Commons Sitting of 11 March 1886

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Commons, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Votes 1 to 15—R.P.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading — Felixstowe Railway and Dock.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Railway and Canal Traffic [138].
Second Reading—Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment (No. 2) [76].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment* [60].
Committee—Report—Trees (Ireland)* [30].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  FELIXSTOWE RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    MR. C. H. WILSON: I rise to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months. The object of the Bill is to enable the Felixstowe Railway and Dock Company to run steam vessels between Felixstowe and certain ports on the Continent. One reason why I oppose the Bill is that it is not really what it pretends to be, but that it is an endeavour to obtain for the Great Eastern Railway Company powers which Parliament have already refused to confer upon that Company directly. The Felixstowe Company propose to charter, hire, and maintain steam vessels for the conveyance of passengers and goods between their dock pier and works at Felixstowe and Amsterdam, Dunkerque, Bremerhaven, Hamburgh, Altona, and Cuxhaven, or any other port on the River Elbe. The Great Eastern Company have obtained powers to run to Harwich, and from Harwich to Rotterdam and Antwerp, which powers they are now using; and one of my contentions, in opposing the present Bill, is that they do use those powers in a manner inimical to the general interests of the community. For in-

    419
    stance, they are making use of their railway monopoly to carry goods by this route at such rates as render it impossible for any other lines to compete with them. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one or two figures to show the use which the Great Eastern Railway Company are making of the powers they possess of carrying goods by means of steam vessels. They are now carrying goods from Harwich to Antwerp and Rotterdam at the same rates as the steamers trading from Hull and other ports; but in order to do this they have to carry goods from the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire at low and unprofitable rates. For instance, I will take the cases of Manchester and Leeds. The distance from Manchester to Hull is 90 miles, while the distance from Manchester to Harwich is 229 miles, and yet the charge is the same in both cases—namely, 20s. a-ton — that is to say, that the Great Eastern Railway Company make use of their powers to carry goods by a line of steamers which entails their being carried for four times the distance than would be the case if the more convenient port of Hull were employed. At Leeds the same thing happens. The distance from Leeds to Hull is 50 miles, whereas the distance from Leeds to Harwich is 211 miles, or more than four times the distance, and in both cases the charge for railway carriage is 18 s. 6d. a-ton. If Parliament is to continue to give facilities for the exercise of a railway monopoly of this character, the only effect will be to enable the Great Eastern Company to crush out private enterprize in regard to shipping, and to practically inflict great injury upon the manufacturing interests of the country. This Felixstowe Railway is a railway only 13 miles in length. It begins at a small village, and ends somewhere on the sea shore, at a place which is, perhaps, not generally known, but which is called Felixstowe. One of the reasons of the Company for seeking these powers is that when the dock is constructed there will be a great depth of water—about 23 feet—below the ordinary tides; but, at the same time, they are asking for powers to run steamers to places on the Continent that are eon-fined to a limited draught of water; and consequently the increased depth they propose to give, and which they set out as an advantage, will be, to the steamers
    420
    which will have to run, of no advantage whatever. The traders, however, are already fully supplied by the General Steam Navigation Company, who are petitioning against this Bill. Not only are the General Steam Shipowners' Association Petitioners against it, but there are Petitions from the Corporation of Hull, and also from the Hull Chamber of Commerce and Shipping. Now, Sir, Hamburgh is one of the ports to which this little rail way asks to be allowed to run steamers. But there are aleady to Hamburgh from London some 10 steamers running per week, and 12 steamers a week from the ports of Hull, Goole, and Grimsby. There are also steamers running already from Harwich, which is the port from which this little railway proposes to carry on their trade. In point of fact, not only is the existing trade amply and satisfactorily served, but, in fact, there are at present more steamers running than there is profitable employment for. If this were a genuine Bill—genuine in this way—that it is precisely what it represents itself to be, my impression is that, judging from the Bill itself and the clauses which it contains, it would be looked upon as simply the measure which the Great Eastern Railway Company introduced in 1869, and which was refused by this House, which declined to give the Company the powers then asked for of running steamers to these Continental ports. They are now making use of this small railway of 13 miles in length to endeavour to obtain the powers which Parliament have already refused to grant to them. It may be looked upon as a somewhat extraordinary course that I should oppose this Bill upon the second reading; but I do so as a matter of principle. It appears to me scarcely right that any Company, especially such a small Company as the Felixstowe Railway Company, should introduce a Bill of this nature into the House of Commons; and one object I have is to save the expense of time and money which will be involved, if the Bill is sent to a Committee, in establishing that the object of the Bill is not what it pretends to be. I am glad to see the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) in his place. The noble Lord is one of the Directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and he will probably be able to throw some light upon the subject,

