Ireland as well as to England.
MR. GRAY: It only makes the matter worse if it obtains in the two countries. Is there no way of obviating it?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): It can only be done by a change in the law.
MR. GRAY: Is it not a fact that Insurance Companies will accept Irish probate of the proof of debt, and will refuse it to enable a transfer of shares?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): That may be so. They are not required to do it, and if they like they can dispense with it.

INLAND REVENUE—PATENT MEDICINE STAMPS.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the Letter signed "Non-Practitioner," in The Times, and to the articles in The Lancet, Medical Times, and other medical journals, in reference to the Medicine Stamp Act; if he has any information to confirm the statements in these various publications that the Act, instead of discouraging, stimulates largely the sale of quack medicines, mainly through the stamp being interpreted as a Government guarantee of the safety and purity of the medicine, the vendors of many quack medicines implying in their advertisements that the stamp affords a Government guarantee; whether he is aware that the large number of deaths that occur annually are attributed to the taking of poisons in the shape of secret medicines; if he is aware that the Act which was passed for the purpose of protecting the medical profession against quack medicines has been condemned by all the authoritative organs of medical opinion in the throe Kingdoms; whether the Revenue Department intend to enforce the rigid interpretation put on the Patent Medicines Act, and set forth in the circular of Mr. W. H. Cousins of May 17th; whether this has been found very seriously to prejudice British exporters

93
of medicine, in competition with continental manufacturers of medicines; whether, already, owing to this action on the part of the Department, a large quantity of the trade to the Colonies has fallen into the hands of Germany, France, and America; and, whether he will favourably consider the question of repealing the Tax?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No, Sir; I have not read the newspaper statements to which the hon. Member refers, and I can, therefore, express no opinion about them. As to the point whether the stamp on patent medicines should express that they are not guaranteed by Government, I am disposed to think that the French practice of putting on the stamp a disclaimer of such a guarantee might, perhaps, be followed with advantage. I have no information as to the hon. Member's third and fourth Questions; but I am aware that there has been during the last few months a good deal of controversy on this subject among professional people. The Circular of May 17 does not refer to British medicines at all, but to foreign medicines first imported and then exported in bulk by agents of foreign firms, and it can only affect the consumer abroad. I know nothing of the consumption of patent medicines in the Colonies. As to the last Question, I can hold out no hope of repealing this tax, which brings in £160,000 a-year; but I have asked the Board of Inland Revenue for Reports on the subject, which I shall study with care.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—STATUS OF COPYING CLERKS IN THE LAW COURTS.
MR. GRAYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether there is a considerable difference in emoluments, vacation, sick leave, and retiring allowance of the copying clerks attached to the different courts in Ireland; whether a report upon the subject has been made by Mr. Holmes, Treasury Remembrancer, proposing changes which would be detrimental to some of these clerks; whether some of the judges have refused their assent to the proposed changes; and, whether steps will be taken to give all the copying clerks the advantages now enjoyed by some in the matters stated?
MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, the only foundation for the rumours upon which the Question appeared to be based was a recent Order of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and other statutory authorities as to the pay of copying clerks. Clerks who should be appointed after the date of the Order were put upon equality as to their duties and pay.
MR. GRAYasked whether a Report upon this subject had been made by Mr. Holmes, the Treasury Remembrancer, in reference to which some of the Judges had agreed, and some had not?
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must decline to give any information on this point. The Report was strictly confidential. No Order had been made affecting the position or pay of copying clerks appointed previous to the date of that Order.
MR. GRAYgave Notice to repeat the Question.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— LOANS TO TENANTS—APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS.
MR. GRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that thirty - six temporary inspectors, for carrying out the provisions of the Land Act with reference to loans to tenants, have recently been appointed by the Board of Works; whether these gentlemen were appointed without public notification of the vacancies and without competition; whether they are nearly all Protestants and many of them Freemasons; whether some of them are relatives of the officials of the Board; whether some of them have no recognised professional qualification; whether it is a fact that men holding the diploma of Civil Engineer applied for and were unable to obtain such appointments; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of those who applied for these appointments, showing in each case their professional qualification, and a list of those who obtained the appointments, showing their qualification in each case, and stating, as in the case of the Return of Irish Magistrates, the number of Protestants and Catholics respectively; whether, as the Government have no objection to granting such a Return, save on the ground of expense,

95
he will, if he still objects to giving the information in print, place it in manuscript upon the Table, so as to afford Members the information asked for, while obviating the objection on the ground of expense of printing; and, whether he can state what the expense of such a Return would be in print, seeing that it would probably not occupy more than one page, and that the information exists in the office?
MR. COURTNEY: There are 36 Inspectors for carrying out the provisions of the Irish Land Act, with reference to loans to tenants, who have been appointed at various rates during the last two and a-half years. The fact of these appointments being open was generally known, as appears from the large number of applicants for them. Vacancies have been filled by the full Board of Works, by careful selection from the lists of candidates, with their testimonials and certificates. There are now nearly 170 names on the list of candidates. It is hardly possible to judge of an engineer's qualifications on paper; but I have carefully examined a statement, furnished me by the Board of Works, from which it appears that more than half the number have regular degrees in Engineering, and the rest have ample practical experience. Some few of them seem to be connected with some of the numerous officers of the Board. The Board of Works have no knowledge as to the religion or politics of the men chosen, still less whether any are Freemasons, and will not inquire into matters so entirely irrelevant to the duties of a civil engineer. I think this is scarcely a subject for a Return; but I have a nominal list of the persons appointed, and of their qualifications, which the hon. Member may examine freely if he wishes to do so.
MR. GRAYasked whether the list would show the qualifications of the rejected and accepted candidates? The hon. Gentleman had not answered the portion of the Question which asked whether some candidates who had no professional qualifications were accepted, while others who had professional diplomas either from Trinity College or the Engineering School of the Queen's or Royal Universities were rejected.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the list to which he had referred was only of accepted candidates. It would be impossible
96
to publish the names of the gentlemen who had not been selected.
MR. GRAYasked if the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to publish in a Memorandum the number of candidates holding diplomas who had been rejected?
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would inquire into that.

INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT— CHARGE AGAINST MR. D. BEST.
MR. KENNYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it is a fact that Mr. Daniel Best, a first class supervisor in the Inland Revenue Department, was, when in charge of an Irish district some years ago, proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Inland Revenue to have endeavoured to obtain payment of an expenditure not incurred in the public service; whether, since then, various descriptions of misconduct have been proved against him; if, within the past two years, Mr. Best has been proved, at an inquiry held by Mr. Inspector Grant at Sheffield, to have obtained under false pretences from the public Treasury numerous sums of money as rewards arising out of the detection and prosecution of persons at Sheffield for keeping unlicensed dogs; whether he was allowed to escape prosecution and retain his position as Inland Revenue officer upon refunding the money so obtained; if some officials are dismissed the public service for misconduct much less grave; and, if he will state the reasons for the leniency extended to Mr. Best?
MR. COURTNEY: Mr. Best's errors were not so grave as the terms of the Question would suggest; he has been twice severely reprimanded and removed; and the Board of Inland Revenue say that they would not have treated any other officer more severely under the circumstances.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, EDENDERRY UNION.
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board, by letter, directed the returning officer of the Edenderry Union to disallow, at the elections held last March, the votes of all persons who owed arrears of seed rate, and specified some

97
of these persons by name; and, whether, in view of a new election now about to be held, they have written to him to allow these same persons votes, although they still owe these arrears; if so, why have they decided to allow these votes, in opposition to their own ruling of last March, in opposition to the ruling of the Court of Queen's Bench, and to his repeated statements that seed rate was a part of the poor rate, and anyone owing arrears of seed rate was disqualified from voting?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): There is no discrepancy between the instructions of the Local Government Board on the occasions referred to. The first related to seed rate made and assessed upon the ratepayer; but the latter referred to seed rate not made or assessed upon the ratepayer, but for which he became liable as a subsequent occupier. The non-payment of a seed rate has the same effect in depriving a ratepayer of his right to vote as the non-payment of the poor rate; and, therefore, the deprivation only arises in the case of rates for which the voter was originally liable by reason of the rate having been assessed upon himself.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS.
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Sub-Commissioner and other officers of the Land Courts, whose services have been recently dispensed with, only received ten days' notice that their engagement would terminate on the 31st; and, whether they will be given a month's pay from the date of the notice given to them?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): The term of Office for which the Assistant Commissioners and other officers were appointed expired on the 31st of July. There was no necessity, therefore, for giving any formal notice that their services would not be required after that date. The names of the Assistant Commissioners selected for re-appointment were announced in this House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, on the 17th of last month, and on the 21st the Land Commissioners communicated with the Sub-Registrars.
98
There would, therefore, be no warrant for giving a month's pay out of the public funds, as suggested.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT—RE-APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will recommend to Her Majesty's Government the re-appointment of the Select Committee on the Labourers' (Ireland) Act in the Autumn Session, so that the report may be completed in time for the introduction of an amending Bill in February next?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): I am informed that it is contrary to precedent to give a definitive answer to this Question as it affects the action of the Government next Session; and the recommendation of the Committee will, of course, be carefully considered.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)
MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as a consequence of the refusal of the European Powers to accept the proposals made to them, the hands of Her Majesty's Government are set free; whether they will be less hampered in carrying out their reforms in Egypt than they have hitherto been; and, whether in view of the financial difficulty, and of the fact that the immunities conferred upon Europeans by Mehemet Ali have just been abolished, Her Majesty's Government will use their influence with the Khedive to abolish also the partial immunity from taxation, still enjoyed by the great landowners, and will advise the equalization of the Land Tax, whereby a large and much needed addition would accrue to the Revenue, and a chronic source of discontent be removed?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Pending the mission of Lord Northbrook, I am sorry to say that I cannot enter into the different subjects which are raised in the Question of my hon. Friend.

CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW—PROPOSED CONFERENCE AT ROME.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

99
Affairs, Whether the International Conference on the subject of the execution of Foreign Judgment, to which we were invited by the Italian Government, has taken place; and, if so, with what results?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government acceded to the proposal of the Italian Government that a preliminary examination of this subject, on the basis of the Resolutions adopted at Milan, in 1883, by the Association for the Reform and Codification of International Law, should take place at Rome by a Conference of official delegates from various Governments; but no meeting of that Body has yet taken place.

DWELLINGS OF THE POOR—APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS.
MR. E. STANHOPEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is the intention of the Royal Commission on the Dwellings of the Poor to hold sittings in any of the rural districts, or to appoint Assistant Commissioners to visit them?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes has already completed its inquiry into the condition of the rural districts of England and Wales. A large number of witnesses from various counties representing all interests have been examined, and Her Majesty's Commissioners have unanimously decided that there is no necessity to appoint Assistant Commissioners or to hold sittings in the Provinces. It may be interesting to the House if I say that besides one witness from each of the mining districts in Wales and Cornwall, there were three witnesses as to the gipsy population, and 16 witnesses were examined as to what may be considered the ordinary condition of affairs in the rural parts of the country.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DONEGAL BOARD OF GUARDIANS—ASSISTANT CATHOLIC TEACHER.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Is he aware that, at the last meeting of the Donegal Board of Guardians on the 2nd August, a motion in accordance with his proposal to appoint a Catholic assistant teacher for the Donegal Workhouse
100
as a settlement of the case has been rejected by a large majority of the Board; and, in view of the spiritual destitution in which the inmates are left in the Workhouse by the majority of the Guardians, will he, through the Local Government Board, make the appointment by sealed order, and, in case of further hostility by the Guardians, suspend the Board and appoint Vice Guardians in their stead?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): I regret to say that it is a fact that the Guardians, by a majority of 11 to 7, rejected the proposal to appoint an assistant teacher. The Local Government Board have no legal authority to make the appointment themselves by sealed order; and while they consider the action of the Guardians illiberal, yet, as the matter is one in which the Guardians have an explicit discretion left to them by the Poor Law Acts and Regulations, and have exercised that discretion, no case has arisen which would justify the Board in dissolving the Board of Guardians. The Local Government Board will communicate with the Roman Catholic priest of the parish in the hope of being able to make some new arrangement under which he would consent to resume the duties of chaplain.
MR. HEALYsaid, that this promise was made several times already; and he hoped, therefore, that the communication would be immediately made.

LAND JUDGES' COURT (IRELAND)— COST OF PREPARING LEASES.
MR. DEASYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he will state by whom are leases under the Land Judges' Court (Ireland) prepared, on what scale of charges, and by whom fixed; and, if he will also state whether there is any definite period within which a Receiver is bound to submit letting proposals for land after receiving same for the decision of the Judges?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The leases are prepared in the Receiver's Office of the Land Judges at a scale fixed by the order of the Court as follows:—Order 3, Rule for preparing lease, 5s.; for counterpart, 2s. 6d. This is above the stamp duty. There is no definite period within which a Receiver is bound to submit letting proposals; but it would

101
be a breach of duty if the period were unnecessarily long.

BANKRUPTCY—LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS—THE WEST OF ENGLAND BANK.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Liquidation proceedings in connection with the West of England Bank, which failed in 1868, are still unfinished; whether they have been kept open for many years longer than those of the Glasgow Bank, though the liabilities were only about a fourth of those of the latter; whether, in 1881, the liquidators had in hand some £66,000, a large portion of which was dissipated in a single year by legal proceedings in which there was no reasonable prospect of success; whether the Barker property, which cost the Bank about £570,000, was sold by the liquidators for £67,000, payment of which was to extend over several years; whether he will cause the liquidators to furnish a full statement of the position of the estate, with details of outgoings and commission; and, whether one of the liquidators has been given a Receivership under the new Bankruptcy Act?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I would remind the hon. Member that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, are not applicable to Joint Stock Companies, and that consequently the Board of Trade have no knowledge of, or power to interfere with, the liquidation proceedings in connection with the West of England Bank. As, however, the hon. Member has referred to the fact that the Official Receiver at Bristol is one of the liquidators, I have thought it right to communicate with that gentleman and learn from him that (1) the West of England Bank failed in 1878, not 1868, as stated by the hon. Member The liabilities exceeded £3,000,000, of which amount half was paid in three months, and the balance within 13 months after that. The proceedings are now limited to the realization of assets for the benefit of those who found the money to pay the creditors. (2.) It is not true that in 1881 the liquidators, out of £66,000, dissipated a large portion by unsuccessful legal proceedings. Out of £66,000 stated to have been in hand, over £50,000 has been returned to shareholders, and the legal proceedings, which
102
have been almost uniformly successful, were undertaken with the sanction of the Court. (3.) The Booker property realized nearly twice as much as is suggested by the hon. Member; and only about one-third of the amount was to be paid by instalments with interest at 6 per cent. (4.) The accounts in detail are passed and filed in Court, and a summary has been sent to every shareholder up to December, 1883.

COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS)—HAMPSTEAD HEATH.
MR. D. GRANTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, By what authority a right of user of the "road or public way on Hampstead Heath, leading from Telegraph Hill to Golder's Hill," is reserved to equestrians only, and closed to the general public for vehicular traffic; who is responsible for the condition of the road in question; and, whether he will consider if the road could not be rendered serviceable throughout for all purposes?
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I beg to inform the hon. Member that the road to which he refers never was anything but a rough bridle or cart track across the turf at Hampstead Heath, except that portion of it which was utilized by the Board when they made a ride for the use of equestrians. No public right of way for carriages exists across this portion of the heath, and the Board do not consider it would be to the public advantage to allow vehicles generally to be driven over the heath, inasmuch as abundant accommodation is afforded for such traffic by the macadamized public thoroughfares across the heath which already exist. The Board is responsible for keeping the road in question in a fit condition for the use of equestrians.
MR. D. GRANT: What is the hon. Member's view of a fit condition?
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I consider a fit condition the condition in which the road is now.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SITTINGS FOR HEARING OF CASES UNDER ARREARS OF RENT ACT, 1882.
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the number of days during the year ending on the 31st December 1883, in which the Land

103
Commissioners sat in cities or towns, other than in the city of Dublin, for the hearing of cases, exclusive of cases, if any, arising under the Arrears Act?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): The Land Commissioners sat in 1883—exclusive of sittings in Dublin—on 17 different occasions, and those sittings occupied 78 days. During the first seven months of the present year they sat on 15 different occasions, extending over 81 days.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THEFT OF CATTLE, CO. KILKENNY.
MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an extensive larceny of cattle perpetrated upon a holding of Mrs. Catherine Fitzgerald, of Kilmanagh, in the county of Kilkenny, that is to say, that eleven yearling heifers and one yearling bullock were removed off those lands on or about the 13th of June last, that five of the cattle have since been received by the owner, but that the remaining seven head are still missing and unaccounted for; whether he will cause the local constabulary, augmented for the past two years by the number of fifty additional constables over and above their normal strength, to make search for the same; and, whether he will detail some of the extra detective force to bring to justice the perpetrators of this outrage, and to discover the missing cattle believed to be still in the Country?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): I am informed that 12 head of cattle disappeared from Mr. Fitzgerald's land; but it is by no means clear that they were stolen. Some of them, amounting, in all, to seven, have since been found straying in different places; five are still missing. The local Constabulary used every effort to trace the missing animals, and will continue to do so with regard to those still missing. It is mainly owing to their exertions that seven of them have been recovered and restored to their owner.

ARMY—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT— ROYAL LABORATORY, WOOLWICH.
MR. BOORDasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether large
104
orders that have hitherto been executed by the Royal Laboratory Department, Woolwich, have recently been given to Sir W. Armstrong and Co. Limited, for instance, an order for upwards of six hundred powder cases at £18 10 s.; and, whether the price quoted for these cases by the Royal Laboratory Department was £13 17 s. 4d.; and, if so, whether he will explain the reason for giving preference to a private firm under such circumstances?
MR. BRAND: The facts are not correctly stated in the Question of the hon. Member. It is not a fact that large orders that have hitherto been executed by the Royal Laboratory Department have recently been given to Sir William Armstrong and Co. (Limited). With regard to the order for upwards of 600 cases at £18 10 s., which the hon. Member instances, I should say that this is a now service for a new class of gun, and these particular cases were designed by Sir William Armstrong and Co., in connection with their hydraulic system of loading. The price quoted by the Royal Laboratory Department for these cases is not correctly stated in the second part of the Question. The sum named by the hon. Member is below the estimate.

TURKEY IN ASIA—EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF BAGDAD, BUSSORAH, AND BUSHIRE.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can state what has been the total value of the exports and imports of Bagdad, Bussorah, and Bushire, for the twelve months last reported to the Government of India?
MR. J. K. CROSS: The latest trade statistics received from the Persian Gulf political Residency are for the year 1882, and show that the imports of Bushire were 102 lakhs, and the exports 65 lakhs. We have no Reports from Bagdad and Bussorah; but no doubt the Foreign Office will obtain them for my hon. Friend if he wishes it.

NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS—PAY, &c.
MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If he can now give an answer to the memorials by shipwrights, joiners, and other classes whose claims were heard by him and by the Secretary during their visits to the Dockyards; and, whether any

105
concession is intended to be made to the memorialists?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Memorials of the shipwrights and other classes of workmen in the Dockyards have been carefully considered by the Board. In a few cases we propose an advance; but we do not feel justified in recommending any general increase of pay in the Dockyards. Replies in this sense will be communicated to the Petitioners.

BOARD OF TRADE (MARINE DEPARTMENT)—EMIGRANT SHIPS.
MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is proposed to include within the scope of the inquiry by Royal Commission into the Marine Department of the Board of Trade the sanitary aspect of emigration and immigration, and the position of medical officers in emigrant ships?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I recognize the great importance of the question; but I am afraid that the Royal Commission will have so many and such complicated matters to deal with that it would be undesirable to extend the scope of the inquiry in the manner suggested.

SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND.
MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as stated in a telegram from Cape Town, that Mr. Mackenzie is to be superseded as Resident Commissioner in Bechuanaland; and, if so, whether he will inform the House on what grounds this step has been taken?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: All the information as to Mr. Mackenzie's movements we as yet have received is contained in a telegram of the 30th of July, from Sir Hercules Robinson, in which he informs us that he has summoned Mr. Mackenzie to Cape Town to confer with him on Bechuanal affairs, and that Mr. Rhodes, late Colonial Treasurer, and a Member of the Griqualand West Boundary Commission, has been appointed to act as Commissioner in Mr. Mackenzie's absence.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE (IRELAND)—SALARIES.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state what are the salaries paid
106
respectively to the principal clerks of Customs and principal clerks of Inland Revenue at the ports of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Londonderry, Limerick, and Waterford; whether the duties of these officials are not similar in their nature; and, if so, why they are not put on an equality in the matter of salary; and, whether pay for "overtime" is allowed to these officials in either and which Department?
MR. COURTNEY: There are principal clerks in the Customs at Dublin and Belfast with salaries at present rising to £600; but there are none at the other ports named. They would be paid for overtime if necessary; but practically never are so. There are no principal clerks in the Inland Revenue in Ireland; and I am not aware to what class of officials the hon. Member alludes as discharging similar duties to the principal clerks in the Customs.

FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND).
MR. BLAKEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will be good enough to state if the sum unexpended out of the £250,000 voted by Parliament last Session, from the Irish Church Fund, for the construction of fishery piers and harbours, will bear interest until the whole amount shall be expended; and, if so, what rate of interest will be allowed; and, whether such interest will be on the difference between the sum actually expended on works, and the original sum allocated by Parliament?
MR. COURTNEY: The hon. Gentleman has already made this suggestion and has been promised that it will be very carefully considered. It would be a great motive to allow interest on the unexpended balance, if the Fishery Commissioners would thus be induced to treat the fund as something to be maintained as a permanent resource, instead of expending the whole capital in five or six years. No action is, however, possible at present, as legislation would be required if the suggestion were adopted.
MR. BLAKEasked whether steps would be taken to promote such a measure as would insure that the unexpended portion of the fund would bear interest until the whole amount had been expended?
MR. COURTNEY: I have already indicated that the matter is being considered, and will, I think, be favourably so; but nothing can be done until next year.

TURKEY—QUARANTINE IN THE DARDANELLES.
MR. EWARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be a fact that the Turkish Government have imposed a quarantine of ten days on all vessels passing through the Dardanelles?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; Her Majesty's Ambassador has remonstrated, but hitherto without avail. Lord Dufferin will continue to endeavour to obtain permission for vessels bound to or coming from the Black Sea to pass the Straits without communicating with the shore—in other words, in quarantine; failing this measure, he will try to obtain a reduction of the period of detention.

PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—HOUSE OF COMMONS—THE LADIES' GALLERY.
MR. GOURLEYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, during the Recess, he will favourably consider and adopt measures for an increase of space and improved ventilation in the Ladies' Gallery, also for the removal of the screen; and, further, if any Order of the House exists which leaves about one-third of the Gallery with a divisional partition under the control of Mr. Speaker?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would consider the matter referred to by the hon. Member during the Recess; but he could not hold out any certain prospects of being able to do anything in the direction suggested. With regard to the second part of the Question, a portion of the Ladies' Gallery was appropriated by a Committee of the House, immediately after the erection of the House, for admission by order of Mr. Speaker, who used this privilege, not as a matter of private right, but who exercised it to meet claims of a special character, whether proceeding from Members of the House, or from other distinguished persons.
MR. PULESTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any
108
reason why the grating should not be removed, and such changes made as would greatly facilitate hearing and seeing in the Ladies' Gallery? [Cries of "No!"]
[No reply.]

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—CARMEEN DIVISION, COOTEHILL UNION—MR. VAUGHAN MONTGOMERY.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision has been come to by the Law Officers as to the prosecution of Mr. Vaughan Montgomery, J.P.; and, will the Papers be laid before the Lord Chancellor?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): The Attorney General has instructed the Sessional Crown Solicitor to proceed in this case for the penalty. While the matter is sub judice it would not be proper to refer the case to the Lord Chancellor.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— APPEALS.
MR. FINDLATERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the House in what proportion of appeal cases, and to what extent, has the amount of rent fixed by the Assistant Commissioners and County Court Judges respectively been varied by the Court of Appeal?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): In cases in the Land Court in which there were 6,048 appeals lodged and disposed of, rents were altered in 1,089 cases, 899 being raised, and 190 lowered.

NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS—HIRED MEN —AGE FOR DISCHARGE.
CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there are any instructions in force at the dockyards empowering the authorities to retain hired men after the age of sixty if found fit for service; in whom is this discretionary power vested; and, has it been exercised since the issue of the last Dockyard Instructions?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: By Dockyard instruction all hired men are to be discharged at 60 years of age. There have been a few special cases of retention

109
on the strong recommendation of the Superintendent, and with the approval of the Controller and the Civil Lord. A more elastic system has been proposed, and is under consideration.

CENTRAL ASIA—DELIMITATION OF THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER—THE COMMISSION—PERIOD OF OPERATION.
MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it has been decided when the Commission for the Delimitation of the Russo-Afghan Boundary is to commence its work; and, if he can state the probable period of time during which it is expected that the work will continue?
MR. J. K. CROSS: It is proposed that the Commission shall proceed with the delimitation this autumn, so as to make definite progress before the winter sets in, when it may be difficult to carry on the work. But I am unable, at present, to state the precise date when it will commence its work, or the period during which it will continue.

BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL.
MR. WARTONrose to ask the honourable Member for Swansea, Whether, seeing that the Bishopric of Bristol Bill, if it became an Act, would, in the opinion of members of the Church of England, promote the spiritual benefit of the Church, that it would take no money from the State, that it would not add to the number of Spiritual Peers, and that it would in no way interfere with the rights of Nonconformists, he will consider the propriety of withdrawing his Notice of opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill?
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I would like to ask whether this Question is in Order? Does it not contain debateable matter by stating that the Bill "would in no way interfere with the rights of Nonconformists?"
MR. SPEAKER: The preamble of the Question contains debateable matter, and is not in Order. The hon. and learned Member who proposes to ask it ought to confine himself to asking the direct Question with which the Notice ends.
MR. WARTON: I will withdraw the preamble, and put the Question in its most simple and naked form.
MR. DILLWYN: In answer to my hon. and learned Friend, I may say that, rightly or wrongly, I hold the opinion that the Bill would be injurious to the rights of Nonconformists, and I do not think it is advisable that such a Bill should pass. As to the general opinion of the members of the Church of England—[Cries of "Order!"]—at this late period of the Session it would be impossible properly to discuss the Question, and I must, therefore, decline to withdraw my opposition to the Bill.

FISHERY BOARDS (IRELAND)—THE BALLYSHANNON BOARD OF CONSERVATORS.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be the fact that the Ballyshannon Board of Conservators are in the habit of handing over their funds in many cases to the different proprietors of rivers for the payment of water bailiffs, or, in other words, restoring in many cases to the proprietors the amount of licence duty paid by them; that no receipts are produced as vouchers for such sums having been paid to the bailiffs, and, on a late occasion, they were not paid by the proprietor who had received this money from the Board until a long time after it had been due to and earned by the bailiffs; that one of the Conservators, a Mr. Hugh M'Intyre, has ineffectually remonstrated against this state of things, not only with the Board of Conservators, but with the Inspectors of Fisheries, and if he will give powers to the Inspectors of Fisheries to prevent this abuse of public funds, some of them being contributed as licence duty by poor fishermen, if they have not already sufficient powers, and also state what steps have been taken by the Inspectors since receipt of Mr. M'Intyre's communications; and, if the accounts of this Board are examined periodically by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) (for Mr. TREVELYAN): The Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that the Ballyshannon Board of Conservators are in the habit, in some cases, of entrusting to proprietors of rivers funds for payment through their hands of the water bailiffs. No receipts have hitherto been produced as vouchers for such payments. I am informed that on a late occasion a proprietor

111
did not hand the money over to the bailiff till a considerable time after it had been earned. Mr. M'Intyre remonstrated with the Board and Inspectors; but the Conservators have complete control over their own funds, and the Board can only give advice and make representations. The Inspectors, in this instance, have advised the Conservators to discontinue the practice. The accounts are examined periodically by the Inspectors.

FRANCE AND CHINA.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House information as to the present relations between the French and Chinese Governments, and especially as to the causes of the dispute, and as to the action of the French Fleet at Foochow; and, what steps Her Majesty's Ministers are taking to prevent the grave injury to British trade which a war would cause?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is not desirable that I should enter into the Question of the causes of the dispute between the French and Chinese Governments, as to do so might imply the expression of an opinion; but I may state that the French Yellow Book, recently laid before the French Chambers, contains information up to the end of last month, and I have placed a copy of it in the Library of the House. Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the French Squadron commands Foochow and Keelung, in Formosa; but it is believed, from information received from Paris, that negotiations are still proceeding, and it is hoped that a friendly settlement may yet be arrived at. I beg to refer the hon. Member, in answer to his last Question, to the reply I gave on the 10th of July, and to say that the instructions given last year for the protection of neutrals to the Naval Commanders of the Neutral Maritime Powers, in case of hostilities, have been recently renewed.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE TUAM MAILS.
COLONEL NOLANasked the Postmaster General, If he would consider the advisability of forwarding the night
112
mails to Tuam by rail, and thus facilitating postal communication in the large district which receives its letters through Tuam?
MR. FAWCETT: The night mails arrive at the present time at Tuam in time to be delivered the first thing in the morning, and they are not despatched till 9.20 at night. I do not think it would be possible to have more convenient hours. There is no passenger train running on the line which would bring the night mails at a suitable time to Tuam; and I have no doubt if the Company were asked to run a train specially for mail purposes they would expect a considerable payment, and no postal advantage would result.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCES —SARAKHS.
MR. TOMLINSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a telegram published in this day's Daily News, from the Teheran Correspondent of that newspaper; whether the information in possession of the Government gives them any reason to doubt the accuracy of the information contained in that telegram; whether Russia is now in occupation of both North and South Sarakhs, and within what distance of Herat does the occupation of these places bring the armed Forces of that Empire; and, whether this occupation is consistent with the explanation offered by the Russian Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have seen the communication in The Daily News referred to. The information contained in it is hardly accurate. The Tedjent River flows northward, and consequently the West is the left, and not the right bank, as stated. Moreover, the two places called Sarakhs are on different sides of that river, and not both on the West bank. I stated, on the 9th of June, that the Sarakhs on the Western bank of the river has not been occupied by Russia, though a report reached us that the Russian Commander-in-Chief contemplated taking possession of land on the right bank at Old Sarakhs, and making them over to the Turkomans. The distance from Old Sarakhs to Herat is 166 miles. I am not quite aware what explanation the hon. Member refers to in the concluding

113
paragraph of his Question; but the Afghan frontier question is the subject of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and that of Russia.
MR. TOMLINSON: I wish to ask the noble Lord whether the duties of the Aghan Limitation Commission will extend to the boundaries between the Persian and the Russian Empire?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That raises a totally different matter, and I think the hon. Member had better put the Question on the Paper.