    421
    and to inform the House whether my surmise is correct that this Bill is simply intended to be made use of by the Great Eastern Railway Company, and is, in reality, to enable them to exercise powers which Parliament has already refused to grant to them directly? I would say, further, that this is really a national question. The Great Eastern Railway Company are now running steamers from Harwich to certain ports under powers obtained from Parliament; and I wish the noble Lord to explain to the House whether these steamers are running at such a profit that it is desirable in the national interests to extend these powers to such great monopolists as Railway Companies, and by that means to crush out the existing private shipping enterprize—that private enterprize which has done so much to extend the maritime supremacy of England, and without which England would not have occupied her present position. I am satisfied that if this principle of giving exceptional powers to Railway Companies had been adopted in the past the trade of the country would never have been developed as it has been. I will not further trouble the House, I will only add that, as the whole question of railway management is about to be brought before Parliament, this is certainly not the time when it can be considered desirable to ask the House to confer upon a Railway Company such powers as those now asked for. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, and in doing so I wish to say a few words upon the principle involved in the Bill, rather than upon any question affecting any arrangements between the Felixstowe Railway Company and the Great Eastern Railway Company. This Bill appears to me to involve a very considerable amount of principle; and I am sorry that there is no Representative of the Board of Trade on the Front Bench to explain what the views of the Board are in reference to the question and the principle we are asked to adopt on this occasion. The Bill proposes to give to the Felixstowe Railway Company
    422
    the power of running steam vessels to a variety of ports named in the Bill, and to charge such reasonable rates or sums as they shall think fit. Now, that places enormous power in the hands of this Railway Company. Suppose that, in the course of the new railway legislation Parliament is about to adopt, we come to the conclusion that foreign cattle must be taken, on its arrival at the port of debarkation, at the same rates as are charged on home-bred cattle, this Bill, if it is passed, will enable the Felixstowe Railway Company to convey cattle for nothing, in order to equalize the dues upon foreign and English cattle, so far as the railway charges are concerned. Many of the Railway Companies possess at this moment the power of running steam vessels to Continental ports. The London, Brighton, and South Coast Company have, I believe, power to run vessels from Newhaven to French ports; the London and North Western Company from Holyhead to Kingstown, Dublin, and other parts of the Irish Coast, and other Railway Companies possess similar powers. Then, how far is this principle to be carried? If you are going to allow the Great Eastern Company or the Felixstowe Company to run steam vessels to all parts of the Continent, you cannot refuse the same privilege to the North Eastern Company and to other Companies which at the present moment have no power to run steam vessels, or to employ them, except in their own river and clock service. It certainly seems to me that if this doctrine is to go forward it must go forward at full length. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) seemed to think the other night that we had come upon a new Free Trade era, and that every facility should be afforded for conducting the trade of the country upon the lowest possible rates, and without restrictions as to capital. If that is so, then this Bill ought to be passed; but if the principle is good in this particular instance it ought to be good all over the country. These are the reasons which have induced me to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull. I was anxious to have the opportunity of addressing the House, in order that I might call attention to the important principle involved in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Charles Wilson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I merely wish to say a word in regard to the reference which has been made by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) to the Great Eastern Railway — namely, that that Company, with which I am connected, has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. It is neither for nor against it; and, therefore, the allusions made to that Company by the hon. Member for Hull have been made under an entire misapprehension. I have not read the Bill myself; but I understand that Clauses 4 and 5 refer to the Great Eastern Company; but they only relate to arrangements which may hereafter be made for traffic agreements, or for the participation by the Great Eastern Company in the joint exercise of some of the powers sought for under the Bill. I do not know with what object those provisions have been inserted in the Bill; but I do know that the Great Eastern Company has had nothing whatever to do with the matter.
    MR. QUILTER: I am unwilling, as a new Member, to intrude myself upon the House; but the extraordinary attempt which has been made upon this side of the House to stop the further progress of this Bill has induced me, as a resident in the locality which is served by the Felixstowe Railway, and one who is, therefore, naturally acquainted with it from the commencement of the undertaking, without having any personal interest in it, to I rise and say a few words in answer to I the arguments which have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), who have moved and seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. Now, this railway is altogether an exceptional one. It has been made almost entirely with private capital; it has held out no inducements whatever for the investment of capital. It is now completed on contracts entered into with private capital; and all that the Com-
    424
    pany ask is that, now the railway has been completed and the docks made, they should be permitted to enjoy those facilities for which they have been made, and for which the docks have been constructed. And who is it, and what is it, that seeks to interfere with the development of legitimate enterprize? It is certain vested interests. Similar vested interests have invariably sought to interfere with every new undertaking brought forward in this House on former occasions. I think that the House has expressed a strong opinion against any decided attempt to interfere with an important commercial undertaking; and I trust that to-day the House will be equally prompt to discountenance any attempt to prevent a Bill of this kind—a bonâ fide genuine Bill—from going before a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) has tried to throw some doubt upon the genuineness of the Bill; but I do not think that he succeeded. It is simply a Bill to enable the Company to hire and employ steam vessels, to make charges for the conveyance of traffic, and to make agreements with the Great Eastern Railway Company and the Steam Navigation Company for the interchange, collection, and delivery of traffic. There are also one or two minor powers contained in the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) has already answered one question which I intended to answer—namely, that the Great Eastern Railway Company have nothing to do with the Bill; and there are no powers sought for under the Bill which would confer upon the Great Eastern Company any advantages they would not be able to obtain for themselves. I am in a position to say that this is a genuine Bill of the Felixstowe Railway Company; and I do trust that the House will enable those who have bonâ fide invested their money in the untertaking to enjoy such reasonable facilities as they ask for in the Bill. I would further submit that this is not the place where the arguments and reasons which have been adduced by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) can be properly discussed. I have always understood—and if in ignorance I make a mistake I hope the House will pardon me—that a Select Committee of this

    425
    House was the proper tribunal for considering points of this character—points which simply affect the question of competition and rival Companies. It is only before a Committee that the merits of the Bill can be fairly argued, and the arguments both in favour and against it can be thoroughly threshed out. Under these circumstances, I trust that these attempts to hinder and obstruct the progress of an honest, bonâ fide industrial enterprise will meet with that disapprobation which it merits at the hands of the House.
    MR. KING: I also, as a new Member, venture to ask for the indulgence of the House while I offer a few remarks in opposition to this Bill, not only upon general grounds, but also upon the ground of the special interests involved and the special injury which may be inflicted upon the Port of Hull, and oven upon the Port of London, if the powers asked for by the Felixstowe Railway Company in the provisions of this Bill receive the sanction of Parliament. We have been asked to accept the statement that the Great Eastern Railway Company have no interest in the promotion of the Bill; but I think it would be difficult to convince the House that that Company are not very materially interested in it, and that they are not, at any rate, watching it with interested affection, in the hope that they may be able to obtain, under the provisions contained in the measure, powers which they had formerly sought unsuccessfully to obtain from this House. That such is the position of the Great Eastern Company in reference to this Bill appears to me to be absolutely beyond argument. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) says that the Great Eastern Company are not interested in the Bill. Now, let me take Clause 5, which provides that the Company, on the one hand, and the Great Eastern Company on the other, may, from time to time, make and carry into effect, alter, and rescind, agreements and contracts for participation by the Great Eastern Company in the exercise jointly with the Company of all or some of the powers conferred by the Act upon the Company and the Great Eastern Company, and shall have, and may exercise, all the necessary powers to participate in the exercise of the powers con-
    426
    ferred by the Act upon the Company—that is, the Felixstowe Railway and Dock Company—by the Bill now sought to be read a second time. And what are the powers in question. They are powers to run steam vessels from Felixstowe to Amsterdam, Dunkerque, Bremerhaven, Hamburgh, Altona, Cuxhaven, and any other port or place on the River Elbe. In 1869, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) has reminded the House, the Great Eastern Company sought powers from Parliament to enable them to run steam vessels from Harwich to the Elbe; but the House very properly refused to grant them. Felixstowe and Harwich are practically the same thing; the little river, the Orwell, alone divides them; and, consequently, this Bill, if passed, will confer upon the Great Eastern Company powers which they previously sought to obtain, and which, if this Bill passes, will be obtained by the Company in a most circuitous, unfair, indirect, and underhand manner.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I rise to Order. I have stated distinctly that the Great Eastern Company have nothing to do with this Bill; and I therefore call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the statement he has just made.
    MR. KING: I withdraw the statement with the greatest pleasure; but I certainly wish that the Bill had been drawn in a better manner, so that the public might have been able to understand who are really promoting it. What is it that the promoters say on the back of the Bill? They say—
    "A Bill to enable the Felixstowe Railway and Dock Company to run steam vessels between Felixstowe and certain foreign ports, and for other purposes."
    Now, I have made a special effort to find out who the shareholders of this Company are. I went to the ordinary channels of information; but I found that although the list of every other Limited Liability Company is allowed to be inspected at Somerset House, on the payment of a small fee, that in the case of Railway Companies there is no such right. Therefore, I can only form a judgment as to the real persons who are promoting the Bill; but, seeing who is to be benefited by it, I say, unhesitatingly, that the only people who can