PORTUGAL—THE INTERNATIONAL SAILING CODE—THE "CITY OF MECCA."
MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has yet determined to insist on the Portuguese Government either giving redress or consenting to arbitrate, in respect to the wrong done to British subjects by the Portuguese Courts in the City of Mecca collision case; or in what other way these British subjects are to have their wrongs redressed?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have not yet renewed their proposal for an arbitration in the case of the City of Mecca. The question is still under consideration, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to state the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to take in this matter, which is one of great difficulty. The Portuguese Government have already rejected our proposal for arbitration, and therefore a second had to be made. The manner of framing the arbitration is a matter of great difficulty and delicacy.
MR. ANDERSON: Is the noble Lord aware that this matter has already been pending for four years, during which British subjects have been deliberately robbed by the Portuguese Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am painfully aware that this question has continued for a considerable time; but the House must not be under the impression that it has continued for four years, and that nothing has been done. There has been this proposal for arbitration, which itself followed attempts to settle the matter by the ordinary diplomatic course.

EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE—LEGISLTION.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether this House may separate in the confident assurance that Her Majesty's Ministers will seriously consider the expediency of advising Her to use all Constitutional means to insure, as far as possible, that, before the end of the year, the Franchise will be extended by legislative enactment?
MR. GLADSTONE: The Government have already seriously considered the expediency of advising Her Majesty to use all Constitutional means for the purpose of securing the speedy consideration, and, I hope, the speedy passing, of the Franchise Bill. I do not know of any fresh advice that we can give to Her Majesty during the Recess to promote that object. But I think the answer to the Question is to be found in the advice already given to Her Majesty, and graciously accepted by her, concerning the early re-assembling of Parliament in the autumn.

IRELAND—THE MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART, DUBLIN.
MR. DEASY (for Mr. PARNELL)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the National interests involved in the question of the Science and Art Museum and National Library in Dublin, and in consideration of the fact that sixteen years have passed away since the first hopes were held out of their being established, he can state definitely when the design is likely to be decided upon, and when the building will be commenced?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. Yes, Sir. The Science and Art Museum and National Library in Dublin will be commenced at once; but the delay which has taken place since last year has been, in my opinion, unavoidable. The facts are simply these. Competition was invited for designs for a new Museum, to be erected at a cost not exceeding £110,000. The Consultative Committee recommended a design by Messrs. Deane; but when the cost of this came to be worked out it was found to amount to £140,000. It then became necessary to ascertain whether any other

115
design came within the prescribed limits as to cost. The Consultative Committee recommended a second and a third as admissible; but the cost of these has been estimated, and we have to-day learned that each of them would be slightly in excess of £140,000. We are thus reduced to the position of abandoning the designs altogether, or of consenting to accept Messrs. Deane's design, with a possibility of effecting some economies in its details; and although we cannot but deplore the excess above the limit in which the competitors indulged, it has been determined to accept Messrs. Deane's design.
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked how much the Consultative Committee calculated for contingencies?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I cannot say.
MR. MACARTNEYasked whether the plan of Messrs. Deane had been accepted in toto?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had stated that it was accepted subject to the possibility of effecting economies in its details.
MR. DEASYwas understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that at a conference between the architect of Messrs. Deane and the architect to the Treasury it was represented that the cost of the design could be reduced without impairing the architectural details?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that he had no information on that point.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EGYPT—SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE'S MOTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in whose name the following Notice stood upon the Paper:—
"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is proposed to postpone any attempt to relieve the precarious condition of Egyptian finance until the Government shall have received and considered a Report from Lord Northbrook; and, if any steps to afford that relief are contemplated as urgent, in what way will Her Majesty's Government engage the credit of the country without the consent of Parliament?"
said: Before putting this Question I may be allowed to say that since yesterday I have endeavoured to ascertain what would be the most convenient time for
116
raising the discussion on our position in relation to Egypt and on the policy of the Government; and I have reason to believe that to-day would be very inconvenient for some Members who wish to take part in the debate, while to-morrow would be inconvenient for others. There would also to-day be some uncertainty as to the time at which the Vote on which a discussion could be founded would be reached in Supply. I therefore propose to call attention to the whole subject on Monday on the proper stage of the Appropriation Bill, which, I presume, will be the first Order. I would now ask the First Lord of the Treasury the Question which stands in my name.
MR. GLADSTONE: I dare say that we shall be able to put down the Appropriation Bill as the first Order on Monday, in order to meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman; but I cannot say positively. As regards the Question on the Paper, as at present advised, we have no intention of adopting any scheme, either of action or counsel, with regard to Egyptian finance before we have received the Report which Lord Northbrook may make. But we are not in a position at this moment to say whether occasion may not arise during the interval for either counsel or action upon points of an incidental character. In any case, with regard to the latter part of the Question, we shall be most careful to preserve the Privileges of the House of Commons.

EGYPT—MISSION OF THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK—THE PORTE.
MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now state to the House that the Ottoman Porte has been consulted as to the despatch of a High Commissioner to inquire into and report to Her Majesty's Government upon the disorganised condition of a portion of the Sultan's dominions; and, if so, whether the Government of the Sultan have claimed the right of limiting the scope of the instructions to be given to the said High Commissioner?
MR. GLADSTONE: In our view, it would be entirely premature to enter on the discussion of any subject connected with Lord Northbrook's Mission, which would be only partial, and, therefore, misleading.
MR. COLERIDGE KENNARD: I simply asked whether any reference has been made to the Ottoman Porte?
MR. GLADSTONE: That is precisely the Question which I decline to answer, because I could only give partial information.

ADMIRALTY—ABSENCE OF THE FIRST LORD (THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK).
MR. PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What arrangements are proposed for the conduct of the affairs of the Admiralty during the absence of the First Lord as High Commissioner in Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONE: The Question has, perhaps, been framed in partial forgetfulness of the fact that, as a matter of form, the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty is in no manner necessary to the business of the Board. It is by the authority of the Board that the business of the Admiralty is carried on. The Question on the Paper, however, is one of a practical nature, and I am not sorry that the hon. Member has asked it. Speaking generally, the arrangements of the Admiralty for the remaining portions of the year are complete at this time of the year, and in any case there would now be a period of vacation and comparative recess. The current business will thus be carried on for a certain time almost in the same manner as if Lord Northbrook had been in England, and no inconvenience will be caused to the Public Service.

EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Representatives of Russia, Germany, and Austria, declined to give any opinion upon the differences between the French and English Governments; whether the Plenipotentiaries of those Powers expressed their willingness to support M. Waddington in his proposal to adjourn the Conference till October the 20th; and, whether Lord Granville, as President, declined to allow the Conference to vote upon this and other questions, and himself, proprio motu, declared the Conference adjourned sine die?
MR. GLADSTONE: I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen the Protocols, which were published and
118
circulated some days ago in French. They will be circulated in English this evening, and they contain all the information which the hon. Member seeks.
MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I have seen the Protocols, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be so good as to point out the portions in which there is any evidence to show that the Representatives of Russia, Germany, and Austria declined to give any opinion on the differences between the French and English Governments. I have been unable to find it.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been so unfortunate. He is the only person I have heard of who is in that position. Here is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was himself one of the Plenipotentiaries, and who is ready to support me when I state that, according to our appreciation of the matter, it is fully explained in the Protocols.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman gives his assent to the last two paragraphs of the Question?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have disposed of the last paragraph but one. As to the last paragraph, I do not know whether it is stated in the Protocols that Earl Granville made statements proprio motu; but I believe that they were as much proprio motu as those of any of the other Plenipotentiaries.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Were the Protocols verbatim reports of the speeches delivered?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The Protocols in this case follow the ordinary rule.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Are they précis or verbatim?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I believe they are précis, except the portions given between inverted commas.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
VISCOUNT NEWPORT: I desire to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which I have been unable to give him private Notice, but which he may be able to answer now. If not, I shall repeat it to-morrow. I wish to ask him, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in a speech reported

119
to have been delivered on the 4th of August by a Cabinet Minister—
"During the last 100 years the House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse, and sheltered every privilege. It has denied justice and delayed reform. It is irresponsible without independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without judgment, and arrogant without knowledge."
I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether these words express the opinions of Her Majesty's Government; and, if not, whether he does not think it would be desirable for him at once to repudiate them?
MR. GLADSTONE: I will not give the noble Lord the trouble of putting that Question on the Paper, for I could not add to my reply to-morrow anything that I cannot say to-day. The noble Lord appears to think that I have some jurisdiction over the minds of my Colleagues, and some title to pronounce upon the exact degree in which any expression they may use, or any picture they may draw, or any historical view to which their judgment may incline, is in precise harmony with my own. I decline entirely that task. If there is anything in the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) which exceeds the liberty which he has thought himself qualified to use in reviewing the conduct and recent history of the House of Lords, my right hon. Friend is responsible for every word he has spoken, and his words can be challenged in this House; but I entirely decline to recognize the principle that would seem to imply that every word spoken by a Minister is to be brought to account by all his Colleagues, and that no man is to say anything except the very words which every other Member of the Cabinet would say. There must be some liberty of judgment, and the only limits to that liberty of judgment are those Rules which may be applied by this House in case they deem that that just freedom has been exceeded.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE APPROPRIATION BILL.
MR. NEWDEGATEasked, Whether he was to understand that the second reading of the Appropriation Bill would be taken on Monday?
MR. GLADSTONE: The proper stage will be taken on Monday, and I hope it will be committed.
MR. NEWDEGATEinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman expected to take the second reading before Monday?
MR. GLADSTONE: Yes; on Saturday.

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING COMMISSION.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it would be possible for him to announce to the House before the Prorogation the names of the Royal Commissioners on Shipping, and the terms of the Reference?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite acknowledge the importance of this matter, and the great interest that is felt in it outside, and I shall be very glad if I am able to make the statement the noble Lord has asked of me before Parliament is prorogued; but, unfortunately, it is not in my power to name a day when I shall be in such a position. Communications are going on. I am inviting various Gentlemen to allow me to submit their names to Her Majesty; and until these communications are complete, and the recommendations have received the assent of the Queen, it is not possible for me to make any statement.

IRELAND—PERSONS DETAINED IN PRISON—RETURN.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he observed the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) in his place; and as the Question standing in the hon. Member's name referring to him had not been put, he desired to ask the hon. Member whether he intended putting it?
MR. CALLAN: I intend to ask it on Monday. I have postponed the Question until that day, as I purpose supplementing it with the names of some individuals who, I believe, are as respectable as myself or the right hon. Gentleman, and who were arrested at the instigation of Mr. French under warrants signed by the right hon. Gentleman.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War a

121
Question of which I have given him private Notice. In the morning papers there appears a telegram from Major Kitchener, giving the text of a letter from General Gordon to the Mudir of Dongola, as follows:—
"Khartoum and Sennaar are still holding out up to the present, and the messenger who brings this, Mohammed Ahmed, will give you news of me. When he arrives give him all the news you have, and tell him at what place the expedition coming from Cairo now is and the numbers coming."
Can the noble Lord inform the House as to the nature or position of the expedition which General Gordon is evidently expecting from Cairo?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I cannot tell what reports may have reached General Gordon, or what he refers to as coming from Cairo. It is possible he may have received reports of the movement of troops both of the Egyptian and British Army up the Nile, and it is also possible that he may have heard something of the movements of the Bedouins under Major Kitchener. It is impossible for me to more than conjecture what rumours and reports have reached him. The noble Lord and the House have been informed of every movement of troops that has taken place, and I can add nothing to what is already within the knowledge of the House.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Is it the intention of the Government to send any answer to that letter of General Gordon which, I understand, the noble Lord states has been already reported in the public Press; and, if so, whether the Government will inform General Gordon that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make preparations for his relief?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman would place that Question on the Paper for to-morrow or Saturday, and I think that course would be more convenient.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will give Notice for Monday; but, in the meantime, will the noble Lord tell us whether the Foreign Office has received a copy of that letter; and, if so, whether he will lay it on the Table?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes; the Foreign Office has received substantially the same information as
122
that which appears in The Times this morning in regard to General Gordon. There are four telegrams, which I will read to the House. They are all from Mr. Egerton to Earl Granville. The first (received on August 6, 1.28 P.M.) is as follows:—
"Cairo, August 6, 1884, 11.35 A.M.
"Pilgrims at Suakin report Gordon and Khartoum all right 27th June. Shendy and Damer in Government (Turkish) hands with two guns."
The second (received August 6, 5.30 P.M.) says—
"Cairo, August 6, 1884, 3.40 P.M.
"The following from Kitchener 3rd August:—The messenger who brought Gordon's letter says Gordon, Stewart, and Power are all well; no news had come to Gordon from outside. Provisions were cheap in Khartoum, and the besiegers had retired from their first positions, but still kept up the siege. The besiegers' force consisted of, on east, 5,000 men, under Sheikh El Obeid, from Halfayah to Gabet Hogali on Blue Nile. Eabourgergah, Sheikh of El Getainah, with 2,000 men, and Wad-el-Busir, with 3,000 men at Gereif, between Niles. Sheikh Fudleh south on White Nile, at Segerer Mahabeh, with 3,000 men. Sheikh Mustapha at Endermen, with 3,000 men—total, 16,000 men. Gordon has seven armed steamers and goes out in different directions and fights the enemy. Gordon sent letter to Hussein Pasha Khalifa, at Berber, by some messenger. Hussein Khalifa told him to wait for reply; while waiting there Berber fell. He says Berber fell by treachery of Hussein Pasha Khalifa, who placed his Arabs on part of fortifications and let enemy in that way. The soldiers fought well; after the enemy entered many people were killed. Hussein Pasha Khalifa did not appear during fight; he saw him afterwards, and asked for letter for Gordon. Hussein Pasha Khalifa would not give one. He said:—'The town is taken, tell Gordon what you have seen, I will write to him no more.' He was not wounded. This account is corroborated by 13 soldiers from Berber, who came over to Mudir of Dongola from Heffar last battle. Messenger went from Berber to Khartoum to tell Gordon. After three days he was sent again to Dongola, he passed by east to Shendy, and thence across to Debbeh. He says all the people want the old Government back, but are afraid of the Mahdi's Arabs. After messengers returned to Khartoum from Berber Gordon heard that the enemy had brought 7,000 ardebs of doura to Gereif from Mesalimieh with 11,000 men; he took three steamers to bring boats, killed a great many of the enemy, and seized all the doura. Gordon's men did not fire till the enemy had expended ammunition; they then landed and defeated them. News has come to Sultan of Darfour that people there have given up the Mahdi and have elected Ibrahim Bey, cousin of Sultan, to be Sultan. Mahdi's Vekil asked for men, but was recalled. It is also reported that force round Khartoum have asked for support and have been refused by Mahdi."
The third (received August 6, 4.20 P.M.) says—
"Cairo, August 6, 1884, 4. P.M.
"On the 4th Kitchener telegraphed he had forwarded Gordon's letter by post on the 2nd. Following is translation of text:—'To the Mudir of Dongola.—Khartoum and Sennaar are still holding out up to the present, and the bearer of this letter, Mahomed Ahmed, will give you news of mo. When he arrives give all the news you have, and the place where the expedition coming from Cairo is, and the numbers coming. We have 8,000 soldiers in Khartoum. The Nile has risen. Give 100 dollars to messenger from the Government. Dated 28th Shaban, 1301, signed 'C. E. Gordon' and sealed."
And the fourth—
"Cairo, August 6, 7 P.M.
"Pilgrims from Timbuctoo arrived at Suakin, say they were some time at Khartoum, saw much of Gordon, and tall, yellow-bearded Englishman. Firewood and vegetables dear at Khartoum, and meat [? expected] after expedition. Bread and doura in plenty. Gordon prevented his clerk giving them letters, as this might bring them into trouble. People can go half-a-day from Khartoum, but two days impossible. At Shendy troops are few, and rebels opposite numerous. At Daman Egyptians. Very few pilgrims were at Khartoum about middle of June. Do not tell Chermside when they left."
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I notice that in one of the telegrams reference is made to the desire of the people to have the old Government back. Can the noble Lord inform us what is meant by that—whether it is the people of Khartoum and neighbourhood who desire the old Government back, or whether it is the desire of the people generally?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: This is, as I read it, an expression of the opinion of the messenger who brought this message. It appears to be general in its terms, and to relate to the places through which, I suppose, the messenger passed.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will ask on Monday whether Her Majesty's Government will consider that desire before deciding that Khartoum and the district shall be evacuated?
Mr. W. E. FORSTERIn answer to Mr. W. E. FORSTER,
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the date of the Mahomedan month Shaban was given, and it corresponded with the 25th of June, which tallied with the date of the first telegram he had read to the House.

EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that, as the Prime Minister had stated on Saturday that the Representatives of Germany, Austria, and Russia had declined to give any opinion as to the differences between the English and French Governments, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could point out any evidence in the Protocols which substantiated that assertion?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)asked the hon. Member to repeat his Question, as he had not the Protocols with him.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL CONVENTION—RATIFICATION.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether the statement is correct which appears in the Press to-day to the effect that the Transvaal Volksraad have been considering the Convention with closed doors, and there is a doubt as to its ratification?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have no intelligence on the subject. The consideration of the Convention was delayed till the return of the Delegates, and they have only just returned to the Transvaal. The period for the ratification or rejection is to the end of this month.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
(1.) £786,951, to complete the sum for Customs.
(2.) £1,446,615, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.
MR. GRAYsaid, he had been under the impression that the first Vote about to be taken was that for the Post Office Department.
MR. COURTNEY: No; the Inland Revenue Department.
MR. GRAYsaid, he believed that several hon. Gentlemen desired to call attention to various details connected with that Vote. There were certainly

125
some Members of the House who were under the impression that the first Vote to be taken that day would be the Post Office Telegraph Vote; and, consequently, those who were anxious to raise questions upon the present Vote were absent. He was afraid, in consequence of a statement made in answer to a Question he had put, that he had been the means of conveying that impression to more than one hon. Member; and he had certainly been told that the first Vote to be taken would be the Post Office Telegraph Vote.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he should be sorry if any hon. Members had been misled; but, at that period of the Session, it was necessary that the order in which the Votes were presented should be adhered to; but any hon. Gentleman could raise a question about the Vote upon Report.
MR. GRAYasked if the Government intended to take the Revenue Votes in their order?
MR. COURTNEYsaid, that, in regard to the Post Office Vote, he had certainly intimated to the hon. Gentleman that, if the time was convenient, he would take the Telegraph Vote before the ordinary Post Office Vote; and, for the convenience of the hon. Member, when they came to the Post Office Vote, he would be ready to postpone that until they had taken the Telegraph Vote.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked if he was to understand that these Votes included the Supplementary?
MR. COURTNEY: Yes.
MR. MONKsaid, he would like to address a question to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in regard to a certain branch of the Revenue Department. Was the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) had had a Motion on the Paper for a considerable time, asking for a Select Committee to be appointed to consider the grievances under which certain officers of the Department considered they were labouring? He should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would give some assurance, on behalf of the Government, that these assumed grievances—for he would not express any opinion himself as to their reality—would be inquired into, and that next Session a Select Committee would be appointed.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could not make any pledge as to next Session; but he could assure his hon. Friend that the grievances of the Inland Revenue officers had been carefully considered already, and an elaborate Report had been presented to the House bearing upon their case. He believed that the attention given to the subject had been exhaustive; but if there were any further remonstrances they should be considered.
MR. WARTONasked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he was prepared to take any step towards the amalgamation of the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, with the view of saving a number of commissions? He was of opinion that a considerable amount of saving might be effected to the country by such an amalgamation.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, the amalgamation of the Customs and of the Revenue Departments was by no means a novel question; it had been considered by a Select Committee many years ago, which was specially appointed to inquire into the question, and various steps had been taken to promote the fusion of these two branches of the Public Service. Warehouses had been amalgamated, and the same rules of administration adopted; and the object of the union was being kept steadily in view, in order that it might be realized as changes occurred. There had really been an amalgamation of the two branches at many ports, although not at the principal ports, and the fusion of Departments was being carried out as rapidly as circumstances would permit.
Vote agreed to.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would now propose to take the Post Office Telegraphs Vote.
MR. PULESTONasked if he was to understand that the question of the salaries paid in the Post Office would be included in this Vote?
MR. COURTNEY: No; that will be taken under the Post Office Vote. I propose now to take the Vote for completing the sum for Post Office Telegraphs.
(3.) £1,204,589, to complete the sum for Post Office Telegraphs.
MR. FAWCETT: I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the

127
House take great interest in the question of telephonic communication; and I think it would conduce to the convenience of the Committee, and also save time, if I at once proceed to explain to the Committee the decision which has been arrived at by the Government upon this subject. Throughout we have been most anxious that the public should enjoy all the possible facilities, with regard to telephonic communication, which are compatible with due regard to the interests of the Revenue. I am free to confess that, during my short official experience, no question that I have had to deal with has presented so many difficulties; and I trust the Committee will accept the assurance that, in attempting its solution, I have been actuated by no other motive than a desire to do what I believe would most conduce to the advantage of the public. I feel that no good would result from occupying the time of the Committee by going over bygone controversies; and, therefore, I will at once state that, after taking into consideration all existing circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that, in order that the public may enjoy the facilities with regard to telephonic communication which, in my opinion, they may fairly claim, it is desirable to give greater freedom to private enterprize by relaxing some of the conditions contained in the licences which have been granted to private Telephone Companies. That being the case, I at once proceed to state how we think that these facilities could be given, so that, on the one hand, the public may have these facilities with regard to telephonic communication, which they have a right to demand; whilst, on the other hand, the Revenue is properly protected. In order to assist me in arriving at a decision on this subject, I, some weeks ago, asked the Telephone Companies to send me a statement of their views upon the matter, stating to me in what respect they considered that the conditions now contained in the telephonic licences ought to be relaxed in the public interest. In reply to that application, I received a statement from the United Telephone Company, and its affiliated Companies, containing three distinct proposals, which I will now proceed to explain. Before doing so, however, I may state that from other Companies, not connected with the United Telephone Company, I also received
128
statements of their views which, except in one particular, did not vary in any important respect from those of the United Telephone Company. The point which they specially insist on demanding is, that they should be secured against competition in those towns in which they have been carrying on telephonic exchange business. I may at once say that that request is one which I do not think for one moment ought to be entertained. Reverting to the three proposals which were submitted to me by the United Telephone Company and its affiliated branches, I will briefly describe them. The first proposal was that the Telephone Companies, in the various localities in which they had been licensed, should be allowed to carry on their business in any manner they might think fit, and that, in lieu of the royalty of 10 per cent now paid to the Post Office on their gross receipts, the Companies would undertake to make good to the Department any loss which the local telegraph revenue might suffer from the development of telephonic communication within such district. They offered to guarantee the Post Office against loss in its local telegraph revenue; from carrying on an unrestricted telephonic business; and they further proposed that, in estimating the telegraph revenue, account was to be taken of its normal growth by estimating what had been its growth during the previous three years. The second proposal contemplated, not the entire abolition of the present royalty of 10 per cent, but its reduction to 5 per cent; that the same guarantee against the loss of local revenue to the Department as that contained in the first proposal should be entered into; and it was further proposed that the present radius for carrying on a telephonic exchange business, which is now usually restricted to four or five miles, should be extended to 15 miles; and that, in other respects, restriction should be removed, which, in all essentials, gave the same freedom as that embodied in the first proposal which I have just described. I think it will conduce to a clear understanding of the subject if, before proceeding to describe the third proposal, I say at once that, at first sight, I was considerably attracted by the proposal of a guarantee, and thought it might offer a solution of the question.

129
When, however, I examined into the matter more closely, I came to the conclusion that it would prove inadmissible. I will explain to the Committee why I came to that conclusion. If we had accepted from any Telephone Company such a guarantee as that which they now propose, it would be obvious that they must be secured against future competition in their business; because, having accepted a guarantee, it would have been palpably unfair immediately to license another Company to compete against them. [Mr. GRAY: No.] Well, that is my opinion; and I think the Committee will agree with me that if there is to be monopoly in telephonic communication, or in any other communication, it had better be in the hands of the Government, which can be controlled, and which is directly amenable to public opinion, rather than that a monopoly should be vested in a private Company. Besides this objection there was another which, even if it had stood alone, would, in my opinion, be quite sufficient to prevent the idea of a guarantee from being entertained. If the Post Office had once accepted the principle of such a guarantee its discretion would have been fettered in introducing any change in the telegraph tariff. That being the case, I have to consider the third proposal of the United Telephone Company, and I will briefly describe it to the Committee. It contemplates no guarantee, but proposes that the existing royalty of £10 per cent should continue to be paid, and that the Companies should be freed from all restrictions in carrying on their business, much in the same way as is contemplated under proposal No. 2. I may add to that, that the Telephone Companies laid great stress, with regard to all these proposals, upon the Department relinquishing the condition we have inserted in private licences, which enables the Post Office to demand an unlimited supply of the patented instruments used by the Telephone Companies. For the reasons I have already stated, I came to the conclusion that proposals Nos. 1 and 2, the essential feature of which was the guarantee, could not be accepted; but I also came to the conclusion that proposal No. 3, the essential feature of which is a continuance of the royalty of £10 per cent, affords the basis for a settlement; and the terms which
130
the Government are now prepared to offer I will now describe under eight heads—(1.) That the Post Office should reserve its right to carry on telephonic business on its own account, or to give licences to any responsible persons to carry on such business in any part of the country, whether in that part of the country a licence had or had not, been, previously given; (2.) That the Post Office would no longer maintain the condition which has been inserted in recent licences, which called, on the part of the Post Office, for an unlimited supply of any patented instruments used by Telephone Companies; (3.) That, as the same objection in principle to a radius of 15 miles applied to a radius of four or five miles, all limitations as to area should be swept away; (4.) That with this abolition of the limitation of radius, and with the extinction of area, the distinction as to the conditions on which Telephone Companies were allowed to carry on business on telephone exchange and trunk wires should not be maintained, and that the same conditions be applied to trunk and exchange wires alike; (5.) That call offices for the despatch of oral messages should be allowed; (6.) That, in lieu of the concessions just described, and with the object of securing a greater simplicity of accounts, the royalty of £10 per cent, now paid on gross receipts, should be extended to receipts from private wire buisness; (7.) That the Post Office should be under no obligation to provide way-leaves, or to erect wires for the Companies; (8.) That, in order to maintain the distinction between the written telegraphic message and oral messages sent by means of telephones, the Telephone Company should not be permitted to receive or deliver a written message at any point. Now, I think it will be obvious to the Committee that so anxious have I been to redeem the pledge that no unnecessary impediment should be thrown in the way of telephonic communication, that in some respects I have conceded more than has been asked for, either by the Companies or by the public. I can only say that I hope the terms which I have offered will be received in the same spirit which has prompted me in making them; and if they are unreservedly accepted as a settlement, I have nothing more to add than this—that all existing

131
licences, as soon as they are returned, shall have the new terms introduced in them, and in any new licences which may be granted the terms which I have just described will be embodied. I have now only to thank the Committee for the patience with which it has listened to a statement which I fear may have been somewhat prolix.
MR. JACOB BRIGHT: I wish to ask for an explanation in reference to exchange and trunk wires. The present rule is, I think, to charge 10 s. a-mile to subscribers for trunk wires; but it is necessary that the subscriber entering into that arrangement should make a deposit of so much a-year. Is that included in the present arrangement?
MR. FAWCETT: No. All those conditions will be got rid of.
MR. JACOB BRIGHT: That being so, I may say to my right hon. Friend, on the part of persons who have asked me to take their cases in hand and lay them before the Committee, that I think they will be perfectly satisfied with the arrangements proposed. Indeed, it appears to me to be as generous an offer as any of the Companies could expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) is, however, connected with the Telephone Companies, which I am not. I have nothing to do with any Telephone Company, and he probably will be able to represent their views more than I can; but, from representations which have been made to me from Manchester, I think the statement of my right hon. Friend will be regarded as satisfactory.
MR. GRAY: Perhaps, unfortunately for myself, I am connected with an Irish Telephone Company; but I certainly shall not venture to discuss the question before the Committee in that capacity. I have not sought to advance what I considered to be the interests of the Telephone Companies except as connected with the interests of the general public. Now, Sir, I have listened with great interest to the very clear, although very elaborate, statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has made; and I say at once that, as far as I understand the speech—and there are certain slight matters which I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain, and I do not doubt that he will be able to explain them—I think his statement is highly
132
satisfactory, and an exceedingly fair one. In regard to the observations he has made as to the protection of the public and the protection of the Post Office Department, I heartily agree with him, and I think that the provisions he has sketched out in that respect are quite as necessary as he thinks himself. I have no doubt that the arrangement he has sketched out will be fully carried out, not merely in the letter, but in the spirit, and I have no doubt that it will be accepted by the Telephone Companies. I also agree with him that to go back upon old controversies and to reopen old sores is totally unnecessary. I do not think it at all necessary to discuss the reasons which have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman as to why he has been unable to accept proposals Nos. 1 and 2 made to him on behalf of the Telephone Companies. As the matter has now passed beyond that stage, I do not think it is necessary to occupy either the attention of the right hon. Gentleman or that of the Committee by going back to it. I myself think the first proposition of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that the claim of any Company to receive a monopoly could not be entertained for a moment, is perfectly just. Such a claim would be as unjustifiable as a claim to restrict the undoubted right of the Post Office to erect and maintain wires itself for the Public Service. There can be no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the Post Office Department, and in the service of the public, is bound to reserve to himself the fullest possible rights, both as to the Post Office Department in competition with existing Companies and as to licences for new Companies. The claim of any Company to establish anything in the nature of monopoly, of course, cannot be conceded. The Companies connected with the United Company have always claimed the right of free competition; and the only objection they have raised has been to an unfair competition on the part of the Post Office Department using the rights and privileges of a great public service to their detriment. I do not think that I need occupy the time of the right hon. Gentleman by discussing those of the eight points he has submitted to the Committee, and of which I thoroughly approve. In regard to most I only ask for a little further explanation, especially in regard