    427
    have an interest in the Bill are the Great Eastern Railway Company. [Cries of "No!" and "Order!"] I unreservedly withdraw any hint that they may have a pecuniary interest in the promotion of the Bill at this moment; but only let the Bill go through Committee and receive the sanction of Parliament, and it will soon be seen that the Great Eastern Company will manifest a lively interest in it. The Felixstowe Company own 13½ miles of railway, upon which £288,000 has been spent; and they have raised by share capital and debentures a sum of £174,000. Where the other £114,000 has come from I should like to know very much, and I think it is very probable that the Chairman or one of the Directors of the Great Eastern Company might throw some light upon the matter. From what has been said the House are to believe that it has been raised by private enterprize, so that I am prepared to admit that my opposition to the Bill on this point has somewhat fallen to the ground. After what has passed I feel bound to acknowledge that the Great Eastern Company have not that interest in promoting the Bill which I believed them to have when I first looked at the Bill; but the result is exactly the same. They already work the line for 65 per cent of the gross receipts, and now it is proposed to concede to the Company the right of running steam-vessels from Felixstowe to certain foreign ports on the Elbe. Everyone knows that it would be absolutely impossible for a little Company like this to work steam vessels from Felixstowe to the Elbe. This is one of the most out-of-the-way spots in the world, and there are already 10 steamers a-week from London to the Elbe, four from Grimsby, four from Goole, 12 from Hull, two from Newcastle, and two from Sunderland; and whatever claims the trade with the Elbe may have for the consideration of the public, it certainly cannot be said that it is inadequately supplied with shipping accommodation. In fact, there are lines of steam vessels trading there already weekly, fortnightly, and monthly; so that, quite apart from the question of principle which has been raised, and which I, for one, am very glad to see raised, at a time when the subject of railway legislation is attract-
    428
    ing special attention—quite apart from the principle whether the Railway Companies should be allowed to own steam vessels or not—I think it would be a most unbusinesslike proceeding for the House to admit that the Great Eastern Company have no interest in the matter. It certainly would be most unbusinesslike to allow a Company who have already spent £114,000 more than they have been able to raise by share capital or debentures to embark upon a course which must entail the raising of a still further amount of capital, and must, in the end, result in ruin and disaster.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I hope my hon. Friend the Member for West Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) will not think that I am discourteous if I make a very brief reply. In respect to the general question—namely, the conferring of powers upon Railway Companies to run steam vessels, I think it is somewhat late in the day to raise an objection now, seeing that several of the existing Companies do run steamers of their own. I do not know whether the Great Western Company still run their own vessels, or whether they have been stopped; but I believe that the London and South-Western Company do, and the London, Brighton, and South Coast. The South-Eastern, the London, Chatham, and Dover run to Calais, and the Great Eastern to Antwerp and Rotterdam. Therefore, the principle of allowing steam vessels to be run in connection with railways has already been sanctioned. My hon. Friend raises a special objection that the Bill is virtually promoted by the Great Eastern Railway; but that allegation has been repudiated by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), and I think we may trust the Committee on Standing Orders to see that no clauses are inserted in the Bill which would be in contravention of the Standing Orders of the House, and that no clauses would be sanctioned which would enable the Railway Company promoting the Bill to enter into improper agreements with any other Railway Company. If such clauses do exist in the Bill they will inevitably be struck out in Committee. Other points have been raised in the course of the debate, such as the question of competition; but if there is any

    429
    serious question of competition the opponents of the Bill will be allowed to argue it befor the Committee, and submit evidence upon the whole question. All of the matters which have been referred to in the discussion are matters which cannot be considered by the House as a whole, but must go to a Committee. It is most undesirable that any Private Bill should be discussed in the House except upon general principles; and the kind of objection which has been raised to the present Bill is precisely that which should be considered by a Select Committee. For these reasons I hope that the House will consent to read the Bill a second time.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: I only wish to say one word. It seems to me that this railway is in this dilemma. It either belongs to the Great Eastern Railway Company or it does not. Of course, I accept the statement of my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) that the Great Eastern Company have nothing to do with the promotion of the present Bill; but then we are placed on this horn of the dilemma. If these powers are given to the Felixstowe Company, how do they propose to establish and work the steam vessels they seek power to run? The other horn of the dilemma is, whether they would not be compelled to call the Great Eastern Company in to their assistance? If they have nothing to do with the Great Eastern Company, how is it that we find that Company working this small line of 13½ miles in length? I defy the Great Eastern Company to get rid of both horns of the dilemma.
    MR. EVERETT: Felixstowe and the whole of this railway line are in the division I have the honour to represent. The original Act constituting the Company who are promoting this Bill was passed in 1875, and by it the Company was authorized to construct a railway from the Great Eastern line at Westerfield to Felixstowe with a pier at the last named place, and it was incorporated by the name of the Felixstowe Railway and Pier Company. In 1879 another Act was passed, which authorized the construction of a dock and other works at Felixstowe, and the name of the Company was changed to the Felixstowe Railway and Dock Company. The rail-
    430
    way has now been constructed for some time, and the dock is nearly finished; and the natural complement of the work is that the Company should have power to enter into contracts for the hire of steam vessels for carrying on trade from the dock and railway to Continental ports. That is the request now made to the House, and it is not an unusual request to make. In fact, the enterprize of the Company would be entirely frustrated, and it would be much more likely to come to the grief which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) predicted for it if these powers are denied to the Company than if they are granted to it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed a doubt as to where the money is to come from. Now, most of the line passes through the single estate of a man of very large wealth, who is deeply interested in what is now going forward, both in connection with the railway and the dock. There is no fear, therefore, of the enterprize coming to grief. The statement that this Company is, by some manœuvre or false pretence, really acting on behalf of the Great Eastern Railway Company, has been most distinctly denied by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton). I am also authorized to say, on behalf of the Felixstowe Company, that they have no connection whatever with the Great Eastern Company, except that the existing line is now worked by that Company on a lease which terminates in the present year. So far from the Felixstowe Company being made use of as a cat's-paw by the Great Eastern Company, it is in view of the possibility of having to enter into competition with the Great Eastern that the Felixstowe Company desires to obtain the powers of appearing before the Railway Commissioners, which the passing of the present Bill will confer upon it. As a new Member, I am not well acquainted with the usual mode of proceeding in regard to Railway Bills; but I am told that it is not customary to oppose a Bill on the second reading unless it raises some new principle. This Bill does nothing of the kind. It is simply to empower the Felixstowe Company to enter into arrangements for the hire of steam vessels, and similar powers have been constantly conferred upon Railway Companies. I think it would be altogether unjust of this

    431
    House, sitting here in the interests of the public, were it to interpose difficulties in the way of extending trade and commerce, for the interest of the public certainly lies in increasing the facilities for carrying on the operations of trade. I have no wish to impute motives; but I cannot help thinking that the speech which we have heard from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) affords an indication that the fear in the minds of the opponents of the Bill is that a competition may arise in regard to the trade of the Port of Hull which they will find it difficult to meet. But we have all of us, in this country, in every kind of business, to face competition; and I would respectfully submit that it is no part of the duty of this House to put difficulties in the way even of the fullest and most severe competition. I hope that the House will adhere to the course it has hitherto pursued in regard to a Bill of this nature, and that it will allow the Bill to pass a second reading and be carried to a Select Committee, notwithstanding the interested opposition which, in a somewhat unusual manner, has been directed against it.
    SIR HENRY TYLER: As a Director of the Great Eastern Railway, I rise to corroborate the statement of my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) that the Great Eastern Company have nothing whatever to do with the Bill now before the House. It is quite true that for some years the Great Eastern Company has worked the Felixstowe Railway, which was constructed through the influence of Colonel Tomline. It runs in great part through the estate of that gentleman, and is also connected' with the basin at Felixstowe; and the promoters of this Bill now ask apparently for powers under which they may be able to establish a sea service by steam vessels between Felixstowe and certain ports on the Elbe. So far as we—the Great Eastern Company—are concerned, we consider Felixstowe to be on the wrong side of the water. Our establishments are on the Harwich side, and we do not think that Felixstowe is properly situated for such traffic. We have nothing, I repeat, to do with the present Bill; and if the question comes to a division we do not intend to vote for it.
    MR. H. ROBERTSON: I shall be very brief in the remarks I propose to make, and I make them not as a new Member, but as an old Member; and I must confess that it is somewhat irregular, if not almost an act of impropriety, to discuss a question of this kind on the second reading of a Private Bill. The proper course is to refer it to a Select Committee, which is the only tribunal by which its merits can be fairly considered. The Standing Orders of the House prescribe that due notice shall be given to all parties whose interests are affected by the provisions of any Private Bill in order that they may get a fair hearing. Instead of providing a fair hearing, are we now, upon an ex parte statement, to shut the door of justice? What is the case that is sought to be made out againt the promoters of the Bill? It is contended that we are not to give shipping facilities to a small Railway Company owning a line of only 13½ miles in length, because by so doing we may prejudicially interfere with and disarrange the trade now carried on in the Ports of London and Hull. The hon. Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), who seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, is more interested, I presume, in the fortunes of the North Eastern Railway; and he seems to fear that some injury may be done to the great railway monopolies if this little Company is to have the power of chartering steam vessels in order to compete with them. I can quite understand that the North-Eastern Railway do not wish to be interfered with; and, so far as the Great Eastern Railway is concerned, we have been given to understand that Felixstowe form a better port than Harwich. [Sir HENRY TYLER: No.] I am told that there is a much greater depth of water; but still that is a matter of fact, which can be inquired into by a Select Committee, and any injury any traders or others may sustain by competition is also a fair subject for the investigation of the Committee. Certainly these are not matters which ought to influence the House in coming to a decision upon the second reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  QUESTIONS.