133
to No. 4. The right hon. Gentleman says that, with the abolition of any limit of radius and consequent extension of areas, the distinction between the conditions on which the Companies have hitherto been allowed to use trunk and exchange wires will not be maintained, the Companies being in future able to provide themselves with trunk and exchange wires alike. Then, when I come to No. 7, I find the right hon. Gentleman says that the Post Office incurs no obligation to provide way-leaves, or to erect or maintain wires for the Telephone Companies. I may point out that, of course, there is no obligation at present upon the Post Office to erect wires, either for Telephone Companies or for private individuals. So far as I know, the Department has aright to erect them; but I am not aware that any person has a right to compel it to erect them. But if, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Department shall be under no obligation to erect wires under any circumstances—if he means to convey that the Department will not erect wires under any conditions, the result would be one which I know the right hon. Gentleman, in his present frame of mind, does not contemplate; for instance, I believe, although whether it is in actual work or not I cannot say, that there is a trunk wire between London and Brighton. Now, it would be actually impossible for any Company or private individual to run wires between London and Brighton, or generally between town and town, simply because the Post Office, not as a Department of the State, but as a private purchaser, has obtained the monopoly of way-leaves along all railway lines; and it is only along railway lines that telephone wires for long distances can be run. Therefore, if the Post Office say they will not erect wires between town and town, that would be, in effect, the same as to say that they will not permit the public at all to have the advantage of telephonic communication between town and town. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not contemplate that. But what he means to convey is that the Companies shall have no right to seek to compel the Post Office to erect trunk wires, but that the Post Office shall be free to do so, if they think it advantageous to the public. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance to that effect I
134
think it would be perfectly satisfactory; but if the right hon. Gentleman means to convey that, under no circumstances, will the Post Office run a trunk wire for the service of the public along its different lines, why, then, he simply shuts out the public of the United Kingdom from an enormous advantage. I believe that, at this moment, telephonic communication is carried on in America between towns 300 and 400 miles apart. I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit of fairness which he has manifested; and, in regard to trunk wires, I say that telephonic communication by trunk wire between London and Liverpool, or London and Manchester, or between London and Brighton, cannot be carried out, except with the assistance of the Post Office Department; and if the opposition of the Post Office were pushed to a vexatious extent, the result might be very disastrous to the public interest. No doubt, it is perfectly right for the Department to protect its telegraphic revenue. As I understand the view of the Companies, there is no desire on their part to secure a revenue from trunk wires. What they are desirous to secure is, that those who use the telephone wires shall have facilities in regard to trunk wire communication between town and town; and I am quite certain that they would be perfectly willing, if the Post Office will consent to erect trunk wires, to secure the Post Office from loss by giving to the Post Office all the profit of those trunk wires. I believe they would even go further than that, and guarantee the Post Office a certain amount of revenue from such trunk wires. All I want is some assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will not draw a hard-and-fast line which may deprive the public of the United Kingdom of the advantage which the people of every other civilized country either have, or are about to have, of carrying on conversations freely between persons living in towns at a considerable distance from each other. I am sure that he does not desire to punish the inhabitants of the United Kingdom for having given a monopoly of telegraphic work to the Government by saying—"You shall not have the facilities of this wonderful invention, although the people of Germany, of France, of America, and of every other civilized country in

135
the world enjoy it." Let the right hon. Gentleman protect the public Revenue in the most careful way possible, and let the Department make all the profit they can out of an enterprize which cannot be carried out by other persons, owing to the fact that the Department has purchased the exclusive way-leaves over railway lines; but do not let him, because he has a monopoly, punish the public by not allowing them to derive advantage from a great discovery. The right hon. Gentleman proposes, in consideration of the undoubtedly substantial, and, I may go so far as to say, generous concessions he has enumerated—he proposes, as a condition for those concessions, that the Post Office should receive a royalty upon private wire business. Now, that involves a principle which the Companies may have some difficulty in acceding to. The right hon. Gentleman might as well ask the Companies, or private individuals who run private telegraph wires, to give the Post Office a royalty upon them. He might ask me for a royalty upon erecting a wire to communicate from my own private house to my stables at the end of the garden.
MR. FAWCETT: Yes; if a profit was derived from the transaction.
MR. GRAY: Precisely; but the right hon. Gentleman might just as well ask me for 10 per cent on the rent of the house I occupy, because the Post Office have never pretended that they have any direct or indirect licence to interfere with the erection, by any individual or Company, of a telephone wire between house and house. Surely, if I own a house, I would have the right to run a wire between the house and any portion of the grounds connected with it, and to use there either a telegraphic instrument or a telephone, or both. Who on earth has a right to interfere, or to step in and say that I must pay for it? But if I use a patented instrument, whether a patented telephonic instrument or a patented telegraphic instrument, and I pay the person who belongs to it a royalty for the use of it, the right hon. Gentleman says that he must have a share of the revenue thereby derived. Now, this is not, as far as the profit derived from it is concerned, an important question. The concessions given by the right hon. Gentleman would even be cheaply purchased by assenting to
136
that proposal, if it did not involve an exceedingly dangerous principle; because the right hon. Gentleman says—"If I do certain things in the interest of the public, I ought to be allowed to step in and obtain a portion of the private property of the individual," to which the State has no more right than it has to my hat or coat. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider that point; and, if he does so, I think he will see that his position, whether he claims 10 per cent or ·0001 per cent, is altogether untenable; and I do not see how any Company or private individual could consent to recognize that claim. If once recognized, it might be pushed very much further, and the Government would be able to say to any private individual—"As a concession for giving you certain facilities, we lay claim to a portion of your property, although we have no right to it by law." I do not think it possible to admit that principle; and although it is not of importance financially, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it, and I think he will come to the conclusion that it is quite untenable. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Telephone Companies are not to be permitted to transmit anything in the nature of a written message. I think that is a poor kind of condition to impose, and scarcely worthy of the attitude the Government now take up. At the present moment, the Post Office authorities have a certain number of Telephone Exchanges, and any person subscribing to those Telephone Exchanges has now two privileges which the Post Office refuses to the subscribers to private Telephone Exchanges. One is the privilege of sending a written message, say, to Newcastle or anywhere else where the Post Office has, at this moment, a Telephone Exchange. Say, for instance, that the subscriber desires to send a message to his grocer, or his wine merchant, or anybody else who is not a subscriber to the Exchange. The Post Office officials will transcribe the message for him, and will forward it, charging only 3d. for doing so. Now, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should deprive the subscribers to a Telephone Exchange of this great convenience. I can easily understand how, in any circumstances, it must be an enormous convenience to any subscriber to an Exchange to "ring

137
up" a clerk from the office and say—"Write down a message to so-and-so, next door to the Exchange office, and toll him to attend my sick child, or to supply me with any particular article I want." I do not think it is good policy on the part of the Department, and I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point. I do not think it is good policy for the Department to restrict, in any way, the facilities which are given to the public. I think the policy of the Department ought to be confined, in the first place, to protecting the public, as far as it is in their power, against the evils of monopoly; and, in the next place, to protecting the revenue of the Department against loss. I do not think the policy of the Department should be, in any way, to interfere with the convenience received by the public from the use of the telephone, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to provide a condition, by saying that if the Telephone Companies send written messages for their subscribers, such messages should be recognized as in the nature of telegrams, and a rate charged for them which the Post Office Department charges in its own Telephone Exchange for similar services. The revenue derived from them, after a reasonable deduction for outlay, should be the property of the Post Office. I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the distinction between the Telephone Companies wanting to make a revenue out of a matter of this kind, and rendering their service more attractive to the public. They would willingly, I believe, yield to the Department any revenue they might derive, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would protect the Post Office by saying that written messages should be regarded as telegrams, and that they should only be sent on certain conditions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the suggestion in the same good spirit as that which has actuated him in connection with other details. What I really want to see in this matter is, that the public shall be served in the best possible way. There is one point of detail to which I wish to direct attention. At the present moment, subscribers to the Post Office are permitted to be put in communication with the Telegraph Department of the Post Office; and if they want to send a telegram to Australia, America, or any other part of
138
the world, they can take their telegram to the telephone without quitting their rooms. Subscribers can dictate their messages by telephone to the clerk at the Post Office, who takes them down in writing, and charges them with the cost. I do not see why the same facility should not be given to all those who use the Telephone Exchanges. If the telegraphs, instead of being a Department of the State, were a private trading concern, and any other trading concern offered to erect a wire in connection with the Telegraph Office, so as to give the public greater facilities for sending telegrams, surely any responsible manager in charge of such telegraph business would say that he was very much obliged, and would willingly fall in with such proposal, because it would be to his own advantage. But the Post Office say—"We will not permit anything of the kind, except you charge to each subscriber £5 per annum for the facility of sending telegrams," for which he is, of course, to pay the full price charged for the telegraph system. I recollect the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) saying, upon the question of sixpenny telegrams, that he would demonstrate that the Post Office telegraph wires were only used to the extent of one-third of their capacity.
MR. FAWCETT: If you take the number of messages, and spread them equally over the 24 hours, no doubt that would be so; but it will be found that, in the day time, the greatest number are sent, and that many of the more important wires are very much crowded; and before it would be possible to bring the reduced tariff into operation, it would be necessary to lay down 15,000 miles of extra wires.
MR. GRAY: I do not dispute that. All I suggested was, whether the Post Office was in such a position, and had so much business, that it did not want any more. If the Post Office wants more business, why not facilitate those who wish to bring business to their doors? What I contend is that it is not a reasonable arrangement to impose a preposterous charge of £5 5s. or £5, which no ordinary subscriber will pay. But, on the other hand, it would be perfectly fair to allow the Telephone Companies to give facilities to their subscribers for sending telegrams, simply

139
allowing them to charge the actual cost to them for taking down and transmitting. If that is not done, the public are deprived of a great convenience which they ought to enjoy. I will put it to the Committee what an enormous advantage it would be if a person residing two or three miles away from a telegraph office, who wanted to send a message in the middle of the night through a telephone, were able to say—"Take down that message for such-and-such a place, and send it off by your telephone to the telegraph wire." That would be an enormous advantage; but a subscriber would only want to send a message in that way occasionally, and he would never dream of paying £5 a-year for the privilege. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he imposes a similar charge on his own subscribers; but it is only a nominal charge, and does not really exist. He divides his charge under two heads—one for the use of the telephone, and one for the use of the telegraph. I believe he makes a charge in Newcastle of £14 or £15. He says—"I charge £9 for one service, and £5 for the other;" but if the subscriber says he will give me £9 for the one service, and that he does not require the other, for which he would have to pay £5, the right hon. Gentleman says—"No; you must pay £14." It does not, therefore, become a question simply of £ s. d. It is not a reality, but a mere formality; and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman to take it into his favourable consideration in the interests of the public. If there is any charge made by the Telephone Companies for this additional service, let the revenue go to the Post Office. The Companies do not want it. But what they want is that they should not be impeded in serving the public. I have directed attention to these two or three points, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to arriving at some reasonable arrangement upon them. With regard to the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman generally, I trust and believe that they will be accepted by the Telephone Companies in the generous spirit in which they have been offered. Personally, I think they are fair and reasonable; and if the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that he will himself insist on them, and see that they are really carried out fairly,
140
and in a straightforward manner, without the old policy being pursued of the officials of the Department racking their brains to invent impediments, and to create causes of delay, I believe the public will heartily welcome the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the matter. I might give instances to show the preposterous manner in which the Department has interfered with the working of the Telephone Companies; but I do not wish to rake up old sores. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that he will see his proposals carried through fairly and properly, and in the spirit in which he has spoken to-night, I think the public will have every reason to be satisfied, and I am convinced that experience will show that the Post Office will gain largely and directly, both by way of royalties, and by the increase of business in connection with the ordinary telegraph. The invention of the telephone is one of a marvellous character, and I believe it will, in the future, be of the greatest possible service both to the commercial and the general community. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in conclusion. I have, no doubt, somewhat warmly taken up the question of telephones in this House. Possibly on some occasions in debates, or in written communications with the Department which I have had occasion to make, I may have used irritating words in regard to what appeared to me to be unnecessary and vexatious delays, and which may not unnaturally have been calculated to cause irritation or impatience on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I can only say, on the other hand, that those who have been interested in the working of telephones have within the last few years been irritated at what they deemed the obstructive attitude of the Post Office Department. If, in my language or acts, I have given any offence to the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry for it. I, for one, have had the fullest confidence from the beginning that if, as contra-distinguished from some of the officials who naturally, although well-meaning, are too much inclined to take a purely official view of a matter of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman had been able to fix his attention himself to the subject, and had been induced to give it his study, he would be prepared to deal with it in a broad and statesmanlike

141
manner; and while, of course, protecting the Department, and seeing that the public Revenue did not suffer, that he would give the facilities which the public with perfect confidence had a right to expect. I think he has now done so, and I think that our exertions are justified by the result. I therefore offer our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has dealt with the matter, and for the exceedingly fair and straightforward offer which he has made.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: There can be no doubt that the use of the telephone is greatly increasing; and, from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) and other hon. Members, I am convinced that there is likely to be a very great development of this new means of communication. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General will, I have no doubt, remember that with reference to monopolies Mr. Mill used these words—
"A Government is more often chargeable with interfering to make things dear, than with interfering to make things cheap."
Now, I must say that what I have heard upon this matter makes me very much inclined to believe that the interference of the Government with regard to the use of the telephone has not had a tendency to make the use of these instruments cheap to the public. I am speaking now only on behalf of the public, and I am anxious that this mode of communication should be made as cheap as possible. I am inclined to think that it ought to be in the hands of whatever power, whether it be the Government or private Companies, who can make it cheapest. I think it probably may be found that, in the end, the Government will be able to make telephonic communication cheaper than a Company could do, because there must be communication more or less with the telegraphic wires, which are at present a monopoly in the hands of the Government. I only desire to say that it is very important the matter should be in the hands of that power which will give the cheapest supply; and I am quite sure the attention of my right hon. Friend will be directed towards that end.
MR. PULESTON: I agree with every word which has been used by previous speakers, as to the appreciation of all those who take an interest in the matter
142
of the very liberal concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General. I am sure we were right in expecting and believing that the time would shortly come when some concession would be made; because our experience, and the experience of the country, has been, in regard to the administration of the Post Office Department, such as could lead us to no other conclusion. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to open the debate, and that, by doing so, he has prevented the possibility of any acrimonious discussion taking place. Reference has been made to the use of the telephone in the United States. I happen to know this important fact, which I may mention to the Committee—that, in proportion to the facilities which have been given for the use of the telephones in America, so have the revenues of the telegraph business increased, and very largely too. I ventured to say something of the same kind when seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), in favour of sixpenny telegrams; and after the concession now made in regard to the telephone I am certain that the business of the telegraphs will also be largely increased, and that our experience will be similar to that of the United States—namely, that just in proportion as the telephone business increases, so the revenue received from telegrams will also increase. I fully agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) as to the desirability of giving facilities for the erection of trunk wires, in order to send messages by telegraph, after having conveyed them, in the first instance, by telephone. I see no particular reason why there should be no extension of area, or why the whole business should not be carried on upon a sort of Free Trade principle. Take the instance of Brighton. The public are well cared for there, but are not able to hold communication with London; and I hope my right hon. Friend, when he rises to reply, will kindly say a word on that point. To give an illustration of some of the past difficulties, I may say that in the towns of Plymouth and Devonport, the latter of which I represent, there have been difficulties which will be very familiar to the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, it has been

143
impossible to have any telephonic business done there at all in connection with the Post Office. All those difficulties are now entirely set at rest. As I understand now, any Company—the United Telephone Company, for instance—may open an Exchange anywhere. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government opened their telephonic service at Plymouth with something like 150 subscribers; but that the number has since been reduced to something like 40. The general experience of the system was that the business conducted by means of private enterprize there was very much more successful than the efforts of the Government. Although I do not take exception to the statement of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), that the time may come when the Government may possibly compete satisfactorily with the Companies, I agree with him that the public ought to have the facilities they demand supplied to them in the cheapest way, whether by the Government or by private enterprize. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clear way in which he has given these concessions; and I trust we may hope that there will be no serious delay in putting them into execution.
MR. STEWART MACLIVER: I desire to join with other hon. Members in recognizing the importance of the concessions made by the Postmaster General. It is well known that considerable dissatisfaction has prevailed in regard to the present arrangements for telephonic communication, and there are reasons why that dissatisfaction should now cease, after the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I think some allowance ought to be made for the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, on account of their being hampered with the burden of the large expenditure incurred when the Government took over the telegraphs. We all know that the price paid for the telegraphs was enormously in excess of their value, and the Government have had to contend for years with that difficulty, and therefore have been unable to make any steady advance in the improvement of telephonic communication. But now, I think, we are in a position, after a relaxation which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make, to expect
144
that the public will be satisfied with the telephonic communication, and to see that other advances are made in the same direction. I can only repeat that the public will recognize and thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done on their behalf.
DR. CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has very properly deprecated our going into any byegone stories; but there is one point to which I must direct the attention of the Committee. Telephones were not invented until long after the Government acquired the Post Office Telegraphs. Therefore, they did not purchase any rights in connection with telephonic communication. Towards the end of last Parliament a Bill was introduced by the Postmaster General, which contained a clause giving the Government a right over the telephones which had been invented and brought into use since their purchase of the telegraphs. Now, that appeared to me to be the confiscation of the invention. I strongly opposed that clause, and, with the assistance of some of my hon. Friends, managed to induce the Government to drop it. Since then, however, in consequence of some judicial decision, the Post Office have acquired a legal right; but I do not think they ever got a moral right; and they ought to treat the Telephone Companies, as far as possible, as if the Government had not violently, and, in my opinion, not very honestly, laid hands on this invention. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that one of his proposals is that the difference between trunk lines and local lines shall be done away with; and he proposes that the Post Office shall not be compelled to put up wires for the Telephone Companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) criticized this proposition, and he has said that the Post Office ought to be willing to give facilities for erecting trunk lines, if the Companies themselves are not able to put them up. Now, I have no unfavourable criticism to offer on that part of my right hon. Friend's proposals. It seems to me that if the Post Office place a Telephone Company in the same position, as nearly as possible, as they would be if the Post Office had not seized hold of the invention, we have no right to ask the Post Office to do anything for them in aid of their requirements;

145
and it is for the Post Office to consider carefully the propriety of setting up trunk wires between the large towns.
MR. GRAY: I only suggested that they should erect them on the railway lines over which they have the right of way-leave.
DR. CAMERON: In addition to railway lines, there are the roads and canals of the country. It must be remembered that the Post Office pay, in many cases, under the Act for way-leave along the railways, a yearly charge of about £1 per mile. I know that way-leave and maintenance is a very important item. There is one point on which it appears to me the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman should in fairness be modified, if the Committee regard it from the standpoint from which I look at it. What we should aim at appears to me to be to place the Telephone Companies, as nearly as possible, in the position they would have occupied if the Post Office had not violently laid hands on the invention. I do not disapprove of competition on the part of the Post Office. By all means let us have competition. But how can we have free competition if the Post Office charge private Companies with a royalty of 10 per cent? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot, in fairness and in the interests of the public, reduce that royalty? I am satisfied the telephone business would be greatly increased in the country by a reduction of the royalty now charged. There was one point which my right hon. Friend did not make as clear as I think he ought. He said that call-houses were to be permitted. These call-houses are places where any member of the public can go and communicate with any member of a Telephone Exchange. Is there to be any limit as to the price to be charged? [Mr. FAWCETT: No.] I think that is perfectly right, and perfectly satisfactory. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in the disputes which have existed between the Post Office and the Telephone Companies, has endeavoured to meet his adversaries in the fairest and most conciliatory spirit. In the interests of the public, all I would suggest in addition is, that he should consider the propriety of reducing the royalty, which, at present, prevents the Telephone Companies from competing with the Post Office.
MR. WARTON: I wish to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) to the way in which the Post Office Accounts are given. At page 127, it seems to me that the Votes present two different systems of making out the accounts, especially in regard to the items for labour.
MR. COURTNEY: The explanation is, that the persons enumerated in the Estimate are persons employed and paid by the Postmaster General. They are, as a matter of fact, upon the Staff, and receive definite wages for definite work, and the other item is a lump sum for local labour where it has been necessary to employ local labour.
MR. GRAY: In reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), as to the policy of the Department, imposing a heavy royalty of 10 per cent on the gross receipts, I should like to say a word. No doubt, that is an enormous royalty. I do not press it upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman; but, of course, he fully understands that in insisting upon that royalty he is virtually imposing a tax upon the public. The Telephone Companies are like a tea merchant, who has to collect the duty upon tea. He cannot pay it out of his own pocket; and, therefore, he must pay it out of the pockets of the people who buy the tea. I have no doubt that the Telephone Companies, when they come to consider the new basis of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, will ask for a reduction of this enormous royalty of 10 per cent on the gross earnings, and probably they would ask to have it reduced by 5 per cent. What they will say will be this—that if the Government grant a reduction of this enormous tax, the whole of that reduction which the Government concedes to them will immediately be given to the subscribers. For instance, if the Government reduce their demand from 10 to 5 per cent, whatever that 5 per cent yields will instantly be handed over to those who use the telephones. The Companies themselves have no wish to put it in their own pockets; but, of course, the right hon. Gentleman will not permit the Telephone Companies to do their work as cheaply as they could do it, if he insists upon retaining this charge. I wish the Government and the Committee thoroughly

147
to understand that the claim of the Telephone Companies to a reduction of the royalty is not made on their own behalf for the purpose of putting that which they now pay, in the shape of royalty, into their own pockets, but in order that they may be permitted to give the full advantage of it to the public.
MR. FAWCETT: I hope it will not be thought that I am insensible to the manner in which my proposals have been received by the Committee if I refer, for one single instant, to a somewhat personal remark of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). Nothing could be more kindly than the way in which the hon. Member spoke about my personal endeavours; but in some remarks which he let fall he tried, I think, to draw a distinction between the officials of the Post Office and myself. [Mr. GRAY: Hear, hear!] Now, I do not think anything could be more unfair than for the head of a Department to allow such a distinction to be drawn. I look upon myself as being absolutely and unreservedly responsible for everything that has been done. I do not mean to say that there have not been any mistakes or delay; but my short sketch of the matter will show that it is an extremely difficult one to deal with. Whatever mistakes have been committed, and whatever delay may have taken place, I hope the hon. Member, and other hon. Members who are interested in this subject, will blame the Postmaster General, who is responsible to Parliament, and not the officials of the Post Office, who, I can only say, work with unwonted zeal to serve the public to the best of their ability. With regard to the remarks which have been made in the course of the discussion, I will deal with them, as far as I can, seriatim. In saying that no obligation should be imposed upon the Post Office to erect wires or provide way-leaves, I think it only fair to be as explicit as possible; but I do not mean, in making that statement, to say that, under no circumstances whatever, would the Post Office erect wires for the Telephone Companies, or under no circumstances whatever grant a way-leave at a proper rent; but it must be borne in mind that the Department representing the public have paid a heavy sum for the way-leaves they possess over the railways, and they are, therefore, bound not to give any
148
general right, but to consider every application strictly on its merits. With regard to whether any greater facilities can be afforded for allowing messages which are sent, in the first instance, by the telephone, to be forwarded by telegraph, although I do not see my way at present, I will again look into the subject. I recognize the principle that all I have to do is to afford the utmost facilities to the public, with due protection to the Revenue. On the subject of the royalty of 10 per cent, I understood that that was an essential feature of one of the proposals of the Telephone Companies. Of course, they invited us to reduce it. There is this disadvantage in a Government having a monopoly of any sort which presses on any particular industry—for instance, it might be for the interests of the public for any person to come forward and offer to deliver letters in London at the charge of a half-penny, or one-half less than the charge now imposed by the Post Office; but the Government monopoly must be taken with its disadvantages as well as its advantages, and it is not necessarily an objection to it that any part of the service may be done more cheaply. I have already answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). We do not propose to regulate the charges to be made for the use of call offices when established by the Companies. We allow the charge to be fixed by the Companies, on the understanding that they hand us over a certain portion of their receipts. [Mr. GRAY: That is 10 per cent.] Yes; 10 per cent. Why it is proposed to extend this royalty to private wires is not so much with the object of increasing the Revenue, which would be very trifling, but for the purpose of simplifying the accounts, and thus obviating disputes. I think the hon. Member for Carlow is under an error in putting the point he did. Suppose he laid down a telephone wire from his house to his own stables, that would be a private arrangement. What we propose to do is to levy this royalty on the receipts handed over to the Company. I now think that I have answered all the points which have been referred to in the course of the discussion; and I can only thank the Committee for the way in which the proposals of the Government have been received.
MR. GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the point raised in reference to written messages?
MR. FAWCETT: I must confess that I do not see my way to making any concession upon that point. I think that an essential distinction must be maintained. It would make, I am afraid, a serious hole in the telegraph revenue if written messages were allowed to be sent. I think the hon. Member will see there is an essential difference between telephone messages and telegraph messages.
MR. GRAY: An oral message would not be objected to?
MR. FAWCETT: No; I said that all the telephone messages would be oral, and the only distinction would be that a telephone message must be spoken, not written. That is really the cardinal point of difference. I have only, in conclusion, to repeat the statement I made at the commencement of this Sitting—that if the Companies will accept these terms as a final settlement of the question, there is no reason whatever why the licences should not be amended at once. Of course, it would take some time to put it into legal form; but there will be no delay in considering the changes it will be necessary to introduce; and, in regard to any new licences to be granted, they will include the new terms.
MR. PULESTON: I have no desire to prolong the discussion; but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this one point, and to include it with the concessions and arrangements he has already proposed. The right hon. Gentleman has disavowed any responsibility in reference to the procuring of way-leaves; but I understand that one of the greatest difficulties met with in reference to the development of the telephone is the granting of way-leaves. Will it not be desirable to consider, before next Session, or any other time, some means of providing, by Bill or otherwise, for the Post Office Department to be able to take even compulsory powers?
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Nonsense.
MR. PULESTON: Although my noble Friend says "Nonsense," I think that something should be done for reducing the difficulty now experienced in obtaining way-leaves.
MR. GRAY: Private individuals must expect to have difficulties in reference to the granting of way-leaves. The only difficulty that ought to be considered by the Government is where, as between town and town, the only method of communication is along the line of a Railway Company. The Government have purchased exclusive way-leaves over all such lines; and however willing a Railway Company might be to permit telephone wires to run along their lines, the Post Office might positively prohibit it. I think the Government ought to say—"We will be prepared to grant these way-leaves, if a proper consideration is paid for them." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to insure that his propositions, which must already have been drawn up in black and white, should be sent out immediately; and if they are accepted by the Companies, that then, even pending the completion of legal formalities, they may be adopted, although, perhaps, without conferring absolute rights, without interfering with the rights and privileges which the Post Office propose to reserve for themselves. Pending the completion of the formalities that may be necessary, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman might be virtually put in force. Sometimes, as he is aware, a question of this kind does not mean a week or two, but months, and sometimes years. There have been some cases in which there has been a delay of a year and a-half over a simple question which, in the first instance, appeared as though it might be settled in five minutes. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give the Committee some assurance that there will be no unnecessary delay.
MR. FAWCETT: I think, in a matter involving many business details, it would be unwise to give an assurance like that, except the pledge on my part that everything will be done on the part of the Department to prevent unnecessary delay.
MR. GRAY: I am quite content with an assurance of that nature.
MR. FAWCETT: With regard to the important question of way-leaves on railways, the Government are bound not to grant such a number as would cripple the business of the Department. At the same time, I am not desirous of pursuing anything like a dog-in-the-manger policy; but it must be borne in

151
mind that many of the railway lines are at present almost fully occupied by wires, and there is no more room for additional ones. Suppose along a particular railway—and this is no imaginary case—there is, at the present time, only room for a certain number of additional wires. Owing to an increase in telegraph business, arising from a reduction in the tariff, or from any other cause, the Post Office may probably have to erect these additional wires. If, however, they had leased the remaining way-leaves to a private Telephone Company, we should find ourselves in this difficulty—there being no room for the additional wires the Post Office might require, no other alternative would be open to us but to put the wires underground; a large additional expense would have to be incurred; and the public would, I think, have a right to complain that their money had been wasted in order to promote the interests of a private Company. I mention this as an illustration to show that we are bound in these matters to proceed with extreme caution; therefore, while we must be careful not to give everything a Company may claim as a right, we shall be perfectly prepared to inquire fully into every application that may be made to us.
MR. GRAY: All I wanted was some assurance that impediments of a purely obstructive nature would not be imposed by the Post Office. Of course, any provision of a reasonable or protective nature they are entitled to make. The right hon. Gentleman has given me an instance; let me give him another. I am acquainted with the case of a Dock Company which owned a certain piece of ground, and they gave to a Railway Company the right of running a tunnel under it. They said—"We will not give you the property; but we will only allow you to run your line under the tunnel." A short time afterwards a Telephone Company proposed to carry telephone wires over the railway, and the Post Office were prepared to accede to the proposal on exacting payment for the privilege; but the Dock Company said—"No; this property is ours, not yours," and they refused permission. The right hon. Gentleman stepped in and said—"Unless we get something from the Company, which involves the recognition of a legal right
152
—which legal right, however, the Company did not possess—we will cut down the wires." Now, that I call obstruction, and not a protection of the property of the Government in their own interests. At the same time, I am desirous of saying that I fully recognize the fair spirit manifested by the right hon. Gentleman in the concessions he has made, and I thank him most cordially for them.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcriticized the manner in which the accounts connected with the Post Office and Telegraph Service were presented, and asked the Postmaster General whether, in future, in giving the results of the working by means of a capital account of the Post Office Department, he could not present them in a better form than at present?
MR. FAWCETT: I believe that these accounts are considered by experts; and, so far as appears to myself, they are very clearly given. We have no separate capital account at the Post Office; but if my hon. and gallant Friend will speak to me upon the subject, I will carefully consider any suggestion he may make.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he would send to the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the communication he had sent to the Financial Secretary, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider the suggestions contained in it.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to supply telephonic communication between different parts of this building and of this Chamber? What has been done in the direction of establishing telephonic communication between the House and the City and other parts of the Metropolis has been productive of a considerable amount of advantage. I have already put a question to the First Commissioner of Works upon this subject; but I am sorry to say that I was unable to obtain a satisfactory answer. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General is, however, accustomed to spend a large part of his time in the House, and I think he would have no objection to secure the comfort of hon. Members. Very often, when the Bell is rung for a Division, hon. Members in other parts of the building are in entire ignorance of what is going on. Sometimes

153
it is a question of importance, and it might be necessary that they should take part in the Division; or, on the other hand, it might be a Division in favour of some obstructive Motion; and, of course, the Irish Members, on such an occasion, would always, and properly, abstain from taking part in it. But there is no way of finding out, except by coming into the House. I have often said it was easier to ascertain in a newspaper office in Fleet Street what is going on in the House than it is in the Library of the House of Commons.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that his observations are out of Order. The Vote for the arrangements of the House is not taken under the Telegraphs Vote.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That I know perfectly well; but I assume that the telephones have been placed in the House by the Postmaster General, in consultation with the First Commissioner of Works. I do not suppose they have been placed there without the consent of the Postmaster General. I may be wrong; but I assume that he has control over the telephonic communication which now exists.
MR. FAWCETT: No; I have not.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £3,852,517, to complete the sum for the Post Office.
MR. R. POWERsaid, he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, some time ago, a question with regard to the acceleration of the mails between Dublin and Waterford, and the right hon. Gentleman very kindly said he would consider the matter. Since then, however, he had been informed—although he hoped not correctly informed—that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to give the carriage of the mails from Dublin to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. He had no official information as to the correctness of that statement; but he would like very much to know whether it was correct or not? If the mails were carried from Dublin to Waterford viâ Maryborough, there would be a considerable saving of time; because, by that route, the time occupied would not be more three hours and twenty minutes, within which time the Great Southern and Western Railway Company undertook to deliver the mails; whereas, by
154
the other line, the time occupied would be four hours at least. He believed that the object of the right hon. Gentleman was that the letters from Dublin should arrive in Waterford sufficiently early to be answered the same day. Under the proposed arrangement, letters received in the morning could not possibly be answered until next day, which would be a source of great inconvenience to men of business. Besides, if the mails were not carried viâ Maryborough, the line from Kilkenny to Maryborough must ultimately be closed altogether for passenger traffic. The only route by which people could go conveniently to Dublin from Waterford was by way of Maryborough, which was a much shorter and more direct route. There were, moreover, between Maryborough and Waterford several very important towns, among them Abbeyleix, Ballyragget, Kilkenny, and Ballyhale. As regarded the saving of time, he would point out that a train left Dublin at 8 o'clock, which got to Waterford at 11 o'clock; whereas, by the other line, the train would not get in until 11.55. That was a very great difference, and he believed the Committee would perceive that it would be best to allow commercial men at Waterford to answer their letters viâ Maryborough. That route had been approved by the Chamber of Commerce, by all the commercial class at Waterford, by the Corporation, the Poor Law Guardians, and other public Bodies, who all advocated the mails being sent by way of Maryborough, instead of Carlow. Under the circumstances, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consent to adopt the Maryborough route.
MR. EWARTsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General whether any step was about to be taken to give Belfast the benefit of the recent acceleration of mails from London to Dublin? Belfast, he believed, was at present the worst-served commercial centre in the United Kingdom. The people of Belfast did not receive their letters from London and other parts of England till about 1 o'clock in the day; while they were obliged to post letters in reply by half-past 2. Under those circumstances, they would certainly like to participate in the advantage of the acceleration of the Postal Service from Dublin. The mails now arrived in Dublin

155
half-an-hour earlier than they did a short time ago; but they were not despatched any sooner. The people of Belfast were anxious to get the advantage of that half-hour, though it would be far from satisfying the wishes of his constituents. There had been laid before the right hon. Gentleman a proposal for the acceleration of the mails, viâ Stranraer and Larne; but with regard to that he did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to give any answer at present, although he might mention that, by that route, the letters would arrive at Belfast by 9 o'clock in the morning. He did not press that point at present, for it was a large question; but he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give some satisfactory assurance with regard to the acceleration of the mails to Belfast.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had already called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to the very bad position in which the people of Galway stood with regard to the mails. He had stated, in the question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago, the amounts per mile paid to the various Railway Companies; he found that the Post Office only allowed the Midland and Great Western Railway Company £40 a-mile, while it allowed the Great Southern and Western £70, and the Great Northern Company £90 a-mile, or more than double what was received by the Midland and Great Western Railway Company. They knew that the reason for not giving a larger sum to the Midland and Great Western Railway Company was on account of the much larger amount of mail traffic which passed over that line; but he submitted that the traffic was not sufficient to justify this enormous difference of £45 a-mile. The present very able and efficient Chairman of the Midland and Great Western Railway Company was prepared to increase the service of trains in case the Post Office paid a larger sum per mile. He would not, however, go into those details, which the right hon. Gentleman would be able to gather for himself. He would only say there was no reason whatever why the Midland trains should not start a little earlier, and make fewer stoppages than they did at present. It was only a question of money. There was another point to which he desired
156
to refer. He believed that, last year, his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) called the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the delivery of Parliamentary Papers by post, and he referred to those Papers which were delivered post free within a radius of four miles from the House of Commons. The present arrangement was extremely inconvenient for a large number of Members; and he would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that he should consider the advisability of taking upon his Department the duty of delivering post free Papers beyond that radius. The matter was one which he should think could be very easily settled between the Treasury and the Post Office. The Postmaster General would, of course, have to be consulted as to any objection he might entertain to sending the Papers free of charge; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) understood that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would have the right of requesting the Postmaster General to do so, whether he liked it or not. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would use the despotic power he possessed, by insisting that the Postmaster General should deliver Parliamentary Papers free. It was very desirable that hon. Members should be able to receive Parliamentary Papers at their residence, lodgings, or chambers in London and elsewhere; and he submitted that if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would bring to bear upon the Postmaster General those powers of persuasion with which he was endowed, this matter would be very easily arranged.
MR. MARUMsaid, he desired to supplement the remarks of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power) by calling the attention of the Committee, as he had done frequently, and the attention of the Postmaster General during the last four years, to the deficiency of the mail service between Kilkenny and Dublin. The present arrangement involved the necessity of travelling over 20 miles more line than was necessary, and a great delay was the consequence. On the other hand, they were in communication with Maryborough three times daily. If a letter were posted, under the present arrangement, at 5 P.M., he could not get a reply until the second day; nor could the local

157
newspapers be delivered before 5 o'clock in the afternoon; while English newspapers never reached him until the second day. Moreover, he could get Irish newspapers in the House of Commons much earlier than if he were at home. That was the state of things, monstrous as it appeared to him, which had continued for the last four years. It was said that the Railway Companies were exorbitant in their demands; but he did not suppose that they were more so than other Companies; and he apprehended that a Railway Company was entitled to the cost price for the carrying of mails. However, he would now make a further appeal to the hon. Gentleman, and would express a hope that the Treasury would not leave the people of Kilkenny any longer in their present position with regard to the mail service. He wished to refer to another matter in connection with this subject. When the right hon. Gentleman was replying to the Question put to him that morning, the noise in the House was so great that he could not collect even generally what the right hon. Gentleman said; and he must, therefore, put him to the trouble of repeating his reply. He would point out that a large proportion of his constituents were at Ballyragget; and, unless the mail route was altered, a very large number of persons would be absolutely deprived of any benefit from the accelerated service proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not wish to intimidate anyone; but he would mention that there was a very large meeting about to be held, and that a great amount of excitement existed in the locality amongst persons who had a strong feeling that they ought to participate in the accelerated mail service.
MR. BLAKEsaid, that the hon. Members for Waterford (Mr. R. Power) and Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) had so ably stated the claims of the district to having the mails sent viâ Maryborough that he would not weary the Committee by further details. He would simply express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would be disposed to consider the matter which had been so ably put forward by his hon. Friends.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to add a few words in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny
158
(Mr. Marum) for sending the mails viâ Maryborough. He (Mr. Biggar) had occasion once or twice in the year to go from Dublin to Waterford, and from Waterford to Kilkenny; and he knew that the most convenient way was through Maryborough and the Kilkenny route, instead of by way of Carlow, on which line a great deal of time was lost. The passenger, on arriving at Maryborough, went at once to a particular platform, and got on to the direct line of railway to Waterford; but anyone going to Waterford viâ Carlow would have to change on to another line of rails, go to a separate platform, and submit to other delays and inconveniences. Again, upon the line from Maryborough to Kilkenny there were only two trains a-day; and if the mail trains were taken away from that route, the result would be greatly to lessen the profit of a portion of the line, which was already by no means prosperous. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the wishes of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would not be surprised that he should speak on this matter, seeing that Maryborough was in the county which he had the honour to represent. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there existed a great feeling among the people of the district, more especially with regard to the line of railway which went through Maryborough to Kilkenny. Maryborough was a centre on which three railways converged. Those three lines went, one to Dublin, another to Cork, and the third went southward to Waterford. Now, if this subsidy were removed, or was taken away from the service through Maryborough, the prospects of the Companies, not only in respect of mails, but in respect of goods traffic, would be, to a certain extent, imperilled; and it was perfectly plain that the interests of the people of the district would suffer. There were on the line several important centres, at which fairs were held; and the effect of the new arrangement would be seriously to injure these commercial centres from a pecuniary point of view. He had no doubt that the Postmaster General had, amongst other things, considered the matter; but he would urge upon him to take seriously into his further consideration

159
the possible consequences of diverting the mail along the Carlow line.
MR. RAMSAYsaid, he felt it necessary to remind the Postmaster General that in Scotland there were many places fully as important as those mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite, of which he did not speak in any spirit of disparagement; but there were many places, containing large populations, where the Postal Service was at the present time absolutely inefficient. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) had given the Committee an example of the inconvenience of the present arrangement in Ireland by pointing out that if a person posted a letter in Kilkenny at 5 o'clock in the afternoon he could not receive an answer until the second day. But he (Mr. Ramsay) could inform the Committee, by an example drawn from a district in Scotland in which he had some acquaintances, that if a person put a letter in the post at 8 o'clock in the morning, he would not receive a reply until four or five days afterwards on the average. He did not think his hon. Friends opposite could put forward a case worse than that; and, therefore, he would appeal to the Postmaster General to take into his consideration the isolated districts in Scotland where the Post Office mode of communication was so much inferior at the present time to that of any other districts in England and Scotland. He trusted that when the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the representations which had been made to him by the Irish Members, he would not forget to take also into consideration those districts in Scotland and England where the postal arrangements were so defective, and where the population suffered so much in consequence.
MR. KENNYsaid, he understood that the Postmaster General proposed some time since to accelerate the mail service to Limerick. He (Mr. Kenny) hoped that that acceleration would also involve the acceleration of the mail service to Ennis. At the present time, the mail train which left Kingsbridge at 9 o'clock in the morning got into Limerick at 1 o'clock; but the train which conveyed the mails from Limerick to Ennis did not leave Limerick until half-past 3 in the afternoon, there being, practically, a loss of two hours after the arrival of the mail at Limerick. The train only
160
reached Ennis at 5 o'clock in the afternoon; and, although it was due at half-past 4 o'clock, it never got there before 5, and was frequently as late as half-past 5. He considered it a matter of very great consequence that the mail service should be accelerated to Ennis, because not only were the merchants of the town greatly inconvenienced by the delay, but, inasmuch as the mails for County Clare were distributed from the centre of Ennis, it would be of considerable advantage to the whole district, because it would enable them to receive their letters at a much earlier time than they now received them. He hoped, if the change were effected, that the right hon. Gentleman would take into his consideration the other districts which were connected with Limerick, and which stood equally in need of accelerated means of postal communication.
MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to a point which involved the public safety. He alluded to the Post Office carts, which were driven through the streets at a very great speed. He thought, at any rate, that these carts should carry lights at night. Another point was, that it was proper, in his opinion, that there should be facilities for posting letters at all the important railway stations, as was the case almost everywhere on the Continent. Then he would point out that the term Parcels Post, which appeared on the carts all over the country, was not only incorrect in itself, but differed from other terms which had been adopted by the Post Office. They had, for instance, Letter Post and Book Post; and, on the ground of correctness, he said that the proper term should be Parcel Post, and not Parcels Post. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, as soon as possible, have this inaccuracy dealt with. Then, with regard to the charge by the Parcel Post, they knew that the price for the carriage of parcels was regulated by weight—that was to say, by the number of pounds. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that he should revise the system of charging, and, instead of making one pound the unit of weight, he should place it at a little over a pound. Another point was, that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction felt all over the country at the

161
absence of any security for parcels. He did not expect the Post Office to be responsible for all the parcels sent; but he thought the Department might be answerable up to a small amount, or that they might establish some system of insurance. That would, perhaps, give a little more trouble to the Post Office; but, in the end, a handsome surplus would, he believed, be gained. As an analogy, he would mention the registered letter system, which had proved very profitable. In connection with that system, he wished again to urge in the interests of the public—which he supposed were identical with the interests of the Post Office—that a registered letter should be allowed to go for 2d., including envelope and contents. It was ridiculous that people should have to pay ¼d. for the envelope besides the 2d. for registration. That, practically, meant 2½d., for no one could ask for ¼d. change, and few people ever had ¼d. in their pockets. That was a matter of importance, although it was a small matter, and the adoption of his suggestion would greatly facilitate the use of the system. Greater difficulties than this had been overcome by the Post Office—for instance, the difficulty and inconvenience of using different stamps for postage and for receipts; and he hoped the Postmaster General would be able to carry out these small, but valuable reforms. He regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a man of genius; but he was surrounded by the snakes and serpents of red-tape and the Public Service. Doing ample justice to the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, and his desire to promote the interests of the public, he was sure the adoption of these suggestions would greatly advance the interests of both the public and the Post Office.
MR. PULESTONsaid, he did not wish to occupy much time; but he thought it was a matter of great importance and of safety to the Civil Service, that Clerks and Secretaries of Government Departments should be restrained as much as possible from discussing and coming in contact with Members of this House. He did not intend to move a reduction of the Vote; but the conduct of the Secretary to the Post Office, Mr. Blackwood, was a matter which he thought should be, at all events, considered, and in more aspects
162
than one—not alone on its own merits, but in reference to its effect on the Public Service generally. That gentleman was, no doubt, a very conscientious man, and he was, no doubt, esteemed by all who knew him; but he must object to that gentleman presiding at public meetings, and deliberately ignoring an existing Statute, and imputing to all who were carrying it out motives which had no foundation at all. When he put a Question, containing some of these statements, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Gentleman said he had not seen the speech to which he had referred; but he (the Home Secretary) had no hesitation in saying that the statements in the last three paragraphs of the Question were incorrect and unfounded. That was the answer to the statements of the Secretary to the Post Office; and he believed that if it had not now been so late in the Session, much more serious notice would have been taken of the matter. It was not a matter which he considered satisfactory, as it now stood. And further, in defiance of and in actual contradiction of the real facts, after that answer had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Blackwood wrote saying—referring to the right hon. Member for Whitehaven—
"You were perfectly aware, when you addressed your Question to the Home Secretary, that I brought no charge against the Metropolitan Police; but you no doubt found it convenient to suppress facts. It is evident that Sir William Harcourt's answer was given under the impression which you designedly and intentionally made."
It seemed to him (Mr. Puleston) desirable to consider the question whether the policy of Public Departments had been so changed as to admit of such conduct as this on the part of even the highest officials; and he was expressing the view of hon. Members when he said that, at all events, they were not guilty of the heinous offence attributed to them by Mr. Blackwood—namely, of doing an intentional wrong, and intentionally deceiving a Cabinet Minister, or that they were otherwise than sincere in protecting the police from unfounded statements and aspersions such as those made by Mr. Blackwood. The idea of saying that money was supplied to spy policemen under the Act, and that the Act permitted that, and all sorts of other outrages, was preposterous;

163
but although he might treat that as mere tattle, yet when it came to giving the lie direct to hon. Members, and accusing them of saying what they did not believe, and of intentionally misleading Ministers, it was time to ask whether the policy which had always been adopted and respected, in most of the Departments at least, had now been so changed as to permit of such an inroad, and such indecency as this on the part of an official in so high a position as that of Secretary fo the Post Office?
COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would think he worried him somewhat with regard to the mails and the work of the Post Office; but as he represented a large county, he received a considerable number of complaints which he felt he must refer to and press on the right hon. Gentleman. He was sure that if the Postmaster General would look into the subject he would see that in the county of Galway a very considerable improvement might be effected. The first point had been mentioned by the hon. Member for the Borough of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who had urged the necessity of an acceleration of the mail service, to Galway. This could be effected by making the train travel more rapidly from Dublin. At present, the mail train only travelled at about 25 miles an hour; but, certainly, a greater speed ought to be adopted. There were two absurd stoppages of 10 minutes each at Mullingar and Athlone, and he thought those might be done away with, or the train should go more quickly. Such an alteration would be of great advantage to the West Coast of Ireland, because, at the present time, letters had to leave Galway before the mail from England came in. The English mail arrived at 12.30; but the Galway mail left at 12 o'clock. If the Postmaster General would exercise his influence with the Great Western of Ireland Railway, he believed it might be so arranged that the English mail would arrive an hour before the Galway mail left, and then people might get their letters from England, and answer the most pressing at once. This was really a matter of importance, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into it. The second point was closely connected with the first. It was a matter the Postmaster
164
General knew something about, for he had answered a Question upon it that evening—namely, the desirability of having a night mail train from Achonry to Tuam. Achonry was on the line from Galway to Tuam, and was 15 miles by rail from Tuam. This was not a mere question of supplying one town, but one-third of a county. At present, the night mail service was done by cart; but he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would represent the matter to the Railway Company, a train might be run to carry the mails to Tuam at night for a very small increase upon the cost of the present cart system. Such a change would be of great value, not only to the Tuam people, but to the people in the neighbourhood, because it would be of great advantage to have the mails leaving at 10 or 11 at night, instead of at 9, as at present. This was more a question of management than of expense, because already the regular cart service had been dispensed with, and, of course, this special cart service would be also dispensed with. He hoped the Postmaster General would look into this matter also. The third point was one he had formerly pressed on the noble Lord the late Postmaster General (Lord John Manners). The noble Lord sent a high official to investigate the state of affairs in that part of the country; but although some improvement was effected, he did not think the noble Lord had thoroughly understood the matter. The question was that of cross-country posts, from the centre of the county and to Whitegate to the South of Mayo, or from Whitegate to Ballinasloe. An improvement in either direction would open up a large district. It now took a day and a-half for a letter to go about 15 or 16 miles; for it had to go out of the ordinary track. This and the other matters he had referred to were certainly points of detail; but they were important points of detail to the West of Ireland—namely, acceleration of the mails from Dublin to Galway, a night mail train from Achonry to Tuam, and cross-country posts.
MR. O'SHEAsaid, he wished to support his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) in the representations he had made to the Postmaster General. There was no doubt that in the Wrest of Ireland there was room for an immense

165
improvement in the arrangements of cross-country posts; and some of these affected his own county (Clare). Another point was, that there was still a cart mail service from Limerick to the Eastern counties, and he had frequently brought that and other grievances before the right hon. Gentleman, but without success. The District Inspector was, no doubt, an able man, and was deservedly appreciated by the Post Office; but he was rather conservative in his views, and he thought the Postmaster General himself would readily see that a comprehensive plan in regard to these cross-country posts was of great importance to the Western counties of Ireland, and could be effected at very small expense. He was glad to have this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the enormous improvements he had instituted during his administration in the county of Clare in regard to extended post office accommodation; but an acceleration of the train service from Limerick to Ennis and in other directions, and an improvement in respect to cross-country posts, would greatly increase the convenience to the public.
MR. BIDDELLsaid, he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would consider the propriety of opening country telegraph offices between 5 and 6 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, with a view to abolishing the delivery of letters on Sunday? The present arrangements for letters and telegrams were very unsatisfactory. Some places had a Sunday delivery, others had not, and the result was that if one posted a letter on Saturday evening he did not know whether it would be delivered on Sunday or not; but if the telegraph offices were opened on Sunday afternoon as well as on Sunday morning, the Sunday delivery of letters could be very well dispensed with. At any rate, the present uncertainty of delivery on Sunday would be done away with.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that if he did not reply in detail to all the questions raised by hon. Members, he hoped the Committee would believe that he would bear them in mind as far as he could. The questions which had been raised by hon. Members from Ireland were, he admitted, very important, and he was most anxious to do all in his power to improve the Postal Service in Ireland; because,
166
as a matter of fact, he did not think there was a more legitimate means of stimulating the resources of a country than doing all that was possible to improve postal facilities. But, of course, that must be within certain limits, for there were various considerations to be kept in mind and difficulties to be contended with. He would give an instance of the difficulties to be dealt with. Several hon. Members from Ireland—the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), and others—had pressed upon him very strongly the importance of stopping the mail train to Cork at Maryborough. The hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway urged the accleration of the mail from Dublin to Galway, by preventing it stopping at certain places; but the moment he did anything of that sort, he had to face the precisely similar difficulty urged by the hon. Members for Waterford and Queen's County and others. It was often necessary to nicely balance the advantages and the disadvantages; and if they secured an acceleration on the one hand by doing away with certain stoppages, then on the other hand they deprived some places even of the advantages they possessed. Still, he had not come to any final decision as to whether or not the mail trains should stop at Maryborough or Mallow. All that had been urged upon him to-night and other representations, he would most carefully consider; and he should be very glad if he found that there were strong reasons to justify it, to arrange for the changes urged by hon. Members. It was simply a matter of balancing one thing against another. With regard to accelerating the mail trains from Dublin to Galway and the West of Ireland, that was, as he had said the other day, a question of expense. That was always the difficulty in regard to accelerating the mails in Ireland; and, unfortunately, the postal revenue from the South and West of Ireland left a very small margin for expenditure, compared with the revenue from the North of Ireland. However, he was in communication with the Railway Companies at the present time on this question, and hon. Members would render him important assistance if they would advise the Railway Companies to agree to his terms. With regard to

167
the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart), he had to state that the mail train was about to be started from Dublin half-an-hour earlier than at present, and from Belfast half-an-hour later. That would increase the time for answering letters by an hour; and when the new steamers came into working order, they would increase the time by another half-hour. He did not think the trains could run at a higher speed than they now did. As to accelerating the mails from Limerick to Ennis, he would see if that could be done; and with respect to the cross-country mails, that was, of all questions connected with the Postal Service, one of the most difficult, for if they made the hour for cross-country posts convenient they were almost certain to make them inconvenient for other posts. Still, he was anxious to do all that was practicable in this matter, not only in Ireland, but also in England and Scotland. With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) as to the charge of ¼d. for a registered letter envelope, if they charged nothing at all for the envelope, the stationers would object, because that would be selling at less than cost price. As to another point raised by the hon. and learned Member, although he was not sure how this Vote touched the Parcel Post, he was bound to say that he himself preferred "Parcel" Post to "Parcels" Post; and as time went on, and the vans had to be repainted, the correction, no doubt, could be made. They would, by that means, save a letter. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. and learned Member—namely, as to the insurance of parcels, that was a very difficult matter. For some time past he had been considering an insurance system for parcels, and, without giving anything to be interpreted as a promise, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee generally that he would consider whether it would be desirable for the Post Office to undertake a system of insuring parcels. The last question put was by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), as to Sunday deliveries. The rule at present was, that when the persons receiving two-thirds of the correspondence of any district asked for a Sunday delivery, it was at once given. [Mr. GRAY: In London?]
168
No; not in London, but in the rural districts. There was no small change which he looked back upon with more satisfaction since he had been at the head of the Post Office than one he had been able to effect in regard to the rural letter carriers. He had been able to secure them, in those districts where there were Sunday deliveries, a holiday on alternate Sundays. As to abolishing Sunday deliveries where they had once been established, they were not given up unless there was a general wish that they should be on the part of the inhabitants. The hon. Member (Mr. Biddell) had suggested that, instead of there being a Sunday delivery of letters, the telegraph offices should be kept open between 5 and 6 o'clock on Sundays. But, in reply to that suggestion, it was only necessary to call attention to the fact that there were a great many places without telegraph offices, and that this arrangement would be no boon to persons who were too poor to pay for telegrams. Then, so far as convenience was concerned, he could not conceive anything more objectionable, from the point of view of the Post Office employés, than to be called on duty between the hours of 5 and 6. That would be just the hour when they would most wish to be enjoying themselves. The delivery of letters on a Sunday, on the other hand, took place early in the morning. He could not help thinking that, from the point of view of Sunday rest, the suggestion of the hon. Member would not be welcomed by the public, and certainly not by the staff. He thought, now, he had referred to most of the points raised.
COLONEL NOLAN: There is the question of the night mails to Tuam.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had not referred to that because no beneficial advantage could result from the arrangement proposed. It might be an advantage to the travelling public, but it would not be to the general public, because letters arrived in Tuam now at a time which enabled them to be delivered early in the morning, and the post did not leave until half-past 9 in the evening. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) had referred to a speech by Mr. Blackwood, the Secretary to the Post Office; but he (Mr. Fawcett) did not think it necessary to refer to the subject now. He did not know

169
whether the hon. Member was present the other night; but the subject had then been discussed at considerable length. Strong objection had been taken to the statement of Mr. Blackwood. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had spoken in his defence. All he (Mr. Fawcett) could say, from his personal knowledge of Mr. Blackwood, was that he was sure a fairer-minded and more upright man never lived, and one less likely to bring an unfounded charge against anyone. His speech had not been properly reported, and the incorrectness of the report had been pointed out in the correspondence which had appeared in The Standard. It was not a question of Party politics, or of Departmental government, but one of those social, moral questions upon which it would be very undesirable for the Head of a Department to fetter the discretion of those under him. He was sure Mr. Blackwood had only been actuated by the best of all reasons. He (Mr. Fawcett) thought he had now exhausted all the points referred to. He had not especially alluded to all the particular improvements in the mail services which had been brought under his notice; but he would make a note of the suggestions which had been offered, and would look into them.
MR. PULESTONsaid, he was obliged to his right hon. Friend for the patience with which he had noticed the few remarks he (Mr. Puleston) had made. He wished to explain that the discussion he was present at the other night had no reference to the point raised as to the policy of allowing officials of the Post Office Department—clerks, secretaries, and other officers—to take an active part in the discussion of political matters and questions of a contentious public character. Moreover, his remarks just now were mainly directed to the fact that the Secretary to the Post Office had deliberately printed letters in the papers, attributing dishonest and dishonourable motives to Members of that House. He (Mr. Puleston) did not ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to take any action in this matter—it would be quite enough for him to call attention to what had occurred, and leave it there.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid, there was another question as to the acceleration of the mail services which he wished to
170
bring before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, and which he had refrained from mentioning up to that time, as the right hon. Gentleman had had to consider other subjects of the same kind. He wished to refer to the acceleration of the mails to Tralee and Kerry generally. None of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman had found in dealing with other places would be experienced in endeavouring to meet the wishes of the people of Kerry and West Cork for an improved service. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed to an acceleration of the Cork mail service, and to meet the wishes of the people of Kerry all he would have to do would be to deal with the difficulty made by the Railway Company, and to get them to despatch their trains from Mallow Junction at the time the down mail trains from Dublin reached Mallow. The tourist traffic to Killarney depended very much on the right hon. Gentleman's arrangements. As the matter stood, Tralee would not share in the proposed acceleration of the mails to Cork, and a large number of tourists who travelled in that district would be detained in Mallow—or rather at the Junction, some distance from the town—for a period of from one to two hours. That would be very inconvenient. He did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not let these districts participate in the acceleration of the mails to Cork. Very little difficulty would be experienced in doing it, and it was the unanimous wish of the inhabitants that it should be done. Would the right hon. Gentleman devote some attention to the matter?
MR. WARTONsaid, he was sorry to have to trouble the right hon. Gentleman again. He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had said with regard to the Parcel Post; but there was one point in connection with that subject on which no answer had been given—namely, the defective lighting of the parcel carts. Furthermore, there was the question of the Parcel Post rates, and the question of providing removable boxes for the reception of letters at railway stations for carriage by mail trains.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the difficulty of acceding to the request of the hon. Member who had asked for an acceleration of the Kerry mails (Mr. Harrington)

171
was owing to the fact that a stoppage would be necessary at Mallow. If a stoppage were made there, the mails would be five or ten minutes later in arriving at Cork. In the case of those trains which stopped at Mallow, he would do what he could to induce the Railway Company to start them as soon as possible, consistent with the proper working of the traffic. But, speaking generally, it would be impossible to give the acceleration to Cork without reducing the number of stoppages as much as possible. As to the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he had not heard any complaints with regard to the parcel vans; but the question of Parcel Post rates was, no doubt, one of importance. He had decided to appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the matter. In an entirely new service, such as the Parcel Post, they could only arrive at the best conclusion by experience; and although particular weights and charges had been selected in the first instance, he was not prepared to say, without more experience and careful inquiry, whether those weights and charges were those which were likely best to load to the advantage and convenience of the public and the Department. Therefore, he had appointed a Departmental Committee, which would sit to consider the matter in the autumn—a Committee composed of some of the most experienced and practical officials in the Post Office. They would exhaustively consider the question. With regard to removable boxes at railway stations, already letters could be posted in the mail trains; and if boxes of the kind were provided on the platforms, countless mistakes would inevitably occur. Letters would be put in the wrong boxes, and very frequently, in the hurry and confusion of a railway platform, boxes intended for the North would get put into trains going South, and boxes for the South would go North. At a large central station, letters would be posted for Edinburgh in the North, London in the South, Bristol in the West, Cambridge in the East, and for places in the South-West, South-East, North-West, and North-East. It would be a most difficult matter to get these boxes despatched with accuracy.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman
172
that there was in the proposed arrangements great danger to the Killarney tourist traffic. At present, an express train left Dublin with the mails at 9 o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed now to run one at 8——
MR. FAWCETT: The 9 o'clock train will run as heretofore.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that might be so; but the Railway Company would probably find it to their advantage to delay the later train.
MR. FAWCETT: No; they cannot do that.
MR. MOLLOYsaid, the Postmaster General had given no answer to the Memorial of the Town Council of Tullamore in reference to the acceleration of the mail service to that town.
MR. FAWCETT: I have not yet had time to come to a conclusion on the subject. I will consider the matter.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that a good many complaints had been made that night, but he had yet another to raise. It was this. The Postmaster General since he had been in Office had made a great many improvements; but in regard to the colour of the stamps, he had made a change which could not be altogether regarded as an improvement. It often happened that people confused the 2½d. stamps with the 1d. stamps, owing to their being so nearly alike in colour. He would ask whether it was not possible to make a more distinct difference between the colours?
MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to several matters about which he had spoken to him recently, and also desired to put to him one or two questions. With regard to the mail messengers, the right hon. Gentleman had given some guarantee that they would not be degraded or placed in a lower position in consequence of their recent agitation. But while the right hon. Gentleman was bonâ fide in that statement, the Department must take care to guard against representations from persons in Dublin to whom these men had rendered themselves obnoxious by their agitation. It was very probable that these people who had been offended, by some Departmental trick with which the Committee was pretty well acquainted, would attempt to show that the men were not doing their duty, and would endeavour to get them degraded. He