    ARMY (INDIA)—ROYAL WARRANTS—INSPECTORS OF ARMY SCHOOLS.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERT(for Viscount LEWISHAM)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Why the increase of pay and allowances, sanctioned by the Royal Warrant of 25th June 1881, has been withheld from Inspectors of Army Schools in India on their promotion to the rank of Captain, while the higher rates have been authorised by special circular, dated 10th November 1882, for issue to Quarter-masters and Riding-masters; whether an Inspector of Army Schools was promoted Captain while serving in India, and did not obtain any of the pecuniary benefits allowed by the Royal Warrant, owing to no provision for their issue having been made by the officials in India; and, whether, if he had been serving in England, he would have received such pecuniary benefits, and if he will issue directions for this officer's case to be specially considered in India, with a view to the extra pay and Indian allowances being issued to him for the period he served in India as Inspector of Army Schools with rank of Captain, viz. from 14th February 1884 to 12th July 1884?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): The clauses of Royal Warrants which affect "full pay and allowances or other pecuniary benefit" are expressly excluded from applying to India, unless special effect is given to them by the Secretary of State for India in Council. Shortly after the issue of the Warrant referred to, the question whether this special effect should be given to those of its clauses which affected the pay of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Army Schools was carefully considered by the Government of India; and it was decided, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State in Council, that the Regulations regarding the Indian pay and allowances of School Inspectors should remain in force. The clause of the Royal Warrant which gave the officer referred to the relative rank of captain applies in India as elsewhere; but it has not been the practice to regulate the rates of Indian pay and allow-
    434
    ances by the relative Army rank conferred on officers of non-combatant Army Departments. The pay of these officers is fixed at consolidated rates in round sums, and is governed solely by length of service.

    POST OFFICE—THE METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY—TRANSMISSION OF METEOROLOGICAL REPORTS.
    SIR RICHARD PAGETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will be good enough to arrange with the Meteorological Council of the Royal Society, for the transmission daily to the General Post Office, of weather forecasts; if he will then cause so much of such forecasts to be telegraphed daily to every Postal Telegraph Station in the United Kingdom as is applicable to the district in which the station is situated; and, if he will further issue instructions, that such forecasts shall be posted up daily, in a conspicuous position outside the several stations, so as to be available for general information in the respective localities?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRT H. FOWLER): This matter of forecasts of the weather by Postal Telegraph was very carefully considered by Mr. Fawcett, who, on several occasions, in reply to Questions in this House, explained that it was not possible for the Post Office to distribute weather forecasts, either gratuitously or otherwise; because, if the Post Office became a purveyor of news, it would be acting in opposition to the understanding under which the Telegraph Acts were passed. It was contemplated that the Post Office should confine itself to the transmission of telegrams. Mr. Fawcett pointed out, at the same time, that the desired object might easily be secured, because the Meteorological Office is willing to supply the forecasts at a nominal charge to anyone who is willing to pay the expense of telegraphing, which need scarcely be more than 6d. for each message. If the persons interested in forecasts in each town or district jointly subscribed, the expense to each would be inconsiderable. To the exhibition of forecasts at the local post offices there is no objection, provided space is available, if the persons to whom the telegrams are addressed desire them to be so exhibited instead of being delivered.

    THE TRUCK ACTS—INFRINGEMENT IN SOUTH WALES.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in May 1885, three convictions were obtained, on the prosecution of the Treasury, against the Rhymney Iron Company, for the infringement of the Truck Act; whether the convictions were appealed against and affirmed, with costs, in December 1885; whether the said Company had been previously convicted for similar offences; whether, pending the appeal, the Rhymney Company kept their truck shop open; whether any other prosecution has since been commenced against the said Company; and, whether he will learn if the Rhymney Company still keep their truck shop open in defiance of the law?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; two convictions were obtained on the prosecution of the Treasury against the Rhymney Iron Company in May of last year, and the convictions were affirmed, with costs, in December last. I have no information as to any previous conviction having been obtained against this Company. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that owing to statements that have been made to me recently, to the effect that the Truck Act is still being violated by this Company, though under an altered system, the Inspector of Factories has been instructed to endeavour to procure, and is at the present time engaged in procuring, evidence to be submitted to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who will decide whether the evidence will be sufficient to justify a prosecution.