173
(Mr. Healy) would like to hear that night what course the right hon. Gentleman would take in the event of complaints being made against the mail messengers. Another point he wished to raise was as to the time put upon Irish telegrams. Why was it always English and not Irish time that was used? Why, in the case of a telegram from Ballydehob or Skibbereen, should the Irish people be confused by having it marked with English, instead of with their own time? He could understand English time being given in telegrams going from England to Ireland; but he could not understand why, in the case of local telegrams in Ireland, they should have English time marked upon them. Surely, the British Government might allow the Irish people some kind of chronological Home Rule. This was the third time he had raised the question without getting a reply, or nothing further than that the right hon. Gentleman had not heard of it before. Then, as to surveyors' clerks. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Irish Members had several times challenged Mr. Cornwall's action in this matter. Mr. Cornwall, now an inmate of Kilmainham Gaol, had made these appointments entirely by his own favour. He had brought over Englishmen to Ireland, and had given them some of the very best positions in the country. Irishmen had had no chance—in fact, nobody but an Englishman and a Freemason had had a chance. The system of official promotion in Ireland, simply through the medium of Freemasonary, had been a growing evil. Under Mr. Cornwall's régime no one had a chance of getting promotion unless he was a Freemason. Cornwall, however, was now out of the Post Office, and it was to be hoped would soon be somewhere where he would be getting his deserts. He (Mr. Healy) trusted Mr. Cornwall's successor would make the appointments through merit alone. It was a poor compliment to pay to an Irish official, serving out his days in the Post Office, to say that the posts were given to the best men, when so many Englishmen were brought in to receive them. How many Irishmen were brought over to take positions in the English Post Office, he should like to know? Why, they were so few that they were not worth mentioning. He acquitted the right hon.
174
Gentleman the Postmaster General of any but the most strict and straightforward method of procedure in regard to promotions; but, of course, residing as he did in London, it was impossible for him to deal with these matters with that local and personal knowledge which was necessary in order to come to a just conclusion as to the merits of the applicants. The matter was entirely in the hands of the Head of the Department in Dublin, and Freemasonry, and Freemasonry alone, seemed to be the qualification by which promotion was earned in the Dublin Post Office. It seemed to be impossible for any person to get on in that Department except through that secret Society; and he was bound to say that a very serious cancer was eating into Irish society, and that it was necessary that it should have some check. Attention had been called to this system several times by Questions put in the House; but no improvement had taken place. Though they were glad at all times to have English officials coming over to Ireland, if they were the best men, he must say that the procession of "best men" over from England was beginning to alarm Irish officials, when they saw promotion blocked to them, and observed that every vacancy which occurred was immediately filled by a gentleman from England. He would invite the right hon. Gentleman to carefully scrutinize this system of importing men from another country to fill vacancies occurring in Ireland. Heartburnings, jealousy, and bickerings were the result, especially when it was thought that the appointments were made from Masonic, political, or religious motives. He would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman again to the manner in which the postmaster at Castletown had been treated recently. In the case of Mr. Thomas Walsh, another "suspect" who had been found guilty of sending a threatening letter to a bailiff, and imprisoned for four months, the Government, practically, said that the evidence of their experts, the judgment of the Resident Magistrate, and the evidence in the appeal to the County Court, under the Crimes Act, went for nothing, and that the man was entitled to have his place back again. But they did not say that in the case of other "suspects." The way Mr. Walsh had been treated—probably because he was of the same kidney

175
as the magistrates—was most unfair. He (Mr. Healy) had not the slightest animus against Mr. Walsh—he had never heard of him until he saw his name in the paper—but when he contrasted the treatment of the "suspects" on the one hand with that of Mr. Thomas Walsh on the other, he was inclined to think that there was something in the Dublin Post Office that could not be what it ought to be, and that that impartiality which ought to distinguish a great Department of the State did not exist there.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that with regard to the observation of his hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), the colour of the stamps was a matter involving an explanation too long to give in Committee, and he would not go into it unless the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) expressly wished him to do so. In answer to the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), as concerned the Irish mail messengers, he had already given an assurance that, as far as possible, they would be placed precisely in the same position as people who did the same work in England. The hon. Gentleman said they would be degraded; but nothing of the kind could take place without his (Mr. Fawcett's) knowledge and without his approval, and he would take care that they did not suffer in any way, unless sufficient reason was shown. The mail messengers were classed as letter carriers for their own advantage. They had bettor chances of promotion by being put in that class, and the system was continued more for their sakes than for anyone else's. With regard to the question of English time being used in Irish telegrams instead of Irish time, the point had been mentioned by the hon. Member before, but it had escaped his notice. He would take care, however, to inquire into it now, and to see whether there were reasons for the maintenance of the present system or not. Then as to Mr. Walsh's return to the Post Office, the course adopted in the case of this person had been adopted in other cases. Precisely similar action had been taken in the case of a post office in the county of Cork. The office had been held by the man's sister.
MR. HEALY: No, no.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that was so, so far as he remembered the case. He rather fancied that the Law Officers of
176
the Crown, or some legal officer in Ireland, investigated the case.
MR. HEALY: Mr. Walsh was let out of gaol in consequence of a Memorial from the local magistrates.
MR. FAWCETT: His place had not been filled up, and it was considered very hard that he should lose his post, particularly seeing that he had been declared innocent.
MR. HEALY: No; he had not. He was let out of gaol as a matter of course, when the Memorial was received from the magistrates.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that an opinion, at any rate, was expressed in the man's favour. He did not know what Mr. Walsh's religion was; he had thought it only right, when all the circumstances were brought to his knowledge, to restore Mr. Walsh to his office. The only other point he had to reply to was as to surveyors' clerks. He had given a good deal of attention to this matter, and intended, shortly, to cause certain alterations to be made. In future, whether a person was put on the surveyor's staff permanently or temporarily, it would be done on the responsibility of the Postmaster General, and an intimation to that effect would be given in the Post Office Circular which was sent round every week to all the officials in the Service, whether in town or country. Whenever a vacancy in the permanent surveyors' staff or the temporary surveyors' staff occurred, all persons who were qualified would be invited to send in their applications. He himself, as he said, would be solely responsible for the appointments; and he could only say that he should do his best to give the appointments to those he thought most deserving of them. He did not believe that there had been a development of the system of employing Englishmen in Ireland on the great scale that the hon. Member had mentioned. He should rather say that, owing to the great development of the system of competition, and to the way in which Irishmen always distinguished themselves in these contests, it would be found that, in proportion, a far larger number of men had come from Ireland to take positions in England than had gone from England to take positions in Ireland. There was not a Post Office clerkship in London which could not be as readily gained by an Irishman as by an Englishman. He

177
could only say that, in sanctioning any appointment or promotion, he was always careful not to allow matters of nationality, politics, or religion to weigh with him in any way.
MR. GRAYsaid, that after the last General Election, when the present Government took Office, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was good enough to send him whips, and then the Patronage Secretary placed at his disposal several important Government positions—chiefly positions in Ireland for rural messengers and such officers, the emoluments of which varied from 5s. to 7s. 6d. and even 8s. per week. He had enjoyed this patronage for some time, and it had, of course, been a matter of some anxiety to him, to see that it was properly dispensed. With a due sense of the responsibility, he had endeavoured to discharge his duty without fear or favour. He had endeavoured to appoint suitable adherents of his own. This arrangement went on very much to the satisfaction of those who got the posts—though not so much to his own—until the first time he had the honour of being suspended. When that occurred, he supposed the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury came to the conclusion that he was too bad to receive such favours, and had no right to exercise grace or patronage. Accordingly, they cut off the whips and cut off the patronage. Since that period, he felt very much like the fox that had lost his tail—he could wish that other Members would lose their patronage also. He wanted to know why, under the present régime, now that almost every petty office was thrown open to competition, this little wretched remnant of an obsolete system was continued? Seriously speaking, he believed there was not a Member of the House to whom these things were not an unmitigated worry. They were sources of annoyance. They were not good enough to be of any use. He supposed if they got the bestowal of some good fat appointments, they might find them of some value; but no one could be corrupted for 5s. a-week, and plenty of hard work, even in Ireland. The thing was no good; in fact, as he had said, it was nothing but a worry. Some other arrangement ought to be adopted. It was strange how many people applied to him for these appointments. He did
178
not know whether other hon. Members who had still the favour of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury were largely applied to; but the number of people who came to him for these appointments was enormous. He wished the Government would adopt some other system. Why should not the local postmasters, or some other persons holding official appointments, select these messengers. He had already called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to two matters, and that night he would ask permission to mention them again. It had been a somewhat puzzling thing to him to imagine why an Institution like the Health Exhibition—which was very admirable in some of its aspects, but, perhaps, not very worthy of official approbation in others—should have its letters carried for nothing. His attention had been drawn to this circumstance, partly through a circumstance which had occurred a few years ago. When great distress prevailed in Ireland, when the people were, in fact, on the verge of starvation, a great Charitable Organization was set on foot for the purpose of relieving the urgent necessities of the starving population, and the Post Office were asked not to divert a portion of the funds from that object—not to levy a tax on starvation, for that was what the postal expenses came to. The Post Office were asked to carry the letters and circulars of this Charitable Organization free; but they sent a reply saying it was out of the question. He thought that to lay it down as a general rule that no letters should be carried free, would be an excellent thing; but if an exception was to be made, it should be in the case of a great Public Charity. The Charity to which he had referred as existing three or four years ago, was surely more worthy of having this favour conferred on it than this Exhibition, which, notwithstanding its fine title, and notwithstanding some good work which it did, really obtained its revenue from the fact that it was a place of amusement. People who went to the Health Exhibition went there to amuse themselves. It was the rival of the theatres in London. All the theatrical managers complained of it, for the "Healtheries," as it was called, was a more pleasant place of amusement, in the present hot weather, than the theatres. One place

179
of amusement which, no doubt, suffered serious pecuniary loss through the Health Exhibition, owing to the peculiar character of its patrons, was the Aquarium. The Aquarium at night used to do a certain profitable trade; but the "Healtheries" had cut it out completely. All the business that used to be done in the Aquarium was now done—as hon. Gentlemen who went to the "Healtheries" knew very well—at the Health Exhibition. People in the locality of the Aquarium rather approved of this transference of business; but why should the Health Exhibition have its letters and circulars carried free of expense? It would be a better system to allow each Government Department to pay for its own work, so that the Post Office account would show what the Post Office earned, and that the accounts of the other Departments would show what they spent on postage, just as they paid for other accommodation and supplies. This, however, was a matter of convenience, and he did not question it; but he did question the propriety of doing gratuitously the postal work of the Health Exhibition, which was realizing a large profit. The Fisheries Exhibition last year had its work done for nothing, and it netted a profit, as well as he remembered, of over £10,000. This Health Exhibition was going to net a large profit too, and going to do it out of a class of business which did not deserve the official sanction of the Government. The "Healtheries," as was well known, was at night simply a place of assignation. ["No, no!"] There was no doubt about it. He did not wish to discuss the point; but he did contend that the Health Exhibition had no claim to have its work done for nothing, no matter what patronage it might be under, when the Post Office was so rigid as to refuse to carry for nothing the letters and communications of a great National Charitable Institution such as that which existed in Dublin three or four years ago. What was sauce for such a Charitable Institution should be sauce for such an Exhibition, and why an exception had been made in the case of the "Healtheries" he did not know. With regard to the question of the acceleration of mails, it might have been brought to a point before this. Negotiations with the Irish Railway Companies might
180
have been opened long ago. He (Mr. Gray) remembered asking the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General a Question on the matter some months ago, and the answer he had received was the same as that which had been given to him to-night—namely, that it would be well to communicate with the Railway Companies, and ask them not to adopt too heavy terms. He (Mr. Gray) adopted the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and communicated with the chief Railway Company in Ireland—the Great Southern and Western—and what was his amazement to discover that, although the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that action should be taken to induce the Company to reduce their terms, he had never once communicated with them on the subject. He had never asked them whether they intended to accelerate their train service, and, if they did, what sum they wanted.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gray); but he thought that by doing so just now he might save time. He could not communicate with the Company until they had decided what time the mail would arrive in Dublin. Till then, of course, he would not know what time the train would want to leave Dublin.
MR. GRAYsaid, he was aware of that. He was talking about what happened months ago. He considered this statement of the right hon. Gentleman just one of those purely "official" answers which could not satisfy those who had looked into the subject. He believed no one could give an answer more free from the spirit of the Government Benches than the right hon. Gentleman; but, certainly, the reply he had just tendered was just one of those official answers given by Members of the Government on subjects which it was obvious they had not considered. ["No, no!"] A venerable Gentleman opposite dissented; but he (Mr. Gray) maintained that it was. The only difference between them was a single half-hour. It was only a question as to whether the mail should arrive in Dublin half-an-hour sooner or later, and negotiations might have been carried on, leaving that half-hour in abeyance. Therefore, he maintained that if the right hon. Gentleman had been a business man managing this matter, or someone dealing with it on

181
his own account, he would have carried on negotiations forthwith, and would have made the half-hour a matter of cash payment, and the result would have been that the acceleration would have been at work at this moment. But when the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to give a service to the West of Ireland as rapid as that which he gave to the North, and was about to give to the South, he always met the question with the answer that the revenue from the West of Ireland was so much less that he could not afford to subsidize the Railway Company to an equal extent. This would be an admirable argument if there were not a single mail system—a single Post Office system—for the whole of the United Kingdom. It would be a sound argument if there were 50, 60, or 100 mail services, including this to the West of Ireland, each driven to support itself. Then, the plan the right hon. Gentleman had some time ago declared would not be tolerated would come into operation. The right hon. Gentleman had said—"You might very well have a halfpenny post for London—that would pay very well, but you must deal with it as a whole." Dealing with it as a whole, he (Mr. Gray) found that the Post Office, out of its £9,000,000 odd annually, made 27 per cent trading profit. That profit, he maintained, was too large. It was a preposterous profit for any trading concern to make; and so long as there was such a profit—a profit clearly derived from monopoly, and nothing else, for if there was competition it would soon disappear—the Post Office was bound out of it to give the greatest possible facilities to the public, to give the best service to every portion of the United Kingdom which could be given. It was not as though there was a fear of the Department making a loss; all it was asked to do was to relinquish a portion of the excess of profit, and this it ought to do in view of the commercial and social advantages which would accrue to a poor country like Ireland, where the train service was neither rapid nor frequent, and where, practically, the whole passenger traffic depended upon the mails. He certainly considered it a false and narrow policy to say—"Oh, because a certain district does not yield so large a Post Office revenue as another district, we will starve it in the matter of mail service!" When the right hon.
182
Gentleman said the Railway Companies ought to be pressed to take a liberal view of this matter, he (Mr. Gray) thoroughly agreed with him. He had no right to speak on behalf of the Railway Companies; but he might mention that, shortly after he had received the first of these answers from the right hon. Gentleman, he met Sir Ralph Cusack, the Chairman of the Company whose trains ran to the West of Ireland—namely, the Midland Great Western Railway Company. This gentleman (Sir Ralph Cusack) was a very enlightened man, who took a very enlightened view of things. He (Mr. Gray) had said to him—"Your policy ought to be this. You receive a certain sum for the conveyance of mails. You ought to calculate how much out of pocket a rapid service would cost you; and, if you get the cost out of pocket for a rapid service, you ought to be content with that, and with the better service you at the same time get for your passengers." That was the principle he (Mr. Gray) had ventured to lay down. He did not know what view Sir Ralph Cusack's Board would take; but he imagined that that, practically, would be the "tack" on which they would meet the Post Office, and if the Post Office was met on that basis, they should be, he thought, prepared to give such subsidy as would afford to the West of Ireland the service they needed. He was told that it was a mistake to suppose that as rapid a service could not be given to the West of Ireland as anywhere else. They had good steel rails, first class engines, and every means for running rapid trains; and if the Government would give to the Companies as much as would compensate them for the extra expense entailed by the fast service, it would conduce very materially to the advantage of the public, and, indirectly, of the Railway Company, and he did not think it was fair for the Post Office to look for any profit itself. He trusted that, on these lines, the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to give increased facilities to Ireland. As he had said, the Post Office was making a preposterous profit upon its operations; and, in view of that fact, they might very well go to a little further expense to serve the West of Ireland with better postal arrangements. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question sometime ago with regard to keeping open the telegraph

183
office at Holyhead on Sundays, for the convenience of Members of Parliament and passengers by the night trains. It might very well, at times, be a matter of great importance to passengers that they should be able to communicate on Sundays with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to go into the matter very carefully; and some time after putting his Question, he (Mr. Gray) had received a letter from him stating that the office would be open for some time on Sunday this Session, so that people passing through on Sunday might be able to telegraph. To the best of his recollection, he had himself sent a telegram through on Sunday for the reason, at least, that the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to meet him with the assertion that the office had been opened but had never been utilized. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), however, told him that on the 22nd of June, or some day towards the end of June, he had endeavoured to send a telegram from Holyhead late on Sunday night, and was unable to do so. If that was the case, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see to it, and have the office continued open, as it might at times be a matter of very vital importance that a Member should be able to telegraph to his friends in Ireland when journeying towards London. He wished, also, to bring before the right hon. Gentleman a question as to a very absurd system which prevailed in the Post Office. He had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to it some days ago—namely, as to stitched newspapers. It was a singular anomaly, that while a stitched newspaper could be sent through the Post Office as a newspaper, a stitched supplement could not, so that a newspaper proprietor who went to the expense of having his supplement stitched for the convenience of his readers, had to pay the Post Office for doing so. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had also called attention to the matter some two or three days ago, failing to see, as a great many other hon. Members failed to see, why, because, instead of sending a supplement through the post in the usual clumsy form, a newspaper proprietor took the trouble to get it stitched, he should have to pay an extra amount of postage—that the
184
Post Office should levy a tax upon him of ½d. per copy because of the stitching. He knew cases in which the proprietors of Society journals had prepared good supplements, and had been foolish enough to have them stitched, and down had come the Post Office authorities upon them, declaring that they had violated the law, and making them pay for it. That seemed to him to be a most absurd practice. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was necessary for the Department to exercise great care to prevent the privilege conferred upon newspaper proprietors of sending stitched matter through the post being carried too far. He (Mr. Gray) confessed that, in many cases, the Department had permitted it to go too far. For instance, where a tea dealer wished to circulate an advertisement, or anything of that kind, all he had to do was to print the thing as large as he liked—on a dozen pages if he chose—and if he could induce a newspaper proprietor to print it as a supplement to his paper, he could get it sent through the post gratuitously. That, though it was not connected with this question of stitching, was, at any rate, a great abuse of the rules applying to newspapers, which the Post Office had never intended to permit. It seemed to him to be very unjust to allow supplements of that kind to pass through the post without charge, and then, simply because a proprietor, for the convenience of his readers, passed a piece of thread through a genuine supplement, to say that he should pay an extra postage rate for it. Such a thing, to say the least of it, was a wretched business, and deserved to be looked into. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that evening appeared to be in such a good humour, having so nearly concluded his labours, that he was sure the hon. Gentleman would tolerate him (Mr. Gray) for a few minutes longer while he drew attention to another matter. In the Savings Banks Amendment Bill, the Post Office had sought this year to increase the maximum limit of deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks; but, in consequence of the very determined opposition with which that proposition was met, the Government had abandoned the particular clause which was intended to effect that object. That he believed to be the case—he was not quite clear

185
upon it. His impression was that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had announced his intention of asking leave to re-introduce the Bill next year. He (Mr. Gray) could only tell the hon. Member that any proposal of that kind would, from certain hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, meet with most determined opposition. He knew that it would operate injuriously against some of his countrymen. So far as the Post Office extended the maximum limit of deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks, so far did they enter into competition with the banks. [Mr. COURTNEY: The Bill is not before the House] He did not intend to discuss the Bill—only the existing limit. They were dealing with the Post Office Vote, which, amongst other things, was a Vote for the expenses of the Post Office Savings Banks. In discussing that, he was quite at liberty to discuss the limit of the amount of deposits. ["No, no!"] Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that he (Mr. Gray) could not argue the question of the extension of the limit; and, if so, why not? He hoped the Chairman would, at any rate, see that he had a right to discuss this matter. So far as the Post Office might succeed in obtaining an extension of the limit, it would obtain deposits at the expense of the banks. It would not obtain new deposits—it would not open new sources of deposit——
MR. COURTNEYhere addressed some observations to the Chairman.
MR. GRAYsaid, he must protest against the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury asking the Chairman sotto voce to interrupt him. If he (Mr. Gray) were out of Order, the hon. Gentleman should rise to Order, and make his complaint before the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not correct. The Secretary to the Treasury did not appeal to me to stop the hon. Member who is addressing the Committee.
MR. GRAYsaid, the Chairman might not have heard the hon. Member. He (Mr. Gray) had heard him, however. Considering the importance of the question, he (Mr. Gray) did think he should be permitted to go on. He would not occupy more than five minutes. With regard to the competition of which he complained, what the Post Office would
186
do by extending its limit, was this—it would take the deposits from the Irish banks, and transfer them to the Exchequer here in London. So far as that policy proved successful, it would restrict the operations of the Irish banks, and limit their capacity for offering facilities to thousands of traders in Ireland. The Government would take away from the Irish banks a great deal of the money lent in Ireland for purposes of trade, and simply hand it over to the Consolidated Fund for English purposes. That, he contended, must be a distinct injury to Ireland; and he further contended that it was a false enterprize for the Post Office to seek to extend its operations by entering into competition with private trade and private enterprize. Any profits made by transactions of this kind, while they might be of benefit to the Treasury, were the reverse of a benefit to the nation. Operations of that kind interfered with private trade, and, consequently, with the welfare of the country. He trusted that the system of trade and enterprize at the cost of the community would not be pursued too far. To his mind, it had probably gone too far already. The Post Office business comprised insurance and deposit, and if it limited itself to giving advantages of that kind to the poorer portion of the community, who otherwise would not possess such advantages, well and good. The Government, in that respect, was doing a good and legitimate business, as it saved, comparatively speaking, poor people from insecure investments—from insuring in insolvent offices, and from putting their savings in banks, many of which in past times had broken down. But if the Government developed its business to the extent of entering into competition with sound insurance societies and banks—by entering into competition with the ordinary trade resources of the country, his contention was that they were using a great Department for the purpose of entering into an unfair competition with the industries of the general community. The Irish Members, whatever the English Members thought, were of opinion that the machinery of the Post Office should not be used to take over Irish deposits from Irish banks, which used those deposits for the advancement of the trade and commerce of the country. Most decidedly, if he could correctly

187
gather the opinion of his Colleagues, it was against any such proposition on the part of the Government, and if such a plan as that contained in the late Bill were persisted in, it would meet with a most determined opposition on the part of the Irish Party.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would not discuss the subject of the limitations of the amount of deposits in Post Office Savings Banks, as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had a Motion on the Paper relating to it. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had blamed the Government for attempting to raise money by interfering with the Savings Banks business of the country, and the hon. Member for Glasgow had a Motion down upon the second reading of the Savings Bank Bill, strongly censuring the Government for having yielded to the views of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) and other hon. Members on this matter. Therefore, he (Mr. Fawcett) would abstain from offering any observations until the Bill in question came on. With regard to the question of the acceleration of the mail service to the West of Ireland, he had nothing to add to what he had already said. No final decision upon the subject had yet been arrived at. He had stated that it must ultimately resolve itself, to a certain extent, into a question of expense with the Railway Companies. He had not pledged himself to any particular plan. Communications were taking place at present between the Railway Companies and the Post Office; and he should be very glad if, at any time, he could see his way to secure that acceleration which hon. Members seemed to be anxious for. He had already succeeded in bringing about an acceleration over a considerable portion of Ireland, and he could only promise that he would not allow the matter to rest, but would continue to consider the subject of the acceleration of Irish mails generally. With regard to the telegraph office at Holyhead, and its being open for Sunday service, he was not aware that the new arrangement had been put an end to. Probably, the new arrangement had not commenced when the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had sought to use the office. The promise he (Mr. Fawcett) had made had been to open the office on Sunday this Session, to see how the plan worked. No decision
188
had yet been arrived at as to the extent to which the office was likely to be used, and the desirability of keeping it open on Sunday. With regard to the Health Exhibition, he had inquired into the matter, and had found that the practice as to carrying the correspondence of these Institutions free of cost had somewhat varied. Some of these Exhibitions had been allowed to frank their letters simply; some had been allowed to have a paying account—that was to say, to frank their letters, and then pay for them; and in some cases postage had been charged. He had looked into the matter, but had not yet come to any general conclusion; but he must say, however, that he had made a proposal to the International Inventions Exhibition, to be held next year, to the effect that they should be allowed, in order to save the time and trouble of stamping their letters, to keep a non-paying account with the Post Office, and that they should afterwards pay the postage of all letters sent and received by them. That would not enable them to frank their letters as was done by the present Health Exhibition. So far as he had been able to ascertain, the suggestion he had made had been favourably received by the Commissioners. The question was now before them, and he did not think that as yet they had settled it. The hon. Gentleman, he thought, must see that however desirable the charitable fund to which the hon. Gentleman had referred might have been, if they once accorded to a private charity organization the privilege of transmitting their letters free of charge, there would be no end to the applications that would be made to them by other charitable institutions for a similar privilege. The observations of the hon. Member, it seemed to him, went the length of showing, not that they should extend the privilege of free communication, but that they should rather restrict it.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had communicated to the Postmaster General three small items, one, the question discussed by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), to which a reply had been given by the Postmaster General, as to the acceleration of mails to the West of Ireland. He (Mr. Biggar) could only say that as to the Midland

189
Great Western Railway, that went to the West of Ireland, the service was a good one. The carriages were good, the rails, the engines, and all that sort of thing, but unfortunately the trains were exceedingly slow. The Government should make arrangements with that Railway Company for a better service—they should give fair terms to the Railway Company to bring about a more speedy transit from East to West. The second item the Secretary to the Treasury should have submitted to the Postmaster General, and which he (Mr. Biggar) would beg to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to, was one of a personal nature—namely, with regard to the letter sorters employed in the boats carrying the mails between Kingstown and Holyhead. He was told these people got no pay for the Sunday's work. He did not know what pay they got usually—whether their wages was sufficient for the seven days, or whether they only got six days' pay for seven days' work. He should like, however, to hear the right hon. Gentleman state what he considered was a reasonable remuneration to these men. The third item to which he referred was a very small one, and he did not know whether it was in the right hon. Gentleman's the Postmaster General's Department or not. He (Mr. Biggar), however, had called attention some time ago to the case of a letter carrier in a small district in the county of Cavan. This man had done wrong in the Post Office and had absconded rather than face a prosecution which was pending, and to his place the Government had appointed his brother. He (Mr. Biggar) was informed that both these men—both the absconding defaulter and the brother who was appointed to the place—had both lived in the same house, and that the brother who was now occupying the post had been for some time in the habit of acting for the defaulter. It seemed, therefore, to be a very questionable arrangement that a man who committed a fraud should be succeeded by the brother with whom he had been constantly associated, and with whom he had been in a sort of partnership. Whether or not the man now in the situation had been a partner in the misdeeds of his brother, he did not know; but, at any rate, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not supersede the man, and appoint
190
someone of better character, and against whom there was no suspicion, to the place?
MR. GREGORYsaid, that the question of exemptions from ordinary postage fees had been mooted in the Committee in the course of that discussion; and, that being so, he felt bound to mention the case of one particular class who seemed to him to be specially entitled to some privilege of this kind at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the officers of the Volunteer Force. These gentlemen, at present, had to spend large sums of money in sending out notices to their men which, for the efficiency of the different corps, it was absolutely necessary to send out. He was told that, in one corps, no less than £24 a-month was spent in sending out the necessary orders; and seeing that that sum was spent in the Public Service, he did think that the cost should be borne by the State. The Volunteer Force were discharging a public duty, and it did seem they were a class of persons entitled to full consideration at the hands of the Postmaster General. If it were not thought desirable to relieve them altogether from these charges, at any rate, some arrangement should be made to enable them to incur less liability than at present. With regard to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) as to the patronage in the hands of private Members for the appointment of certain messengers, he perfectly agreed with the hon. Member that it would be better for the Post Office officials to take over these appointments than to leave them with Members of the House.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that in reply to the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Gregory), he would point out that he had already answered one part of his observations just now. He had said that his idea rather inclined to curtailing, than extending, the privilege of free postage. Then, as to the patronage arrangements which existed in the Treasury in connection with country postmen, he felt it was a subject which it was hardly desirable that he should enter upon on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had already asked him a question with regard to that postman who had been appointed to fill the vacancy occasioned by the absconding of his brother. He

191
(Mr. Fawcett) saw no reason to change the opinion he had already expressed upon the subject. The particular postman now discharging the duty in the district in question had been highly recommended in the neighbourhood. It was true he was the brother of the man who absconded; but so far as he could discover, there had not been a breath of suspicion against him. It would, therefore, be very unfair to visit upon this man the sins of his brother. He said, again, he had very carefully inquired into the matter, and had never been able to find anyone who had a word to say against the present holder of the appointment. With regard to the sorters in the mail packets, the rule was that a certain amount of work was given on Sunday to these men, for which payment was made. He would look into the matter, however, to see whether the general rule in the case referred to was carried out. He had already spoken on the subject of the acceleration of the mails in Ireland, and he could only say that he would take into consideration the additional fact mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £531,356, to complete the sum for the Post Office Packet Service.
MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to the list of contracts, and the marginal notes as to the dates. This was a new arrangement, and there was no intimation as to what contracts the notes referred. It would be much better if hon. Members had something to guide them in this matter, so as to show what the notes referred to. Letter "C" he did not quite understand. What plan did it go on with regard to these packet services—which were part of the Post Office service, or part of other Imperial services? There was an item for Bermuda and Jamaica of £17,000 odd; but they were told that only £1,000 was charged to the Post Office, the rest being charged to other Imperial services. It was the same in principle in the case of New Orleans.
MR. BIGGARasked what steps had been taken in regard to the Stranraer route?
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had not yet come to a conclusion respecting the Stranraer route. He knew the hon.
192
Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) differed from many hon. Members from Ireland as to the desirability of this route. He had carefully studied the letters which the hon. Gentleman had sent him in relation to the subject, and he had also borne in mind the arguments which were advanced for the adoption of the route by an influential deputation which had waited upon him.
MR. SMALLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether there were at present any negotiations in progress for the acceleration of the mail service from London to Westmeath, and vice versâ? Some time ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General gave some vague promise that the service would be accelerated.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that although the question did not come strictly under the present Vote, he might say that he was just on the point of completing arrangements for the acceleration of the mail service between London and Westmeath.
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee more than a minute; indeed, he merely rose to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that they had been in communication with regard to the postal arrangements round about Dublin. He trusted that in the Recess the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the matter. Many of the Dublin citizens were in the habit of running down in the summer time to Bray and the watering places around Dublin, and it was to them most inconvenient that they were not able to get their letters before they left these resorts in the morning for Dublin.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had sent the communication addressed to him on this subject by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Irish Postal Authorities, with the endorsement that he should be glad to receive a Report upon it at the earliest possible moment.
Vote agreed to.

CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he did not think he need assure the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that both in and out of the House there was a great deal of opposition to this Vote from various points of view—there were certainly many hon. Members of the House who were opposed to the proposal involved in the Vote, and the right hon. Gentleman could not read the daily newspapers without noticing that there were many influential persons outside who were opposed to the way in which it was suggested Westminster Hall should be dealt with. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not, at that time, the fag end of the Session, press the Vote, involving, as it did, a matter of great national importance. It would be a great mistake if the right hon. Gentleman did persevere with the Vote, because it was obvious that at that period of the Session it could not be properly discussed. The right hon. Gentleman now asked for £5,000 to enable him to cover up, or patch up, the unsightliness which had been disclosed by the pulling down of the old Law Courts. He (Sir George Campbell) did not wish to set himself up as an architectural authority; but he could not help having a very strong suspicion that the proposed restoration was an archæological "fad," or an attempt to establish a piece of sham ancient architecture, according to the project of some particular architect. If they granted the sum of £5,000 now asked for, they would commit themselves to an expenditure of £35,000, and all other plans would be shut out, and great public injury would be done. He entered a very respectful protest against the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works on that, and other occasions, taking it upon himself to ascertain what he called the general sense of the House. There could be no greater instance of folly of such a proceeding than the scrape the right hon. Gentleman had got into by pulling down the old Law Courts, before it was decided what was to be done with the site. The right hon. Gentleman had said that few people took any real interest in the matter, and he had concluded that, because no serious objection had been raised to the plans he had adopted, the general sense of the House was favourable
194
to the course he had taken. Without consulting the House at all, the First Commissioner of Works undertook to say the general sense of the House was with him. The right hon. Gentleman ordered the old Law Courts to be razed, and upon the execution of his order, there was disclosed the most hideous wall imaginable, a wall which could never have been intended for the public gaze. It was the wall of a hall undoubtedly the finest in the world, but a hall intended to be the centre of the buildings. It was always intended to be the centre of the Houses of Parliament, and the flying buttresses put up for its support were not intended to be beautiful, and never were beautiful. The old Law Courts were not of particularly fine architecture; but, anyhow, they might have been allowed to stand for a year or two more. It would have been very much better not to have pulled the old buildings down, until it had been determined what should be put up in their stead. He had not an artistic eye, but one was not needed to find the hideousness of the wall which had been disclosed. The old Courts were good rooms, and might have been made useful for many purposes in connection with the House. However, they were done away with, and their removal only served to illustrate the evil of doing things too hastily. He had also to protest against the tyranny of the architect to whom this work had been intrusted. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had a laudable ambition to settle the question, and not being an architect himself, he had put the matter in the hands of an architect. Now, this gentleman seemed to be distinguished for archæological ideas and fancies, and hon. Members were told that because this archæological architect had devised a plan of his own, they must subordinate their views to his. In his (Sir George Campbell's) opinion, the best plan would be to put a liberal quantity of plaster upon the old and dilapidated wall, and lot it remain until Parliament had deliberately resolved what was to be done with this important piece of ground. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would come forward and say—"Oh! you might patch it up; but no decent architect would do anything of the kind." He had heard the First

195
Commissioner of Works say that Mr. Pearson would not have anything to do with such a proceeding. Mr. Pearson was one of the tyrants, who said—"I must have my own way entirely with the work, or else I will have nothing to do with it." He (Sir George Campbell) was satisfied there were 500 good builders in London who would plaster up the wall, and make a decent job of it. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had told them many times, that there was a plan for turning the ground to some useful purposes—to build upon it, in fact, a new wing of Parliament, a design of that kind having been made by Sir Charles Barry. But the right hon. Gentleman had not told them why the plan was abandoned. Sir Charles Barry was an ambitions and expensive man, and he proposed a plan which was to cost an enormous sum of money. They had not yet got rid of Sir Charles Barry's extravagances, and it seemed to him (Sir George Campbell) that they might have got a good architect to have made a plan of that kind on a reasonable scale. He (Sir George Campbell) thought it was quite possible, by following the plan of Sir Charles Barry on a less expensive scale, to make a very excellent new wing to the Houses of Parliament, and provide a large amount of useful accommodation. He was not an enemy of decent architecture; but he would suggest that this plan would not be at all inconsistent with the architecture which Mr. Pearson had proposed. If the right hon. Gentleman would only grant a little delay, very good use might be made of the ground on which the Courts formerly stood. It was very necessary they should not act hastily in this matter. There were demands for extension in every direction. It might be found wise to develope the Grand Committee system; and it certainly was requisite that some of the Cabinet Ministers should have new rooms, for, at present, they had to have recourse to rooms in the cellars. He begged the right hon. Gentleman not to make the improvements which the Prime Minister had so much at heart physically impossible, by devoting this most valuable plot of ground to an archæological "fad." He was aware it had been suggested that accommodation might be provided for the Grand Committees
196
by abolishing the House of Lords; but much as they might desire such a consummation, they could not calculate upon it in the immediate future. Westminster Hall was, as he had already said, the finest hall in the world, and he wanted to see it devoted to useful purposes, and made the centre of the Parliamentary buildings, as it was before the Law Courts were pulled down. He wanted to see the people of the country who attended the great Court of Parliament, walking up and down Westminster Hall, and not crowding, as they did now, in the Committee corridors. He trusted that the First Commissioner of Works would not commit himself to a plan which must end in making Westminster Hall permanently useless. He gathered from the declaration the Prime Minister made the other day that this was not a Cabinet question, and that hon. Members were free to form their own opinions in regard to it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would give the Committee his own opinion with regard to the matter. His opinion would be very valuable, inasmuch as he was responsible for the reconstruction of the Procedure of Parliament, in pursuance of which reconstruction it was necessary to find room for the Grand Committees. He (Sir George Campbell) desired that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works should have money to enable him to patch up the wall, until it was determined what was the best and most useful purpose to which the ground could be turned; and, therefore, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000 only.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."—(Sir George Campbell.)
MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he had listened most carefully to his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to hear by what arguments he could support the assertion that the proposal of Mr. Pearson was an archæological "fad." He did not know Mr. Pearson personally; but it appeared to him that that gentleman had made a

197
most careful examination of the particular locality which laid between the West wall of Westminster Hall and St. Margaret's Churchyard, and had formed a much more acute and ingenious and complete estimate and interpretation of the buildings that originally stood there than he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) should have imagined it would have been possible to make from an examination of the existing fragments of the ancient buildings. The House knew perfectly well that the original Westminster Hall was the work of Rufus, and that about three centuries after the time of Rufus another English King enlarged the Hall, put a new roof to it, and put certain buttresses against the walls, support being thought necessary owing to the increased weight of the roof. The buttresses on the West side were cut about and altered in order to allow of the erection of the Law Courts; and the work was done with a very ruthless disregard of the beauty of the building. The criminality of that proceeding, however, did not rest with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). The bad workmanship of the architect of that day had now been disclosed; but that extremely ingenious and intelligent and, he might say, exhaustive architect, Mr. Pearson, had discovered what was the precise character of the building that originally stood there, and which constituted the residence and domestic offices of the English Sovereigns from Richard II. down to the Tudors. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: How do you know this?] He would inform the noble Lord on the subject, and enlighten him, since he was disposed to ask such a question. He had an intimate acquaintance with the building accounts of Henry VIII., and among them were very elaborate details of the buildings erected on the site which Mr. Pearson examined. The fact was, that Henry VIII., who had been very much married, but only one of whose Queens was crowned, made up his mind to witness the crowning of Anna Boleyn, and a temporary building was erected between Westminster Hall and St. Margaret's, from which the ceremony could be witnessed. He had taken the liberty of writing a letter to the Chief Commissioner of Works, pointing out that Mr. Pearson could easily find, in the Bodleian Library, the book from which, he (Mr.
198
Thorold Rogers) had derived his information. He had not heard anything about the matter from Mr. Pearson; but he was probably investigating the subject. He ventured to say so much in confirmation of the views which Mr. Pearson had promulgated and placed in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, who had communicated them to the House. It appeared that the restoration proposed would be in accordance with the building originally standing on the site. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy suggested that they might get some respectable bricklayer in London, who should plaster up the building—that was to say, cover over the historical work found there—he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) presumed with the object of laying it open at some future time, and also with the object of protecting it from decay for the present. But he did not approve of that plan. They had evidence of what the buildings were formerly, and Mr. Pearson was perfectly competent to restore them; and, therefore, he was in favour of the work being taken in hand at once. The buildings undoubtedly served at one time for the purpose of housing Royalty in this country. The House of Commons was, of course, a very distinguished Body, and they were very much cramped for room; yet he thought they would be able to find the necessary accommodation in the House. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward, and he had little doubt that the restored building would serve many useful purposes of the time.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the Vote by £4,500. He would presently explain why he proposed to reduce the Vote by that amount; but he wished, first of all, to state that, while he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) in refusing to give the whole of the sum asked, he had no sympathy with the grounds on which his hon. Friend proceeded. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had done what was right in removing the buildings of the old Law Courts. They were an eyesore, and utterly out of keeping with Westminster Palace, with which they were incorporated. Besides, it was necessary to

199
remove them, in order that the original character of the old buildings on the West side of Westminster Hall might be ascertained, and so a guide be obtained for a restoration or reconstruction of the buildings. He must object to the suggestion of his hon. Friend, that the walls now exposed to view should be plastered up, and he could hardly believe that the suggestion was seriously made. His reasons for proposing the reduction of the Vote were of a very different kind from those given by his hon. Friend. In opposing the Vote, he wished to state, emphatically, that he had no desire to find fault with the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works for his action in regard to the plans for the carrying out of which a Vote was now asked. The right hon. Gentleman had proved himself an admirable First Commissioner of Works. He showed a genuine interest in the preserving and perfecting of our national buildings, and he exercised the greatest care in seeking to ascertain the best mode of dealing with them, and earnestness in carrying out the course which his inquiries showed him to be the right one. He (Mr. Dick-Peddie) desired to say that, in objecting to the designs of an architect of the eminence of Mr. Pearson, he did so with regret; but what he had to say of these designs was not to be considered as in the nature of condemnation, but of doubt and suggestion, and he submitted it to the Committee not as a ground for summarily rejecting the designs, but only for delaying decision on them until further inquiry had been made into the whole question of building on the West side of Westminster Hall. He wished to express his sense of the great interest and value of Mr. Pearson's Report, and of the pains which that gentleman had taken to investigate the history of the building with which he had to deal. Two alternative courses offered themselves for adoption in dealing with the building. The first was to restore it, if possible, to the condition in which it was when, in the time of Richard II., the Hall was raised in height and the present roof was put on it, and the buttresses and flying buttresses were erected. The second course was to abandon all idea of restoring the buildings, and to design new buildings, having, in doing so,
200
regard only to the character of the whole assemblage of buildings of which Westminster Palace was composed, and to the uses to which it might be found desirable to apply the new buildings. The former of those courses was the one it had been determined by the First Commissioner of Works to adopt. Now, he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) ventured to question whether the so-called restoration, represented in Mr. Pearson's plans, was really a restoration; and he ventured to say that, not being in his opinion a true restoration, the building proposed was not one which, on its own merits, should receive the approval of the Committee. He might recall to the recollection of the Committee the main features of Mr. Pearson's design. It consisted of a two-storied building, the walls of which were to be about 25 or 26 feet in height, extending along the whole of the West side of the Hall. At the North end, this building took the form of a projection at right angles from the Hall, extending outwards about 63 feet, and having a breadth of about 36 feet. It was to be finished at its West end with a gable, and its roof was to run back from that gable to the side wall of the Hall, against which it was to abut immediately below the level of the proposed new parapet of the Hall. To the South of this projecting building, the proposed building was to take the form of a two-storied wall, extending from buttress to buttress and carrying a roof which was to out through the flying buttresses of the Hall about seven feet above the carved corbels on the back of the buttresses from which they sprang. Now, what were the grounds on which this was maintained to be a restoration of the building to its condition in the time of Richard II.? They were the existence of foundations on the lines of the walls of the proposed new buildings; various indications on the sides of the buttresses of the walls which had been built on those foundations, and indications of the returns of the parapet of those walls against the buttresses at the level, and in the position in which the parapet of the proposed buildings was to be. Well, with regard to the old foundations, there could be no doubt of their existence, for they were fully exposed by the excavations that had been made. Neither could there be any doubt that, at some

201
date, buildings had been erected on them to the height now proposed. But then it was equally clear, both from an examination of the ground and of old records, that the buildings which stood on the foundations referred to, were but a portion of very extensive buildings which, as the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had shown, closed in the Hall and the building between the buttresses altogether. While, however, there could be no doubt that buildings had, at some date, existed on the site on which Mr. Pearson proposed to rebuild, and that those buildings had been of the height proposed for the intended buildings, it seemed to him clear that not only was there no evidence that the old buildings were of the Reign of Richard II., but that there was positive evidence that they were of later date. This conclusion was founded chiefly on the fact that the moulding of the parapet of the old wall, as shown by its return against one of the flying buttresses, was of a later date and inferior character to the mouldings on the buttresses. That was the conclusion arrived at, not only by himself, but by two architects of great experience, with whom he had carefully examined the old building now exposed to view. And it was a significant fact that Mr. Pearson had not, in his design, adopted for his parapet the moulding of the old parapet, but had designed it in keeping with the moulding of the buttresses. To him (Mr. Dick-Peddie) the evidence furnished by the old cope moulding was conclusive, as showing that the building of which it was part was not of the same date as the buttresses. But further evidence, leading to the same conclusion, was furnished by the appearance of the deep horizontal cut across the flying buttresses. This was made to receive the lead of the roof which covered the old building, and it was obviously made, not when the buttresses were built, but at some after-time. But the best evidence against the existence of buildings of the height of that now proposed, at the time that the buttresses and flying buttresses were built, rested on this—that the design and character of the flying buttresses showed they were intended to be seen throughout their entire extent. But what they were asked to believe
202
was that the designer of the flying buttresses, after having carefully designed them, imparting to them a marked architectural character, and giving them not only strength, but beauty and grace, deliberately and ruthlessly cut them in two, leaving seven or eight feet of them and the ornamental corbels from which they sprang inside the building, and the remaining part of them outside! How little those who had written in approval of the scheme really understood what was proposed was shown by an article in The Saturday Review. It was the only favourable notice of the design he had seen. There might have been others published, but they had not come under his notice. The writer, after describing the object of Mr. Pearson to have been—
"To recover, in his reconstruction of the West side of the Hall, the aspect which it presented in Richard II.'s time,"
said—
"That Mr. Pearson had worked out the curious fact that a wall ran between the upright buttresses, so as, with the roof which it undoubtedly carried, to comprise a cloister bridged over by the graceful sweep of the flying buttresses in their äerial dignity."
But, as he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had shown, the cloister was not bridged over by the flying buttresses, for a large part of each flying buttress was covered up by the cloister roof, and what remained above the roof would only be a clumsy fragment. Thus there would be no graceful sweep and no äerial dignity in the flying buttress, for a large portion of each of them would be sunk under the roof of the cloister, and of what remained above the roof hardly anything would be seen. On Mr. Pearson's perspective drawings, a small part of them was indeed shown; but those drawings, although very beautiful, were delusive. They represented the building as seen from a very distant point, and from that point, about half of the height of the window of the Hall and a part of the arch of the flying buttresses were represented as visible above the roof of the proposed building; but from any point of view from which the vast majority of persons would see the building—from any part, for instance, of St. Margaret's Street—nothing whatever would be seen of the windows of the Hall, nor any part of the flying buttresses

203
except their coping. Now, with regard to the accommodation to be provided in the upper floor of the building between the buttresses, he wanted to say a few words. The plans showed a long room, about 200 feet in length and 19 feet in width, occupying the whole space. Of what use such a room could be, he knew not. The Report, which accompanied the plans, suggested that, if desired, this long room might be divided into a number of smaller rooms, entered from a passage carried along the side of the wall of Westminster Hall, and taken, of course, from the breadth of the proposed cloister. But the minimum breadth that could be given to such a passage was five feet; and after there was added to that the thickness of a partition to separate the passage from the proposed rooms, there would remain for these latter a breadth of about 13 feet. But these rooms thus narrow would be badly lighted. There would be no means whatever of providing them with fireplaces. In fact, they would be closets rather than rooms, and of no use for any practical purpose in connection with this House. He would like to draw attention to the injurious effect which the projecting building forming the North part of the proposed works would have on the whole appearance of Westminster Palace. It was to project, as he had said, 63 feet. The ridge of its roof was to abut against Westminster Hall immediately below the parapet which was to be placed on the wall of the Hall. Now, the result would be that, for anyone approaching Westminster Palace from Parliament Street, the whole of the West side of Westminster Hall, except a few feet of the parapet, would be shut out of view. In short, the result of building as now proposed would be that the projecting building and the double cloister below the buttresses would effectually conceal the old portions of Westminster Hall, to reveal which was the sole motive for removing the Law Courts, and clearing out their site. He thought that there was another ground of objection to the projecting building besides that of its shutting out the West side of Westminster Hall from the view of persons approaching Westminster Palace by Parliament Street, and it was that it would seriously injure
204
the effect of the whole mass of the building of which it would form part when viewed from the North-West angle of Palace Yard. Let hon. Members endeavour to call up to their imagination the view of the Palace which anyone standing near that point would have. On his left, there was the great mass of the Clock Tower. Coming down from that, he had the building of the Palace on the East and South sides of Palace Yard, extending to the North end of the Hall; and then, coming down again, he would have the proposed projecting building, with which the whole composition would die away on his right in a most ineffective manner. This proposed building would, it seemed to him, be a very mean termination to the whole composition. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, of what use would this projecting building be, which might compensate for any harm it might do to the exterior aspect of the Palace? They were told the other day by the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question, that the upper storey would form an admirable room for one of the Grand Committees. But no such use was suggested for it in the Report; nay, it was expressly said that the use of the room was left to be afterwards determined. The fact was, that the suggested appropriation of the room to one of the Grand Committees was an afterthought suggested by the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and one which had never before occurred to the First Commissioner of Works. He ventured to say that the room was not at all adapted for the use of the Grand Committee. It would be sufficiently large, indeed, as it would be about 60 feet long by 30 feet in breadth; but it would be indifferently lighted, it would not be convenient of access, and it would be without ante-room or lobby for the public, or for persons wishing to see Members. There was one part of the designs of which he would say but little, as a Vote was not at present asked for it—namely, the proposed heightening of the towers at the entrance of Westminster Hall. The present North elevation of Westminster Hall was certainly not satisfactory; but it had at least this recommendation, that the large gable rising above the piers, for they could not be called towers, which flanked it, expressed

205
strongly the great roof of the Hall within. If, however, these piers were converted into towers, the gable, reduced in importance, would lose its power of suggesting the size and importance of the roof. Farther, the raising of the towers would give to the Hall an ecclesiastical character, from which it was at present wholly free. But he thought a still greater objection to the towers was this—that, as towers, they would, by contrast with the Clock Tower, which would always be seen in close proximity to them, appear insignificant. In the drawings showing the North end of the Hall, the Clock Tower was not shown, and the proposed towers flanking the gate appeared of sufficient importance; but had the Clock Tower been shown, it would have been seen at once that the proposed towers of the Hall would be entirely drowned by it. In the doubts which he had thought it right to submit to the Committee regarding the building for which a Vote was asked, he did not stand alone. Many of the points of objection he had stated had been stated in the journals most entitled to write on such matters. The Builder and The Architect had contained leading articles strongly objecting to the proposed works, and asking delay. An excellent letter also had appeared in The Building News, and an able article in The Athenœum, objecting to them; and a letter by Mr. Stevenson, architect, which had yesterday appeared in The Times, effectively urged various objections to them. What was asked was not the rejection of the designs which it had been proposed to carry out; it was only delay, so as to give the Members of that House and the public generally time to consider them. The only reason which had been given for haste was that stated by the First Commissioner of Works some days ago—namely, the necessity of at once doing something to preserve the old Norman wall from the injurious effects of the atmosphere. The same reason was given the other day in the House of Lords. Now, he might point out that the carrying out of the present designs would not serve the end proposed, because the open cloister on the ground floor of the new building would still leave the Norman wall exposed to the influences of the atmosphere. All the protection that was needed might be
206
obtained at an expenditure of less than £100, by closely boarding round the old wall. He proposed to reduce the Vote by £4,500, and thus to give the First Commissioner, not £100, but £500, to do everything that was needed at present. While he had stated all these considerations, he trusted he had not opposed the Vote in any hostile spirit, or spoken of the designs harshly or captiously. His great anxiety was that mistakes should be avoided in the works which might be resolved on. The Hall of Westminster was the noblest hall in England, and that was almost the only opinion expressed by his hon. Friend below him (Sir George Campbell) in which he concurred. It was the noblest not only in England, but in the world, and any proposal to deal with such a building demanded most careful consideration. He was surprised at the apathy shown by Englishmen with regard to what was now proposed. It might, perhaps, be supposed to concern him, as a Scotch Member, less than English Members; but he should almost feel it as a personal loss were any injury to be done to this great historical building. He ventured to express a hope that even now the First Commissioner of Works would consent to delay the works, and to refer the plans and the whole question of the mode of dealing with the West side of the Hall to a Select Committee. No serious delay would be caused by that, and perhaps the result might even be the approval of the present plans. If so, he, for one, would make no farther objections. What he did object to, and what he begged the Committee not to assent to, was the adoption of any design affecting a national building of such importance as Westminster Hall and Westminster Palace without the fullest and most exhaustive consideration.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that when he had an opportunity of making a statement to the House on this important subject some time ago, he was extremely anxious to consult the opinions of the House on a matter affecting, as it did, one of the most ancient and important buildings in this country; and he had also rather invited criticism. He had said that, if there was any serious objection to the scheme of Mr. Pearson, he would have no

207
hesitation in referring the matter to a Select Committee, after the plans had been a reasonable time before the House of Commons. He had, however, been in communication with many hon. Members among all sections and Parties, and certainly found there was a general concurrence in favour of the plans prepared by Mr. Pearson. Accordingly, he had not thought it necessary, at that period of the Session, to refer them to a Select Committee. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Dick-Peddie) said that there was a general feeling outside the House against the plans of Mr. Pearson. Now, certainly, that was not the case; almost all the Press had pronounced in favour of them. It was certainly true that two or three architectural papers had criticized them somewhat severely; but he ventured to say that no high authority, architectural or antiquarian, had decided against the scheme of Mr. Pearson.
MR. DICK-PEDDIE: There is the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings was one with which he had considerable sympathy; but he was bound to say that they sometimes carried their ideas to the verge of what he might call absurdity. He had reason, however, to believe that a great many of that Body were favourable to Mr. Pearson's plans, while the Committee which had spoken adversely did not consist of its more important members. He had taken pains to discover who were the gentlemen that composed the Committee and who criticized Mr. Pearson's plans, and he found that one of them was an assistant surveyor to the Metropolitan Board of Works, another was an assistant in an art paper-hanging shop, a third was an artist unknown to fame, and two were architects who had not yet made a reputation. He could not accept a Committee thus formed as one of any great authority. He thought, therefore, he was correct in saying that no authority of any weight had been quoted against the plans prepared by Mr. Pearson. He could not admit that, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had said, he found himself in a scrape inconsequence of having pulled down the Law Courts; he believed the
208
hon. Member himself was the only person who had objected to the demolition of the old Courts. The hon. Member, no doubt, opposed the proposal; but he stood alone, for not a single Member had supported him. In so demolishing the old Law Courts, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was simply carrying out a promise made to the House when the Courts were removed to the new buildings in Fleet Street; and he must say that he thought the removal of the old Courts was most satisfactory. Viewed from Great George Street, including the Abbey, with Westminster Hall forming the centre, the scene was, he thought, one of the most beautiful to be found in London. All he desired was that the scene should be made as beautiful as possible, and that Westminster Hall might be restored in as perfect a manner as possible. The question was, in what manner they would best restore Westminster Hall—for he assumed that it could not be left as it now was. Practically, there were only two alternatives. One was to adopt the plan of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and patch up the existing walls and buttresses, and leave it in its present state. The objection to that course was that Westminster Hall—at all events, the lower part of it, from the sills of the windows—was of old Norman construction, and they would have to case up and conceal the wall with modern stonework. But inasmuch as that was almost the only remaining example of Norman buildings in London, it seemed to him that to adopt that course would be a great mistake. It would entirely destroy the only example of old Norman buildings remaining in London, and would, he thought, be an act of Vandalism. Besides, he did not believe it would be possible to find a responsible architect who would advise that course, or carry it out; and, certainly, Mr. Pearson had told him he would not be a party to such a plan. He believed it would be impossible to find any other architect to carry out such a piece of Vandalism. Then the question was, what alternative remained; and it appeared to him that the only other course was to restore the Hall to what it was in the time of Richard II., and down to the beginning of the present century. The hon. Member

209
for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) took exception to that course, on the ground that it would not be in accordance with the ancient building as it was in Richard II.'s time; and he undertook to contradict Mr. Pearson's conclusion as to the two storeys of the cloister under the buttresses. He stated that the indications arising from the buttresses were the only ground upon which Mr. Pearson had come to his conclusion; but, as a matter of fact, they were only one of the smallest of Mr. Pearson's grounds for his conclusion. There were many other indications of the strongest character, leading to this proof; the very walls of the old building told their own history; and anyone who would examine them closely and carefully would find that Mr. Pearson was right in his conclusion. The main evidence in favour of Mr. Pearson's views was this. There existed on the side of Westminster Hall the remains of a row of arches of stone, of the same date as the rest of the building, which was erected in the time of Richard II., and it was therefore clear that when Richard II. restored the hall and added the noble roof which now existed, and also added five buttresses, he erected a two-storey building resting upon these arches against the wall. These arches were intended to prevent the building from resting on the wall itself. Therefore, it appeared to him that this indicated conclusively that there was a storey running along the whole length of the Hall; and there were many other evidences of the same kind. They had the plans of Sir Christopher Wren, showing how the storey was laid out, and also how the upper storey was approached—namely, by a staircase in the corner of the Hall. But this very day there had been discovered a print, for which they had been searching many months. It was a print made by Capon, in 1810, drawn from a point a few yards to the West front of the Hall, and giving a drawing of one of the bays between the buttresses, and this drawing showed distinctly that there were two storeys to the cloister. This was dated 1810; but there were indications of an ancient character of windows, and clearly the lower arch was drawn in the manner suggested by Mr. Pearson. This drawing was also important as showing that this building was intended to form an architectural
210
feature to be seen some distance. He thought, therefore, that anybody who examined carefully into this question could come to no other conclusion than that Mr. Pearson was justified in the assumption that there was, up to the beginning of the present century, a two-storey building occupying the whole length of the Hall. That two-storey building was built by Richard II., and to a great extent remained intact until the beginning of the present century, when it was pulled down in order to erect the old Law Courts. What Mr. Pearson proposed was practically to restore that two-storey building; by adopting this plan, they could preserve the old Norman wall, and leave it always visible behind the cloister he proposed to erect. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had objected to this cloister for many reasons. He said the upper part of it could not be used for the various purposes of this House. Well, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could find many uses for it. He had received a demand from the Stationery Department for the erection of a new storey to their building, which would cost £5,000, in which to stow away the Reports of this House. They could at once stow those Reports in this long gallery, and then save this expenditure at the Stationery Office; but, no doubt, many other uses could be found for it. For instance, the upper part of the building proposed to be erected at the end of the cloister would be very suitable for a Grand Committee room, and the lower part for other purposes. It would certainly be necessary to replace the old shed in some manner or other; and unless they erected a building, such as that suggested by Mr. Pearson, he did not know where they could put their horses. He would not now enter into the question of the position of the towers. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock had objected to that part of the scheme; but the towers were not included in the present scheme, and he had left that question open for another year. The reason suggested by Mr. Pearson for raising the towers was that Westminster Hall was now completely overshadowed by the surrounding buildings erected by Sir Charles Barry. Sir Charles Barry himself had felt that, and he proposed to raise the towers; but he had an alternative