    PUBLIC HEALTH—M. PASTEUR'S TREATMENT OF HYDROPHOBIA.
    SIR HENRY ROSCOEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the success said to have attended Pasteur's treatment for hydrophobia by inoculation, he will consider the propriety of appointing a Committee, consisting of about six persons eminent in medicine and science, who shall be instructed to communicate with M. Vulpian and the other members of the Committee
    436
    of the French Academy of Sciences as to the exact position of the question; whether, in the event of such an inquiry seeming to them to be satisfactory, he would authorise this Committee to obtain the best investigation this Country affords as to the reliability of Pasteur's method, and to advise as to its applicability to this Country; whether the Government would provide such Committee with funds for the necessary investigations, the Committee itself being unpaid; and, whether he would inquire if such investigations might be carried out in the Brown Institution, under the guidance of the Committee, and with the co-operation of the chief medical officer and of the officials of the Brown Institution?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN): Sir, my attention has been called to the reported discovery by M. Pasteur of a cure for hydrophobia. The recognized eminence of M. Pasteur as a scientific investigator, and the great interest and importance which attach to the subject of his recent inquiries, seem to me to justify a careful and impartial examination of the results obtained. At present, the information on the matter in the possession of my Department is too vague and incomplete to afford materials for a full appreciation of M. Pasteur's process. I will consider how such an inquiry can be most satisfactorily conducted; and I will confer with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the question of the expense. I shall be glad to communicate privately with my hon. Friend, and hope to be able to arrange for such an investigation as may enable a just estimate to be formed as to the reliability of M. Pasteur's method, and its applicability to this country.
    DR. CAMERONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to place himself in communication with the Foreign Office, with a view of obtaining from them copies of any official statements which had been made upon the subject?
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I will endeavour to obtain the assistance of the Foreign Office, in order that we may place at the disposal of the Committee which may be appointed all the information in our power.

    REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) ACT—PATMENT OF CLERKS OF UNIONS.
    MR. A. BLAINEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state by what principle the Local Government Board were guided in distributing the £15,000 voted by Parliament, that in almost every case the clerks of unions received a sum equal to, if not greater, than the total amount paid to the collectors in each union combined, having due regard to the fact that the greater part of the work was performed by the rate collectors, and that the 73rd section of the Act of 1850 insured a further remuneration to clerks of unions always paid them, whilst heretofore rate collectors had none, though having performed the duty; whether in the Armagh Union the clerk received £44, in addition to the remuneration of the Act of 1850, whilst eight collectors received £49 amongst them; whether in the Lurgan Union the clerk received £99, and remuneration under the Act of 1850, whilst three collectors received £90; and, whether in the distribution of the additional £2,000 voted by Parliament the inequalities will as far as possible be adjusted?
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to include in his answer to my hon. Friend, whether he considers it just to the ratepayers to require them to supplement a Government grant insufficient for the services rendered; and, whether he will consider the propriety of having a further sum provided to discharge the amounts still remaining due to the rate collectors?
    COLONEL WARINGalso asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Clerks of Unions were the only officers whose duties obliged them to provide assistants whom they had to pay out of their own salary; and, whether the additional work thrown on them by the late Act had not obliged them in each Union to employ such assistance to a very great extent?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): In reply to the Question on the Paper, the principle adopted by the Local Government Board in the distribution of £15,000 for
    438
    registration work was explained to the House by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury some nights ago. It is true that the Clerks of Unions usually receive sums about equal to the amount paid to the collectors; but this seems only fair, as they have to deal with all the names on the Registry from the districts of the collectors. As my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury mentioned, collectors have in many cases received further remuneration for their work from the poor rates. The additional £2,000 voted by Parliament was for the payment of assistants to Clerks of the Peace, and no part of that money could be applied for other purposes. That, I think, meets the Question of the hon. Member. In reply to the other Questions, I must remind hon. Members that this was, after all, settled in the last Parliament, and it would be difficult now for us to overhaul the decision come to by Parliament after the passing of the Registration Act. I am informed that the average cost per head was considerably greater in Ireland than it was in Great Britain.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1876—JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES.
    MR. DUNCANasked Mr. Attorney General, In consequence of very conflicting opinions and diverse decisions of county court and other judges, relating to their jurisdiction, in cases of dispute between members and persons claiming on their behalf against Friendly Societies; and, whether, under the 22nd section of "The Friendly Societies Act, 1876," and under their own rules, duly certified in conformity with the same, power is given to settle these without appeal to courts of law?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, the Question called attention to the fact that there wag a difference of opinion amongst County Court Judges and other Judges; and he would point out that if he were to answer the Question it would involve him in a condemnation on one side or other of those judicial opinions, and possibly of both. He could not usurp a judicial function which in no sense belonged to him.