211
plan, which was to raise the roof of the hall some 10 feet, so that it might not remain so low in comparison with the other buildings; but that plan had been abandoned, as it might be dangerous to the old wall, and therefore it was proposed to raise the towers. He would not, however, discuss that course at present. It would not be possible to commence upon the towers at once, and he thought it would be better to take a Vote on the other portion of the work, and leave that to stand over for another year. The hon. Member had again proposed that this matter should be delayed; but, in his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) humble opinion, it was important to proceed at once. The old wall had already suffered from exposure in the past winter, and certainly the building, in its present state, was an eyesore; and it appeared to him desirable, for every reason, to commence on the work as soon as possible. His belief was that a delay for another year would produce no material alteration in the opinion of the public; and if, in accordance with the wish of the hon. Member, he deferred the matter to a Committee next year, he was satisfied the Committee would come to no other conclusion than that which he now asked them to assent to. He had consulted all the Members of the House who, in his opinion, were most qualified to express an opinion to the House upon this question, and many other authorities on questions of this kind; and they were all unanimously of opinion that Mr. Pearson's plan should be carried out, and that there was no necessity for a Committee. He thought he might, therefore, say there was a general concurrence of opinion in favour of Mr. Pearson's plan, and he ventured to hope that the Committee would not insist upon any further delay, but would vote the money which was necessary, in his view, and in the view of all the authorities, to carry out the necessary works on an interesting, an important, and, what he thought would be, one of the most beautiful buildings in the Metropolis.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that up to the delivery of the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), he (Sir Robert Peel), in common with other hon. Members, were disposed to look very favourably
212
on the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. The right hon. Gentleman had been most anxious to promote many good works in the Metropolis, and he (Sir Robert Peel) had been inclined, with other hon. Members whom he had consulted, to give the present scheme favourable consideration; but he must confess that since the right hon. Gentleman's speech his opinion had very materially altered. In the first place, he was greatly impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dick-Peddie), who was an experienced man in matters of this kind, and whose opinions were, no doubt, also the opinions of others who were, perhaps, even better qualified than he was to judge in such matters. The chief statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was that this wall dated from the time of Richard II.; that being exposed to the deleterious atmosphere, it was rapidly perishing; and, therefore, it was highly desirable that the House of Commons should at once vote £5,000 to protect it. But the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had clearly shown, by his Amendment, that he was ready to protect that wall for a few hundred pounds—even for £500—while the House of Commons might form a deliberate opinion upon the question next year, The First Commissioner of Works himself admitted that, unless there had been a universal consensus of opinion, he was inclined to believe that it would be better to submit the question to a Select Committee, but that, having consulted certain hon. Members, he did not hold that view now. As far as he could gather, all the hon. Gentlemen the right hon. Gentleman had consulted were hon. Members below the Gangway, except the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope); and he did not know that, taking the right hon. Gentleman's house in London, he could be regarded as a high authority. The fact was, this Liberal Government were voting away vast sums of money on this building; they asked for £35,000 now, and they would require another £8,000 for the towers. The House had no plan; they had only an opinion by Mr. Pearson, who talked about Richard II., as if he had lived but a few years ago; but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock

213
had clearly shown that there were plans in the Bodleian Library which had not been examined by Mr. Pearson. No doubt, Mr. Pearson was a great authority; but he (Sir Robert Peel) should be inclined, and he hoped the Committee would be inclined, rather to accept the opinions of the architectural journals quoted by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and certainly he would rather have their opinions than the opinions of the London Press. He had never heard a Liberal Government refer to the London Press in support of their policy. He had always understood that the London Press was in condemnation of the policy of a Liberal Government; but on this occasion the First Commissioner of Works said, with a great deal of glee, that there was no opposition to his plan in the London Press, adding that five gentlemen, who, he thought, could not be considered as men of talent, did go and criticize the work of Mr. Pearson. He had a shrewd suspicion that those five gentlemen were sent by the Royal Academy, and he should not be surprised if Sir Frederick Leighton—one of the most mischievous artistic men in this country—had a finger in this pie. He should not be at all surprised to find that these five gentlemen, who were abused by the First Commissioner of Works, were Royal Academicians in disguise. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock had said he was amazed at the apathy of London in regard to this and similar matters; but the hon. Gentleman who, he believed, was a Scotchman, need not be in the least alarmed at the apathy of London. He (Sir Robert Peel) had seen far more disgraceful actions of this kind committed in London than the hon. Gentleman would imagine possible in the capital of this country. He had seen such apathy on the part of London that even last night he saw, amidst the hootings of a vast mob of people, the statue of the illustrious Duke of Wellington carted away through the streets of the Metropolis amid the most complete apathy. Therefore, when the hon. Member talked of the apathy of London, he (Sir Robert Peel) was not all surprised at it, after seeing these things. But there was one reason why the Committee should pause before agreeing to this proposition of the First Commissioner of Works. He admitted the desire of the right hon. Gentleman
214
to conserve what he had said might be for the general ornamentation of Westminster Hall; but, at the close of his remarks, he dropped a statement that it had been proposed to him, that he could apply this building—upon which £35,000 was to be expended—to various purposes, and that the Stationery Department had consulted him with a view to making there a reservoir for the reception of Blue Books, &c. Could anything be more contemptible? They were to spend £35,000 on this building, in order that it might be devoted to the service of the Stationery Department. Let them go elsewhere. Then the right hon. Gentleman said there was another plan—for making it a standing place for horses. A standing place for horses! Was it worthy of the First Commissioner of Works to come down and ask the Committee to vote £35,000, and £8,000 more, and to state that the building to which this money, and the beautiful plans of Mr. Pearson were to be devoted, was to be made a standing place for horses? He also said it might be possible, between the Stationery Office and its Blue Books, and the standing place for horses, to provide accommodation for the Grand Committees. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, at that late period of the Session, must have rather suffered in his intellect, from the press of Business, because to tell the Committee of the House of Commons that they were to vote £35,000——
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: £5,000 this year, which will pledge the House.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must protest against the system that was carried on. He protested against granting this money the other day; but he was told that a portion of the money having been voted, it was useless to protest. It was true they were voting only £5,000 now; but they were pledging themselves not only to £35,000, but to nearly £43,000.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, in explanation, that the £35,000 included the £8,000 for the towers, and therefore all they were committing themselves to now was £27,000; and of that sum £5,000 would go to complete St. Stephen's Porch, in the manner recommended by Sir Charles Barry, and

215
it would, therefore, be required in any case.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had asked whether the £35,000 included the £8,000, and the answer was "No." Well, now, the sum total of this matter was—and he ventured respectfully to put it to the Committee—whether there was any necessity for voting this money, after the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), who stated that, for £500, he could cover and protect this wall which they were told dated from the time of Richard II., in order that the House of Commons might, next year, adopt some plans—probably those of Mr. Pearson. There was no necessity for this haste and hurry, and he earnestly hoped the Committee would not agree to it. Although Mr. Pearson's plan looked very pretty and very clever, and would, no doubt, be very appropriate, and although the First Commissioner of Works told them he had consulted the House of Commons, and found hon. Members universally in favour of Mr. Pearson's scheme—though the only Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side of the House whom he had consulted was the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope), whose taste was rather Batavian than English—notwithstanding all this, he thought it was time for the Committee to pause, and he hoped they would not assent to this proposal. They might vote £500 now, have a Select Committee next year, and then carefully and fairly consider these plans. He felt sure that the First Commissioner of Works, who had bestowed so much labour on Metropolitan improvements, would see that this was not an unreasonable request, which he submitted with all humility, but with confidence.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that delays were not very profitable. From his experience of public buildings, and after watching what had taken place with regard to them after the plans had been produced to the House and discussed, he must say that the longer the delay the worse had the result been. If 19 Select Committees were to sit, in 19 successive years, they would have practically 19 different conclusions, and somewhere about 21 years would be likely to elapse before the outside decorations of Westminster Hall were completed. They were told that there were three courses
216
open to them; one of which was to plaster up the outside of the building, until a satisfactory scheme was suggested. The next course was to construct a building in uniformity with Westminster Palace. That scheme had struck him as a gigantic one, and it had come from an hon. Member below the Gangway. The next scheme was to place the structure as near as possible in its original ancient condition. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), in his able appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, had talked about the excessive haste with which the old building had been pulled down, declaring that it ought to have remained standing, until the new one was built. That reminded him (Mr. Macartney) of a speech of the celebrated Member of the Irish Parliament, Sir Boyle Roach, when it was proposed to build the new Irish Parliament Houses on College Green. That hon. Member had proposed that the new building should be made of the materials of the old one, but that the old one should not be pulled down until the new one was completed. It seemed to him that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy was very similar to that of Sir Boyle Roach. ["No, no!"] Yes; the hon. Member had objected to the old building being pulled down before the new one was completed, or something of that kind. It that were the hon. Member's idea, there did not seem to be much likelihood of the project being carried out. There would be that apathy described by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, no one caring anything about the improvement, and the eyesore would remain for a number of years. He (Mr. Macartney) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his plan, and would not allow himself to be carried away by the proposal of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. He trusted that, in the course of three or four years, they would have a handsome addition to the group of buildings which now formed so great an ornament to the Metropolis.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should like to know what would happen next year, if they were to listen to some of the proposals made this year for delay? The same thing would happen—they

217
would be again told to pause. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) would come forward and say the plan was a bad one, that he had a better one; or he would come forward and urge some sentimental reason or other for making some kind of alteration. If they were to wait until there was a consensus of opinion amongst architects, sentimentalists, and Gentlemen like the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel), they would have to wait for ever. He (Mr. Labouchere) never troubled himself very much about architectural or archæological matters; but he certainly thought that, in this case, they should endeavour to cover Westminster Hall in such a way as to make it harmonize with the buildings around it. Mr. Pearson was a very reliable person; one who might be taken, in a sense, as the representative of his Profession—that was to say, he was regarded by his brother architects as standing very high in the Profession. Well, it did seem to him (Mr. Labouchere) only reasonable, as Mr. Pearson had prepared a plan, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had approved of it, and had submitted it to hon. Gentlemen in the House well known for their architectural taste and views, who had also approved of it, that the Committee should adopt the plan. Instead of going on discussing this question hour after hour, and putting it off to another Session, they should at once give the money to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, to enable him to carry out the thing at once, so that when hon. Members came back next year, they might see the thing finished.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works might well say—"Save me from my friends!" for the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Labouchere) professed to know nothing about architecture and archæology, and simply said—"Here is a dead wall; let us cover it up, at a cost of £35,000." He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not think the Committee would be inclined to pay such a sum on the strength of an opinion expressed in a tone of almost contempt for the opinion of others. He had never heard anything more truculent,
218
dictatorial, or contemptuous of the views of others. It had appeared to him that he had been listening to a modern edition of Robespierre or Danton, ordering everyone to agree with his opinion. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had come down to support the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works; but when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), who was a great authority on these matters, had spoken, he was somewhat shaken in his view; and when he had heard the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel), who not only was a great authority on art, but who also spoke with the authority that a seat on the Front Opposition Bench always must confer, he had felt that his original intention to support the right hon. Gentleman was one which he could not carry out. He felt bound to join the right hon. Baronet, who, this evening, led the Opposition, in pressing on the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to accept the £500 which was so lavishly offered him, and not to ask for the much larger sum.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he rose for the purpose of obtaining some information. It appeared to him that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was for an open cloister; and he wished to know whether, in sanctioning the plan of the First Commissioner, they were committing themselves to the construction of the open cloister? He believed that this detail of scheme was very objectionable, inasmuch as it would not efficiently protect the old wall. They knew that the cloister in Westminster Abbey was a very slight protection to the wall behind it. They knew that old cloisters had, in many instances, been actually covered in by glass, in order to protect the interior. Then, if there were rooms over the covered cloister, they could not fail to be very cold and uncomfortable. What they were asked to agree to was really only a half-considered plan, as there was nothing decided as to the object of the upper storey of the building. It was said that it might be made a receptacle for stationery, books, and manuscripts; but no one could assert that it was really adapted for those objects. It was

219
said that another part might be devoted to the accommodation of the Grand Committees; but the Grand Committees might be given up, or the place might not be suitable for them. Under the circumstances, he felt bound to support the proposal that they should postpone the Vote until next year.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he ventured to support the appeal made on both sides of the House for further delay for the consideration of this important and difficult question. He could lay no claim to the practical knowledge which had been so effectively brought to bear upon this matter by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), and the opinions of an expert so accomplished as Mr. Pearson were not to be lightly controverted. But he ventured, nevertheless, to think there was certainly some reasonable objection to be taken to a design which, confessedly, would have the effect of almost burying the beautiful flying buttresses, whose graceful proportions had been, for the first time for many years, brought to light by the demolition of the old Courts of Justice, and which it was also admitted would have the effect of partly obscuring the windows of the West front. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had said this was a matter in which there were only two alternatives—namely, that of leaving the building as it was, or carrying out the design of Mr. Pearson; but it seemed to him (Mr. Cheetham) that there was still another alternative—namely, to have a single-storied cloister, or, rather, aisle. That would appear preferable to a two-storied building, inasmuch as it would not involve the necessity of burying the flying buttresses, and also of obscuring the windows. Moreover, the carrying out of the plan of Mr. Pearson would involve a considerable, and possibly not very sightly, difference of levels, for the floor of the cloister would be 10 feet below the level of Parliament Street, whilst its roof would only be a few feet above the street level, and that might have the effect of giving a somewhat cellar-like appearance to the cloister. He trusted that the points that had been made during the debate would be thoroughly considered by the First Commissioner of Works, and he further trusted that his right hon. Friend would
220
be able to acquiesce in the appeal for delay.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that as to the point mentioned by his hon. Friend (Mr. Cheetham) with regard to the possible alternative of a single-storied cloister, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had himself suggested it to Mr. Pearson. Anyone looking at the plan would see that such an alternative was obvious. He had suggested a plan on that principle to Mr. Pearson; but that gentleman had said that, looking at the matter from an architectural and archæological point of view, he could not recommend the adoption of the alternative. Mr. Pearson considered it extremely important to follow out the old plan, and have a double story, especially with reference to the open arches, as was shown in the lower story. That gentleman considered the double storey of the greatest importance to the dignity of the building; and the view he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) took in the matter was that, in such a point of detail, they ought to follow the advice of this gentleman, who was a leading man in his Profession. More mistakes had been made by taking an architect into counsel, and then not following his advice in details, than in any other way. Whatever his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) original opinion might have boon, he had waived it entirely in deference to the strongly-expressed opinion of an architect of such eminence as Mr. Pearson. Even if they referred the matter to a Select Committee, he should deprecate a Committee making any alteration in a detail of this kind, which should be left entirely to the professional man. He believed it would not be wise to interfere with Mr. Pearson's plan in this matter.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he very often had pleasure in supporting the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre); but, on this occasion, he regretted to say that he must differ from him. What he (Mr. Gregory) would venture to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman was whether it was really worth while to divide the Committee on the matter. They were all agreed that a sufficient sum of money should be granted for the preservation of the existing wall and of the buttresses that supported it; and they were all likewise agreed that the right hon. Gentleman would be justified

221
in clearing the site. They knew exactly what the site was, and the question they had to consider was how it should be covered. In many respects, the plan submitted was a beautiful architectural design; but whether it was one which afforded the conveniences which were required was a question that had been argued in an elaborate way by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), which he (Mr. Gregory) confessed had carried conviction to a great many minds. One point, in particular, the hon. Member had dealt with had not been met to his (Mr. Gregory's) satisfaction, and that was the construction of a number of small buildings or apartments which would be practically useless. There was also a proposal for putting stationery in the apartments to be constructed; but the stationery and documents should always be preserved in a place which was not exposed to fire; and it certainly appeared to him it would be a bad plan to put Records in a combustible material in one of the oldest parts of Westminster Palace. If they adopted the Vote, it would be a confirmation of that design, and they did not want to confirm or to accept any design at the present moment, but simply desired delay in order that they might further consider the matter. If the Vote were adopted, they would be pledged to Mr. Pearson's design, and could have no further consideration of the subject. He had had some experience of architectural designs, and he did think that before any plan was adopted, it should have careful and exhaustive consideration. In the past they had suffered very much for want of proper consideration in architectural affairs. That had been the case with regard to the Courts of Law. To his mind, the wisest course would be for them to adjourn the consideration of this design for the present, and to consider the matter very carefully during the winter, during which period the work would not be able to go on with much effect, even if a plan were decided upon. The building, as it at present stood, might, by the expenditure of an adequate sum of money, be sufficiently protected in the interim; and then in the spring they could decide upon what to do, and proceed with the work satisfactorily.
MR. CROPPERsaid, he wished to state that almost the last word which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had decided him in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), for the reason that he preferred the first view which had been entertained by the right hon. Gentleman, and desired that it should be reconsidered. He did not think they should discuss this great question on the mere dictum of an architect, however eminent he might be. Though Mr. Pearson might be a very able man in his Profession, he could not be the only one who had a reliable opinion to give. He (Mr. Cropper), for his own part, looked upon the matter as insufficiently considered; and he very much regretted the change which had taken place in that part of Westminster Hall. He missed that flow of business from the great Chambers which they had been so familiar with; he missed the caps and the gowns and the throngs of suitors hurrying to and fro, and regretted they had changed for those knots of country visitors, who came with a vacant stare merely to look at the place and go out again. Mr. Pearson's proposal with regard to cloisters seemed to him to be a matter of architectural speculation. There seemed to him some difficulty in matters of ingress and egress—when anybody got into the cloisters, how were they to get out again; and how were they to get in, seeing that one end of the place was 10 feet below the street? All the proposals as to the occupation of the long gallery above the cloister had apparently only been offered as a sort of makeweight. The matter could not be considered and decided at once; therefore, though he very much regretted being obliged to oppose the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), he could not but think that he was bound to support the plea for delay.
MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he ventured to rise to address the Committee on this subject, because it had been his experience, as it had been the experience of most people who had had anything to do with the erection of buildings of this kind, that haste was very often fatal to the successful carrying out of designs.

223
He did not regard the matter solely from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman who sat near him (Mr. Dick-Peddie), as he believed there were other methods for keeping the matter in abeyance until the House of Commons had had proper time to consider it than that pointed out by the hon. Member. When the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had come to the utilitarian part of his subject, it had appeared to him (Mr. Illingworth) that the right hon. Gentleman's statement was extremely disappointing. It had seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman's intention was to put up a building merely because the architect thought it necessary to cover an eyesore, but that he had not considered or impressed the mind of the architect with the point of improvement of the accommodation of this great House of Commons in carrying out the project. Just now, the House of Commons was going through a transition period. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether he was prepared to condemn the plan of the Grand Committees? If he was not, he must agree that, in the future, further accommodation would be wanted; and if that were the case, was it altogether out of the question to consider whether some day or other this vacant site might not be invaluable for the purpose of providing that additional accommodation? Many hon. Members were of opinion that there was a great want of accommodation in this House. When deputations came to wait upon Ministers or Members, it might be with a plea for the extension of the suffrage, or it might be a body of Memorialists sent by constituents—whatever it were, more accommodation than was at present available was required on these occasions. It was disgraceful that, while there had been such extravagance in the construction and fitting up of this great pile of buildings, so little attention had been paid to the utilitarian part of the arrangements. After all, the House of Commons did not exist for the purpose of perpetuating the architectural art ideas of Henry VIII., or the ideas that prevailed in the time of Richard II. While he would wish to run as far as possible in harmony with the buildings already existing, he should think the
224
House of Commons would be very much to blame if it granted this large sum of money, which was only the beginning of the expense and not the total, for the carrying out of this proposed improvement. None of these public buildings had ever been constructed under the original Estimate. Without condemning finally the proposals of the architect, so strongly approved of by the right hon. Gentleman, he still thought that no serious harm would be done by granting a little delay, and he therefore thought the suggestion for delay one worthy of the adoption of the Committee.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, in view of the difference of opinion which seemed to prevail, he would not ask the Committee now to vote that portion of the sum which was to have been devoted to the erection of a cloister. There were, however, other matters which had to be considered in regard to which no disapproval had been expressed by hon. Members, such as the repair of the buttresses themselves. If the House would allow him to take £3,000 for that purpose—namely, for the repair of the buttresses—he would content himself with that, and would not ask for the larger sum. The matter of the general plan to be adopted would then stand over until next Session, when, probably, more Members would be present who would take part in the discussion of the question.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had proposed to allow the right hon. Gentleman £4,000; but if he was willing to take £3,000, he need not say he should be delighted to withdraw his Motion, in order to assent to that proposal. He (Sir George Campbell) should be quite ready to withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(6.) Motion made, and Question,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament,"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)
—put, and agreed to.
(7.) £138,568, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Ireland.

CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not pay much attention to the convenience of the House; and he (Mr. Labouchere) thought he had good reason to complain that one day the right hon. Gentleman should come down to the House and say a discussion on the Egyptian policy of the Government was to be taken on Friday, and two days afterwards come down and say he had changed his mind, and that the discussion would take place on Monday, because on the Friday some hon. Members on his side of the House would not be in their places. With what object would these right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, Friends of the right hon. Baronet, be away? Why, with the object of proposing some pernicious doctrine or other in a certain part of the country. He did think that a bargain was a bargain, and that when the Chief of the Opposition solemnly announced that he was going to take an important discussion on a certain day, it was only reasonable that he should abide by his declaration. He (Mr. Labouchere) made these few observations, because he had intended to be present on Friday, when he had understood the debate was to be taken, to hear the speeches which might be offered for and against the Government policy. Although it might be convenient to the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to his (Mr. Labouchere's) knowledge, more than one hon. Member on the Ministerial side would be absent, having, through the previous understanding, made other arrangements for Monday.
SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he wished to enter a protest against the item in this Vote for telegraphic expenses, and the practice of always, year after year, making the original Estimates
226
for absolutely the same sums. What had happened this year? Why, the original Estimate was £5,000, and the additional sum now required was another £5,000; whilst under the Diplomatic Vote the item for telegrams was £12,000, and there was £15,000 additional required; so that, under the two Votes, there was a sum of £20,000 required, in addition to the sum of £17,000 originally asked for. He was aware that telegraphic expenses could not be calculated very nicely; but, considering the state of things when these Estimates were drawn up—that was to say, taking into consideration what was going on in Egypt and the Soudan, and the certainty that the Estimates would have to be largely increased—he thought that some better calculation might have been made. There were other places besides Egypt where disturbances were taking place, and where it was known that large additional expense would have to be incurred for telegraphing; and he must protest against this proceeding on the part of the Government as being most unsatisfactory.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he could assure the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland) that he regretted as much as the hon. Baronet did the necessity for these Supplementary Estimates; but the hon. Member was not quite accurate in his facts as to the reason for the increase. It was only temporary, owing to the Expedition to Egypt. The Foreign Office had hoped that the special causes which rendered so large an expenditure necessary last year would not recur. But in this they had been disappointed, and it was necessary to present this Estimate.
MR. MONKsaid, he did not think the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had any ground for complaint, because, after it had been arranged that this debate should be brought on, that arrangement had been departed from. It was very inconvenient not to be able to discuss this question to-night, because many hon. Members had made arrangements to leave town, and some of them would have been glad of the opportunity, in order that they might congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon two pieces of good fortune this year—

227
namely, the rejection of the Franchise Bill, and the utter collapse of the Conference which had met to consider the Egyptian Question. The debate could not now be taken until Monday, when many hon. Members would be away; but he (Mr. Monk) hoped the Government would show that firmness which, perhaps, they had not hitherto shown on the Egyptian Question now that their hands were once more free, and that they would take such steps as were necessary to secure good government for Egypt—a result that never would have been attained if they had been bound by the Protocols, which seemed to have been suggested rather from a desire to secure the interest of the bondholders than to promote the welfare of Egypt.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONssid, it was most inconvenient to find the debate, which everyone had come to discuss, put off till Monday. They could not help it now; but he wished to ask one question on the matter. About this time last year there was a debate on the Egyptian Question, and it was stated that the English troops were coming back shortly; but they could not come then, because of the cholera. He wished to know why the troops were still kept there?
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought it unnecessary for hon. Members opposite to make abusive observations upon hon. Members on this side for not bringing on an Egyptian debate to-night. If, having their speeches prepared, they wished to bring on a debate to-night they could do so, and they had a perfect right to raise a debate whenever they liked. But it did not lie with them to reproach Members of the Opposition who could choose any opportunity that was open to them on any of the stages of the Appropriation Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
(9.) £12,000, for Special Police.

CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,725, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Expenses incurred in connection with
228
the Funeral of His late Royal Highness the Duke of Albany."
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,300. For obvious reasons, his observations would be very short in connection with the Vote; but he could not help thinking that those who had advised Her Majesty to make this proposal for a Vote had made a great mistake. He did not believe that Her Majesty or any Member of the Royal Family would have made this proposal on their own account. He proposed to ask the Committee to reduce the Vote by £2,300. The Vote was divided into two portions—one was a grant in aid of the expenses of the Lord Chamberlain's Department; the other was a grant in aid of the expenses of the Office of Works and the Admiralty. The latter expenses were, as he understood, for the official preparations for the ceremony; but as to the former, he found, by a Return which had been obtained by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) relating to expenditure upon Royal Palaces, that a clear distinction was made between expenses incurred by the Office of Works and by the Lord Chamberlain's Office, it being distinctly laid down, by a Treasury Minute, that all moneys expended by the Lord Chamberlain's Department should be defrayed out of the Civil List. It was provided that the Civil List should bear all the expenses of Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, while the Office of Works should bear the expenses of those which were in the occupation of Her Majesty. The Treasury Minute to which he had referred was issued in 1838, and his contention was that the charges of the Lord Chamberlain's Department should be borne by the Civil List in accordance with that Minute. The Civil List was discussed when Her Majesty came to the Throne, and it was considered ample. It was not a question of the difficulty of finding this sum, for it was comparatively small; but nothing, he believed, did more harm to Royalty in this country than these perpetual demands for small extravagances. The money was not much; but there was a strong feeling about this subject in the country, and those who advised Her Majesty to make this demand had done exceedingly bad service to the Royal Family. He begged to move the

229
reduction of the Vote by £2,300, and he would ask for some explanation of the Vote by the Secretary to the Treasury.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £425, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Expenses incurred in connection with the Funeral of His late Royal Highness the Duke of Albany."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he had not thought it necessary to explain this Vote, inasmuch as it only differed from previous Votes in matter of form. Such Votes had usually been included in the general Vote for Civil Contingencies, and this Vote only differed in this respect—that it was placed by itself for consideration. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had asked for precedents. Well, he had in his hand a series of precedents extending from the year 1845 to the year 1862. In 1845, on the occasion of the death of the Princess Sophia Matilda, a Vote of £3,000 was granted for funeral expenses. In 1849 another grant was given in connection with the funeral expenses of another Princess; and in 1852 there was a Vote of £2,800 for the funeral expenses of the Queen Dowager Adelaide. In the same year there was another grant of £1,200 for funeral expenses of a Member of the Royal Family; and in 1858, on the occasion of the funeral of the Duke of Gloucester, there was a Vote of £1,700; while in 1862, on the occasion of the funeral of the Duchess of Kent, there was a Vote of £5,367. Therefore, it would be seen that there was a continuous series of precedents, entirely in agreement with the present Vote. If there were any distinction in regard to this Vote, it was, as he had said, particularly one of form; and if there was any distinction as to substance it was this—that, on the present occasion, the Government did not apply for the whole of the expenses, but only for a grant in aid. Therefore, any distinction there might be was in the direction of economy, and hon. Members would see that the amount was not abnormally high as compared with previous occasions.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought the only real objection to the Vote was that which had been mentioned
230
by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, that the Vote was different from others in form. This was absolutely the first time in this century that a Vote of this character had been asked for in the form of a grant in aid. With regard to this grant in aid of the Lord Chamberlain's Department, he wished to point out that that Department was not subject to any public audit, and was not represented in that House, and its expenditure had not been submitted to the Treasury. This was an absolute exception to the rule which had been always followed in other cases of this kind, the whole expenditure of the Department in reference to funerals having hitherto been submitted to the Treasury. Now, for the first time in this century, Parliament was asked to make a grant in aid of a Department not subject to any public audit. That, he thought, was a point of considerable importance, and he should have been glad if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had paid some attention to it. While he should not have the slightest objection to vote these expenses, at the same time it was a serious consideration whether Parliament should consent to such an absolute departure from the established rule in these matters, and should sanction a grant in aid with regard to expenses which, so far as the Committee were aware, might never have been incurred. These were matters which, he respectfully submitted, were of some importance.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not understand the objection taken to the Vote. If it had been the practice on former occasions for the public to be called upon to pay a portion of the expenses of Royal funerals, while Her Majesty paid the other portion, and the Government were now introducing a change by asking Parliament to defray the whole of the expenses, he could understand that the jealousy of Parliament might be aroused at the imposition of a new charge on the public; but this was a case in which, as the Secretary to the Treasury had explained, there was a diminished charge moved. So far, surely, the public had reason to acknowledge the gracious action of the Sovereign, in relieving them of some of the previous burdens. Another objection to the Vote taken by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was that this was

231
a grant in aid which was not subject to public audit. It was true that the expenditure of the Civil List was not subjected to a public audit generally. It was not subjected to general public audit, because there was a special auditor to audit the Civil List; and that officer was, almost by the necessity of the case, one of the highest and most important persons in the Department of the Treasury—a man who, from his habits of mind and disposition, as well as from his high character, they might always rely upon it, would have a genuine and thorough audit. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would see that upon both points, and especially on the latter, there was reason for confidence, while on the form of the Vote there was reason for satisfaction.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 69: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 213.)
Original Question again proposed.
MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, in reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who had stated that the Lord Chamberlain was not represented in the House of Commons, that he was certainly under the impression that he was represented there by the noble Lord the Member for Marlborough (Lord Charles Bruce). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would justify the remark he had made.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, there could be no doubt that the financial concerns of the Lord Chamberlain's Department were not represented in that House. The remark had fallen from the Prime Minister that, although it was quite true that the expenditure of the Civil List was not subject to the audit of the Auditor General, it did not follow that it was not subject to public audit. With all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, he considered that he was correct in saying there was no system of public audit. The Civil List was audited by Sir Reginald Welby, but with no reference whatever to the House of Commons.
MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, that the statement of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was that the Lord Chamberlain was not represented in that House; and he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had shown that the Lord
232
Chamberlain was represented by a most respected Member of the House. He considered that the hon. Member had not justified his statement, and, at the same time, regretted that he should have thought it necessary to make it.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should be glad to know whether or not the Department had a financial Representative in that House; because, if so, he should have some questions to put to him.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Postponed Resolution [22nd July] considered.
(2.) "That a sum, not exceeding £109,544, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that when this Vote was under consideration an argument was brought forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in reference to the number of police for Ireland, as fixed by Act of Parliament; and the complaint was made that the free force was not fully distributed among the counties and cities of Ireland, and that, in consequence, a great grievance was imposed on the country. Now, the argument of the hon. Member had since that time been very carefully considered by him (Mr. Walker); and he confessed that it appeared to him that if it was a fact, as had been stated, that the free force of 10,000 men over and above the ordinary vacancies taken at 5 per cent was not really distributed, it was a case for favourable consideration; and, consequently, he was prepared to recommend that a communication should be made to the Lord Lieutenant to that effect. If it were found to be the fact that the free force was not fully distributed, the matter could only be remedied by legislation, because there was no means of remedying it except at the quinquennial redistribution, which would not take place before 1887. If the grievance existed, legislation would be introduced for the purpose, and he would be prepared to introduce a provision, making

233
the redistribution triennial, instead of quinquennial, as at present. To give effect to the arrangement, a Supplementary Estimate would be brought forward by the Secretary to the Treasury.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walker) was very satisfactory, and he and his Colleagues felt very much indebted to him for his announcement. In the event of its being distinctly ascertained that the free force was not fully distributed at the last quinquennial period of redistribution, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to undertake to empower the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by legislation, to distribute the free force at the first opportunity, and also to make this redistribution retrospective. That was a matter of considerable importance to the Irish ratepayers, and would be received by them as a boon of some magnitude, inasmuch as it meant freedom from taxation, which had hitherto fallen upon them to the extent of £30,000 a-year.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not understand his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) to make any statement with regard to the cost of the year.
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he hoped it would be remembered that this was a complaint of long standing, and had been brought before the House by the landlord class. He believed that the Treasury would do justice in this matter if it were possible.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he had to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland to a circumstance of importance. The hon. and learned Gentleman would know that in Belfast Party feeling ran especially high. The working classes there, amongst whom there was a large number of Roman Catholics, were disposed sometimes to be rather vicious in their conduct, and in March last some girls who were coming out of a Roman Catholic Church were attacked by some persons of this class; one girl was thrown down and injured so much that she was afterwards unable to walk without a crutch. He had seen Mr. Ball with regard to the matter, who told him that it was a very trifling case, and that he should not take any notice of it. But he denied
234
that an assault in the public streets could be a trivial matter, and certainly not this case, in which a girl was seriously injured. Mr. Ball having done nothing in the matter, the father of the girl followed it up, and brought the party who injured the girl before the magistrates, who fined him. He might say that Mr. Ball disputed, to some extent, the words used by him at the time referred to, but admitted that he used words of similar import, which proved that the police were, of late years, inclined to take the part of those who misconducted themselves. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he would communicate with the head of the Police Department, giving him instructions to order that especial care should be taken to prevent violent attacks upon children and young persons coming out of church.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the effect of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had been somewhat dashed by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. Was he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to understand that the Secretary to the Treasury, by that oracular shake of the head, meant to say that the Government did not intend to remedy the injustice of the conduct they were pursuing? He was anxious to know exactly what the Government were going to do. They had been charging the Irish people with money which the Government themselves ought to pay. He contended that the remission of taxation should be simultaneous with the measure of relief for the taxpayers, and he hoped that next year it would be found the Government were resolved to effect this. He thought Irish Members had reason to congratulate themselves for having brought this measure home to the mind of the Government, and that the Irish taxpayers had also reason to congratulate themselves that they had escaped from taxation amounting to £30,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had pledged himself most distinctly that the diminution of the extra police force should go on as rapidly as circumstances would admit. He trusted that next year it would be found that the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman had been fully carried out, and that the Irish

235
people would be entirely free from the burden imposed upon them by the Government in this respect.
MR. HEALYsaid, he had given Notice that he should call attention on the Report of this Vote to the case of French; but, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he and his hon. Friends found themselves at some disadvantage, and were not in a position fully to argue the case. He was bound, however, to express his opinion that nothing could have been worse than the conduct of Colonel Bruce with respect to French. That officer knew what was going on; he had summoned witnesses, and must have known the general character of French; he knew that he had filed an affidavit stating what was not the fact; and, in short, he allowed the whole thing to go on in the most shameful way. Colonel Bruce appeared to have winked or connived at corruption in high places in Dublin Castle, and it was not at all clear that a number of other persons in the Castle were not implicated. At any rate, it was evident that the greatest obstacles were being thrown in the way of the prosecution of this case by Mr. Kaye, Under Secretary at the Castle. He was hardly surprised at that. But the conduct of Colonel Bruce in allowing French to commit wilful and corrupt perjury in his own interest, and in retaining him on the books of the police, was, in his (Mr. Healy's) opinion, the worst of its kind that had ever occurred in Ireland. But Colonel Bruce, having got from District Inspector Maguire a statement of French's crimes, then sent one of his friends to Maguire to persuade him that he must be the subject of a delusion. That, he said, showed the connivance of Colonel Bruce in the whole of this business, and still more clearly proved to the people of Ireland that Dublin Castle was rotten from top to bottom. He thought that the way in which Irish officials had screened this man would sink deep into the minds of the Irish people, and that they would be convinced that from beginning to end there was nothing like decency to be found in that institution. He would not, however, dwell longer on that subject. Lord Justice Barry had recently condemned the conduct of the police, and he (Mr. Healy) asked the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was now
236
admitted that the police were in the habit of visiting the cells of prisoners and endeavouring to obtain evidence from them. The learned Judge said it was all very well that the evidence of informers should be taken in the interests of justice, but that it was a totally different thing for a policeman to go into the cells of prisoners, and, by threats and menaces, endeavour to wring confessions from them. It was but recently a felony to obtain evidence by that means; but, unfortunately, by that Statute Law revision which was going on every year, the Government had managed to repeal the Statute which made it felony, and he thought that the Statute Law Revision Committee should have amongst its Members some person who would look after this matter in the interests of the Irish people. He now came to what had been going on within the last two months, and he asked the Government to take note of this statement of facts. Sub-Inspectors Joyce and Corregan had visited a number of times the cell of a prisoner, sentenced to penal servitude for life, named James Flaherty. They brought with them a long written document, and asked him whether he was willing to swear to it; the document implicated a number of men in the West of Ireland, among them a newspaper editor, a newspaper correspondent, and several other persons well known, in a charge of conspiracy to murder. Now, he put this case to the House. Here was a man under sentence of penal servitude for life, who was offered a free pardon, a free passage to America, and a large sum of money, if he would make this deposition. It was in that way that the Government had obtained the evidence which had put in danger so many innocent men. He asked if this state of things was to continue, and whether or not the Government would find out by what means these officers had got leave of absence from Ballinasloe in order to visit the unfortunate man Flaherty in his cell? That opened up the very large question as to whether prisoners in their cells were to be open to this blighting system of inquiry at all. It was monstrous that convicted persons—not men committed for trial, but men sentenced to penal servitude for life—should have such enormous temptations to get rid of their punishment thrown in their way. He was bound to say that if the practice

237
was to continue the Prisons Vote would have to be very carefully scrutinized every year, in order that the public might have some guarantee that this system of intimidation would come to an end. He regretted to be obliged, at a time when Members of the Government were exhausted with the labours of the Session, to discuss these questions; but he must ask them to make inquiries into the circumstances he had narrated with regard to Colonel Bruce, Sub-Inspector Maguire, and the other officers, and as to what the latter had been doing in the month of July with respect to the prisoner he had referred to.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it was his firm belief that both Colonel Bruce and Mr. Kaye were incapable of doing what they had been accused of by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He did not believe for one moment, with regard to the allegation against Colonel Bruce, that any such thing had occurred. The statement as to Sub-Inspectors Joyce and Corregan were entirely new matter to him, and he would inquire into them.
MR. GIBSONsaid, Mr. Kaye had no more to do with crime and outrage in Ireland, except in the way of routine work connected with the state of the country, than anyone in that House. He would not go into the question of whether the Lord Lieutenant or the Irish Executive had screened French. He did not think they had, and these practices were, in Ireland, quite novel and little known. He was an Irishman, and had lived in Ireland all his life, and he knew that these practices were then novel; and he could quite understand any Executive Government hesitating before giving credence to such charges. As to Colonel Bruce, his position was clear and distinct with reference to these charges. It was very often asserted that the present Government, and the Government generally in Ireland, on whichever side of the House, laboured under the infirmity of being bequeathed the awful institution called Dublin Castle, and that there were there officials so nefarious that the Government could not shake itself free from the shackles of the Castle. It would hardly be believed that the present Government had had an opportunity of appointing to all the chief posts, and putting brand-new men
238
into the various Departments. There were the Lord Chancellor, the two Law Officers; Sir Robert Hamilton, the Under Secretary, who was sent over from this country on the assassination in Phœnix Park; Mr. Jenkinson, a perfectly new official, at the head of the new department of crime and outrage, and Colonel Bruce, selected, within the last two years, by the present Government, to head the Irish Constabulary, he having previously filled a subordinate position. The present Government had also appointed the Chairman of the Irish Board of Works, Mr. Holmes, the representative of the Treasury in Ireland, the head of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and to a great number of other offices which had either fallen vacant or been created since 1880. As to the charge made, without the slightest foundation, against Colonel Bruce, that he connived at what was done by others, and screened French, what were the facts of the case as stated lately by the Chief Secretary for Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that Colonel Bruce's position with reference to the French case was that he had inquired into the matter. It was about the 26th of August when United Ireland made these allegations, and early in September Colonel Bruce inquired into the matter. But the matter was not confined to Colonel Bruce, for, on the next day, he sent an official Minute from the Constabulary Office, which was next door, sending a transcript of all the evidence he had taken, with his observations thereon. That was sent to the Chief Secretary's Office, where it could be read by the Lord Lieutenant and by the Lord Lieutenant's Secretary. Colonel Bruce's Minute was sent in at once in the ordinary course by Sir Robert Hamilton to the Lord Lieutenant; and the Attorney General for Ireland, having read all the facts and the Report of Colonel Bruce, gave an opinion on the evidence for the guidance of the Executive. It would be unfair to Colonel Bruce that he should be picked out and made a scapegoat. Colonel Bruce's Report having been sent in to the Executive, and submitted to the Attorney General for Ireland, the matter ceased to be Colonel Bruce's matter, or within his independent control, and became a matter for the Executive Government. Then it was said that Colonel Bruce was answerable for and connived

239
at perjury. [Mr. HEALY: He knew that perjury was being committed.] The charge was that he "connived at perjury," made by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in an affidavit to resist the remitting motion moved for by French in the case, who had denied that he had been suspended. The Executive Government became seized of all these transactions, and Colonel Bruce then had no means of knowing what they were doing. If that affidavit of French merely denied that he was suspended, he should be sorry to say that that was perjury. The position was this—French was on leave in September, and he was given a prolongation of his leave and told he need not report himself for duty until he received a further intimation from the Government. That was not suspension or dismissal. This was simply the case of a man who took up a charge of suspension, and denied that he was suspended. He (Mr. Gibson) was not concerned with French's case; he would not go into the general question; but he did think it was unreasonable that because French swore a certain statement, which Colonel Bruce could not contradict, and with reference to which he could take no steps, Colonel Bruce should be branded as a man who had connived at perjury. So much with regard to Colonel Bruce. He very much wished the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) had been more cautious in his statement that there were any number of persons about the Castle who were implicated in similar practices. That was a desperate and an awful charge to make. So far as he knew, and as he believed, the gentlemen about Dublin Castle were as honourable and high-minded as any men in or out of the Public Service; and a charge of this kind, which might hit anyone, was very much to be regretted. It was too often said in reference to these wretched charges in Dublin that they were due to the Castle. That was not so. He made no observation with reference to the people who were now charged. If they deserved it, let them be punished according to the utmost rigour of the law; but as to saying that Dublin Castle was tainted throughout that was a statement that would not be borne out by facts. French's office was in one of the buildings in Lower Castle Yard; but French was the only official he had heard of in connection
240
with these matters who was connected with the Castle. Cornwall's office was altogether outside the Castle; and he had nothing whatever to do with the Castle or the Executive Government. He had not to report himself to the Lord Lieutenant, or to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and was not amenable to their supervision, and, except on social occasions, he was never in the Castle. This was a matter he could say more upon; but at that period of the Session he would rather not say anything further in reference to it; but he thought the House would see that it would not be reasonable for him, having the acquaintance of the two gentlemen whose names had been mentioned, to be absolutely silent when he could say something to present their case from a reasonable point of view.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had always shown himself ready to come forward to offer his opinion, and to give a testimonial of character to any officials who were attacked in connection with the Administration. There had been certificates of character heaped upon certificates of character in this and previous Sessions; but, notwithstanding all these certificates of character, it happened that the very persons who had given these certificates of character were now employed in prosecuting those to whom they had given these certificates. It was all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say he knew Colonel Bruce, and believed that the charge of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) against him was unfounded; but all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said could not do away with the facts which had been drawn attention to repeatedly, and he contended that those facts pointed directly to the conclusion that, if Colonel Bruce did not enter into a conspiracy to shelter French from the consequences of his criminal life, at least Colonel Bruce had been wholly deficient in the discharge of the duties which the country paid him so highly for, and expected him to properly discharge. He would give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the choice of two alternatives—either, according to his own argument, Colonel Bruce must have entered into a conspiracy to save French from the consequences of his criminal acts, or, at the time when

241
the Irish Government was professing to be dealing in an energetic manner with crime in Ireland, this gentleman, the head of the Criminal Department, was ignorant of gross and offensive crimes committed under his nose, and before the eyes of the police in Dublin Castle. What did all this lead to? That while it was competent to a private Member of that House, and to private citizens of Dublin, to make themselves acquainted with all the horrid details of this state of life in Dublin, Colonel Bruce, and all the official army whose inefficiency was borne testimony to so often in that House, and whose action in regard to some departments of criminal prosecution in Ireland was regarded as infallible—all that official army of police was wholly ignorant of the infamous crimes being committed among them in Dublin. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was not fair to make Colonel Bruce the scapegoat in this matter; but the argument that was advanced when the subject was drawn attention to was that the blame should be placed upon someone besides the Chief Secretary for Ireland. They were told it was altogether unfair—and he would admit that, to some extent, it was unfair—to accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or anyone connected with him, with an endeavour to shield from public justice these criminals who were now being prosecuted. If it was unfair to bring in the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and if, according to the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), it was unfair to bring in the name of Colonel Bruce, upon whom was the criticism of that House to be directed?
MR. GIBSONsaid, Colonel Bruce had reported to the Government, and the Government became answerable.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was aware of that; but when Colonel Bruce reported to the Government he was still aware of the specific charges made against French, and it was his duty to follow up the circumstances of the case from beginning to end. [Mr. GIBSON: He had no power.] That had nothing to do with the matter, though it was an ingenious defence. It was Colonel Bruce's duty, even after he had reported to the Government, and given them his views, to have watched the whole progress of the trial between the hon.
242
Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) and French, with a view to seeing how far the criminal charge brought by the hon. Member could be established against French. If that was his duty, and if the matter had been brought officially under his notice, how was it that he, the official responsible for the initiation of prosecutions in Ireland—[Mr. GIBSON: He is not responsible.]—the officials were directly under him, and how was it that he knew nothing of the affidavit sworn to afterwards by French? That was an argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not get away from. No argument or sophistry could free Colonel Bruce from the responsibility of having either deliberately connived at perjury committed in Court by French, or having been asleep at his post when this should have come under his official cognizance. In either case he was responsible. Either he knew of the perjury that was committed in Court, or he did not watch the progress of the trial. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the ingenuity of his argument, had endeavoured to give a meaning to French's affidavit which it did not admit of. He said Colonel Bruce said French was not dismissed, and he drew a fine distinction between a man who was suspended and a man who was not to return to his office. But the affidavit went further than that. It said his position was not interfered with—that was the point upon which the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) founded his charge of perjury against French, and against Colonel Bruce of having connived at it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said Colonel Bruce held his inquiry in September, and that the incriminating statements in United Ireland appeared in August. It was true that a paragraph appeared in United Ireland announcing the intention of the responsible editors of that paper to draw attention to the private life of certain officials, including French, and some others who were mentioned by name, in that paragraph. The specific charge against French was not mentioned, and no person except the writer of that paragraph, and some persons who had the information, could know that the article alleged any charge against French's private life; but it happened that after that article was written United Ireland did make another

243
charge against French of an entirely different character from that now sought to be established against him. That was a charge of having disappeared with certain funds which he had been intrusted with. It was then that Colonel Bruce made his inquiry; and that was before this evidence came out clearly showing the infamous and unsavoury charge now made against him, and which it was then believed by certain officials of the Crown in Ireland and certain members of the Constabulary could be established against French. Colonel Bruce might not be the scapegoat in endeavouring to shelter French from the consequences of this inquiry; but surely someone was responsible; and how could the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile the character he had given to Colonel Bruce with the character he had, at the same time, given to the whole circle of officials in Dublin Castle? The right hon. and learned Gentleman held that Colonel Bruce was not to be made the scapegoat; but at the same time he indirectly admitted that, if Colonel Bruce was not to be made the scapegoat, at least someone, or some class of officials, were responsible for sheltering from justice a man against whom legal proceedings ought to have been taken long ago. He was surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not see that in the terms he had used complaining of the endeavour to make Colonel Bruce a scapegoat, he admitted the case against the other Castle officials, and that if Colonel Bruce was not responsible, some other official was responsible for endeavouring to shield from justice a man who should be prosecuted. The defence which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland made for Colonel Bruce was that he had done nothing. That was about as bad a defence as could possibly be mentioned. That was the very gravamen of the charge against Colonel Bruce—that at a time when he should have vindicated the law, when a high official was found offending against the law, he folded his arms, and did nothing to cause justice to be done. With regard to the charge against Mr. Kaye, he had no specific evidence, and he should be sorry to make any statements upon it; but it was founded upon admissions by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and by Colonel Bruce himself—admissions
244
which brought him into clear connection with, and knowledge of, these crimes, and showed that for nearly 12 months he remained inactive, and left it to private Members of that House to discharge the duty which the Government ought long ago to have discharged—namely, of bringing these criminals to justice.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution [2nd August] reported.
(2.) "That a sum, not exceeding £940,095, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
Resolution agreed to.
Postponed Resolutions [4th August] considered.
(3.) "That a sum, not exceeding £25,670 (including a Supplementary sum of £11,080), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Expenses of the Mixed Commissions established under the Treaties with Foreign Powers for suppressing the Traffic in Slaves, and of other Establishments in connection with that object, including the Muscat Subsidy."
Resolution agreed to.
(6.) "That a sum, not exceeding £20,951, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'"
SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he regretted that he must detain the House at that late hour; but the question which he had to bring forward—namely, the labour traffic of the Western Pacific Islands, was of great importance; and it was from no fault on their part that he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who had taken great interest in this question, had failed in obtaining an earlier opportunity for discussing it. He felt bound to bring it forward, though he would do so as briefly as possible, and he hoped to receive a favourable reply from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley). Now, two points were clear about the labour traffic. First, that if the traffic was to be continued, the present system must be improved, and stricter regulations

245
must be made and enforced; and, secondly, that such improvements and regulations must be made without loss of time. As to this second point, he need say no more than that the Royal Commissioners, Sir Arthur Gordon, Admiral Hoskins, and Admiral Wilson, who had lately reported on the subject, had expressed the strongest opinion that something must be done at once to regulate more efficiently the labour traffic. As to the first point, he was aware that many were of opinion that this traffic should be at once prohibited. He was himself, however, inclined in favour of the continuance of it, both in the interests of the employers and employed. There was a great need of labour in some places; and he thought that, as regarded the Natives employed, their condition was improved, and civilization was forwarded, provided the traffic could be properly regulated. Upon the whole, he was in favour of organizing and regulating the labour traffic rather than of prohibiting it. It had then to be considered what parts of the existing system required improvement, and how such improvement should be effected. In the first place, a more decided check was needed in respect of the engaging of Natives, with a view to secure a bonâ fide and proper consent on their part. It was satisfactory to learn from the Royal Commissioners that there were not now many cases of forcible kidnapping; but still there was no doubt as to the existence of grievous irregularities. In many cases purchases of Natives were made from the Chiefs—that was to say, money was given to those Chiefs who would force or induce Natives to consent to leave the Islands. Again, in many cases, sufficient attention was not paid to the authority of the Chief, and tribe, and family of the Native. The life of a Polynesian Native was bound up, as the Commissioners pointed out, with that of the community to which he belonged; and although the Native might give his personal consent, the authority of the Chief and tribe could not be ignored without causing much irritation. In the second place, more stringent regulations were required to insure the return of the Natives, after their terms of labour had expired, to their own homes. The unfortunate Natives were now frequently left on islands, amongst Natives whose language they did not understand, and
246
who were hostile to strangers. They thus suffered, not only hardships, but even danger of life. To improve this state of things he (Sir Henry Holland) would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should give effect to some, if not all, of the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. He thought that it would be wise, in the first place, to transfer to a High Commissioner, who should be an independent officer, and not, as now, the Governor of a Colony with other duties to perform and other interests to look after, the whole control of the labour traffic. He should have full power to arrange the districts of the Deputy Commissioners, to issue licences, appoint recruiting agents, and so forth. Secondly, the number of Deputy Commissioners should be considerably increased. Each Deputy Commissioner should have a district assigned to him; he should issue licences for the traffic within his district, and appoint recruiting agents. He (Sir Henry Holland) attached great weight to this last point, as there could be no doubt that the recruiting agents were not, as a rule, efficient. They were now appointed by the Colonial Governors, who could not really test their characters or their special qualifications for the work required. But the Deputy Commissioner would know the men in his district, and be able to test their work, their knowledge of languages, and their general character and fitness. Thirdly, the pay of these agents should be increased, so as to secure, if possible, a better class of men to enlist in the work; and, fourthly, every licencee who was now bound by bond to return Natives to their homes should have to get a certificate from the Deputy Commissioner of the district that such engagement had been duly performed before being allowed to get more Natives. This, again, could not be secured without an increase of districts and Deputy Commissioners. There were other detailed improvements which, but for the lateness of the hour, he would have brought forward; but he would now content himself with having pointed out the main lines of improvement. He had only hitherto referred to the labour traffic, but he might observe that changes of the kind which he had indicated were also required to secure a more thorough supervision of the Islands, and to control more effectually both British subjects

247
and Natives. It was a moot point whether we should, by legislation, assume jurisdiction over Natives, and power to punish them for offences committed by them against British subjects, thus extending our present jurisdiction, which only applied to British subjects; and he did not propose to discuss that question now. But a stricter supervision of the Islands was needed, and that could only be secured by an increased number of Deputy Commissioners. He would conclude by again pressing upon the Government the necessity of speedy action, especially in respect of regulating the labour traffic. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), in reply to a Question put some time ago, stated that action must be deferred until it was known what the Australian Colonies decided about federation. He feared that much valuable time would be lost if this view was adhered to; and he urged that steps should be taken at once, either in the direction which he had indicated, or in some other way, to regulate the labour traffic and secure better supervision of these Western Pacific Islands.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) had certainly succeeded in condensing his remarks upon this important question, and he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) would endeavour to follow the hon. Member's excellent example. In the few words he had to say, he had little or no information to convey to the House; but he hoped before many days—he might say many hours—were over, that, in answer to Questions on the Paper on this subject, he might be able to give some important information. All he had to say now was that, in the opinion of the Government, it was impossible that the labour traffic could be—as was, apparently, the desire of his hon. Friend—taken under Imperial control. The Government were of opinion that the labour trade, if it was to continue, should be carried on under a much more strict supervision than it had been hitherto, but that it should remain under the control of the Colonial Government. In the despatch which would be laid on the Table shortly—the despatch from which he had read an extract not long ago—the Secretary of State said—
"Her Majesty's Government have come to no conclusion as to the recommendation of the
248
Commission as to whether the Colonies should be consulted; but I think it doubtful policy to place the labour traffic under Imperial control."
With regard to Colonial control, no doubt there had been great abuses, and, no doubt, there were great abuses; but if the matter were inquired into closely it would be found that during the past year or two a great number of the abuses had arisen from the trade of foreign ships and the misconduct of foreign crews, and that, really, until some international agreement was entered into for the control of this trade a satisfactory state of things would not exist. The Queensland Government, no doubt, had done a great deal to prevent abuses. As to kidnapping, there were still isolated instances of it; but that very day they had received information from Brisbane to the effect that the master and mate of a vessel in which there had been great abuses carried on had been arrested and taken to Fiji, where they were to be tried and punished for their offences. Then, as to returning Native labourers to the places from which they had been taken, the Commissioners issued an instruction to prevent the evils the hon. Member had pointed out; but that instruction could not be always obeyed, for sometimes the people concerned were ignorant of the places from which the Natives came. The Natives themselves were often ignorant of this fact. With regard to the character of the labour agents, unless higher salaries were paid it would be difficult to obtain better men. He must say, however, that a great deal had been done to improve the character of the labour agents. With regard to the control of the Colonies, he wished the House to remember that there was only one which had any interest in keeping up the trade, the others having little or no interest in it. Judging from what had taken place at the Sydney Convention, if the trade continued to lead to the abuses which it had led to in the past, there would be very little difficulty experienced in inducing the Colonies to agree to its abolition altogether. They might safely say that the labour trade was on its trial, and that if they could not succeed in putting an end to abuses that it would and ought to cease. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) would only say, in reference to the High Commissioner

249
and his functions—what jurisdiction he would have—and how they were to apply the £15,000 which he had told the House not long ago the Australian Colonies had consented to contribute, he must ask his hon. Friend and the House to wait until the question of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Sir William M'Arthur) was answered on Monday.
Resolution agreed to.
(18.) "That a sum, not exceeding £470, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland appointed for the Regulation of Endowed Schools."
Resolution agreed to.

CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTION'S) BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)

[BILL 314.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. WARTONsaid, that with regard to the Bill he should like to make one or two short observations before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. He would not offer opposition to the present stage of the Bill, having withdrawn all opposition to the passage of the measure; but he desired to enter a protest against the manner in which the Government had treated the peccant boroughs, into whose conduct they had inquired by Royal Commission so long ago as 1880. Seeing that the Commissions were appointed in 1880, it was perfectly reasonable that the Government should, in 1881, when the Reports were known, have brought in a measure voiding the elections, and suspending the issue of the Writs until seven days after the meeting of Parliament in 1882. He did not object to the measure of 1881, therefore. It was a reasonable provision. The reason was stated in the Preamble—namely, that it was necessary to inquire into the circumstances and consider the cases of these boroughs. Well, in 1882 the Government brought in another Bill—No. 118 of that year—dividing the boroughs into two classes. As to three of them, it proposed to disfranchise them altogether, and as to the remaining four, to deprive
250
them of their second Members during the present Parliament. The Government ought not to have trifled with the House in regard to that measure. They should have gone on with it in 1883; and, as they did not, a peculiar light was thrown on their views and sincerity in the matter of Parliamentary Reform. In 1882 they proposed to deal with these boroughs in an easy way; and he (Mr. Warton) contended that their not doing so, either in 1882 or 1883, showed great remissness on their part. They passed an Act in 1882 suspending the issue of Writs until seven days after the meeting of Parliament in 1883; but in 1883 they neglected their duty, and merely passed another Act suspending the issue of the Writs until seven days after the meeting of Parliament in 1884. Three times had this Act of suspension been passed. It was doubly wrong; because, in the first place, the Government showed, by the policy they adopted in bringing in these Bills, that something ought to be done with the boroughs; and, in the second place, it was an unconstitutional suspension of the rights of the boroughs. The boroughs had a right to be treated in a proper Constitutional way. A Bill, however, was now brought in, for the fourth time, to suspend the issue of the Writs; but on this occasion the measure was not to suspend the issue of the Writs until seven days after the meeting of Parliament in 1885, but to suspend them for the whole of the present Parliament. ["No, no!"] At any rate, that was the form in which the Bill originally stood. Constitutionally, the present Parliament might last until 1887, so that, by this Bill, they might be suspending the issue of the Writs for over two years. That was why he had taken exception to the Bill in its original form; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had been kind enough to assent to the Amendment in his (Mr. Warton's) name, therefore he had withdrawn his opposition.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) would say how he intended to deal with the scheduled voters. Did the Government intend to bring in a Bill on the subject?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the scheduled

251
voters were not dealt with in the Bill. He had received no notice that this question was to be raised, and, therefore, on the part of the Government, had no means of making any statement.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Suspension of power of Speaker to issue writ for elections in certain cities and boroughs).
MR. WARTONsaid, he begged to move the Amendment in his name, which, he understood, the Government were prepared to adopt.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 3, leave out "the present Parliament," and insert "seven days after the first meeting of Parliament in the year 1885."(Mr. Warton.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.— [BILL 46.]
(Mr. J. R. Hollond, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Pell.)

COMMITTEE. REPORT. THIRD READING.
Order for Committee read.
MR. WARTONsaid, he had opposed this Bill for some time, having done so for the reasons he had already stated. He had had some scruple as to whether, in some cases, compensation should not be given to the owners of the burial grounds. He had doubted, and he doubted still, whether it was not an evil for a man to own a burial ground at all. If it was not wrong, he had thought that at least compensation should be given. Looking at the fact that public scandals occurred in this matter, and seeing that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) held a strong opinion upon it, he had thought it right to waive his doubts.
Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, considered.
MR. J. R. HOLLOND: I hope that, considering the simple character of the measure and the lateness of the Session, the House will allow me to take the remaining stages of the Bill now.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, the sum of £37,827,299 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
House adjourned at Two o'clock.