    FRANCE—ARREST OF MESSRS. WEYMAN NEAR OLORON.
    MR. ADDISONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the arrest of Mr. Stanley Weyman and his brother, at Aramitz, on December 14th, 1885, while in possession of Foreign Office Passports; and, whether the French Government have offered any and what explanation of the conduct of the gendarmes on that occasion?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The arrest of these gentlemen was brought to the knowledge of the Embassy at Paris by Her Majesty's Consul at Bordeaux on the 20th of December last, and on the 23rd of that month a strong representation on the subject was addressed to the French Government by Her Majesty's Minister at Paris. On the 1st of January the two commanding officers of the gendarmes of the Pau district called on the British Vice Consul at Pau, and expressed their regret that a misunderstanding should have led to the arrest of Messrs. Weyman. A reply was received by Sir John Walsham from the French Government on the 20th of February. It mentioned the apology made by the officers of the gendarmerie, and stated that the brigadier who had effected the arrest had been punished by eight days' confinement. No formal apology has been tendered on the part of the French Government, who have expressed their opinion that under the circumstances the conduct of the gendarme was excusable. Her Majesty's Government do not share this opinion; but before addressing any further representation on the subject to the French Government they await Mr. Weyman's answer to a letter addressed to him on the 27th ultimo by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, communicating the substance of the reply of the French Government.

    SEED SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT—FOURTH INSTALMENT OF SEED RATE—POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENTS.
    COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state whether he will, in consequence of the present depression, permit such unions
    440
    as may apply for delay to postpone the payment of the fourth instalment of the Seed Rate for another year?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was so long delayed a reply to this Question, which involves matters of considerable importance. The Irish Government have had this matter for some time under their consideration. The loan stood on the 5th of last month thus—the amount advanced was £598,306, and of that £536,255 was repaid. This left a debt outstanding of £62,051, and of this there are amounts recovered in hand which leave the balance not actually recovered not more than from £35,000 to £37,000. These figures show that the loans so far have been admirably paid; and there is no doubt that the Boards of Guardians have generally made every effort to collect the outstanding rate. Nevertheless, in some instances, the instalments are overdue. In such cases the Act empowers the Local Government Board to impound the poor rates to the extent of the deficiencies. In view, however, of the exceptional distress prevailing in the country, and of the fact that such an inroad on the resources of the Unions might seriously embarrass the Boards of Guardians concerned, we have come to the conclusion that this impounding of the rates is a step not to be resorted to at present. The Treasury have, therefore, agreed to the following arrangement:—They will authorize the Commissioners of Public Works to accept the sums already collected by the Boards of Guardians as seed rate, and now in their hands, if paid over on or before the 1st of May next; and, further, not to press until the month of April, 1887, for the payment of the amount of seed rate which may now be uncollected and due to the Guardians by the purchasers of seed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that the non-payment of this seed rate will interfere with the right of these people to vote at elections; and, also, when it comes due, it will be recovered as a charge against the individual, or against the Union?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think that these are points which very obviously require that Notice should be given.

    EGYPTIAN AND SOUTH AFRICAN EXPEDITIONS—THE WAR CONTRACTS.
    DR. CAMERONasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether any steps have yet been I taken to bring home responsibility to the contractors, brokers, or officials through whom bad hay, flour, biscuits, or other supplies were despatched to recent Egyptian or South African Expeditions; whether any case for the recovery of the price of articles not up to contract standard has been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown; whether any opinion has been given that in any case grounds for an action existed; and, whether, in any case, any compromise has been offered; and, if so, what?
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. WOODALL): There is no reason to suppose that the flour shipped in 1882 was not perfectly sound and good when it left this country; and there is no imputation whatever against the brokers through whom it was purchased. The reasons for its subsequent deterioration are now tolerably well known; but they could not have been foreseen when the Expedition was despatched. The opinion of the Law Officers has been obtained with regard to the contract for the hay complained of; but in the present stage it will be inconvenient to make any statement. I am not aware that it has ever been alleged that bad supplies of any kind were sent to the later Expeditions to the Nile, to Suakin, or to Bechuanaland. On the contrary, it is admitted that they were perfect in quality, and ample in quantity. Owing to the unexampled difficulties of the Nile route, and to the fact that to meet a military necessity the whaler packages had been made exceptionally light, there was some loss of supplies; but the military opinion is that the loss was due to the rough usage the cases were necessarily subjected to, rather than to defects in the packages.

    MR. BRADLAUGH.
    MR. NORRISasked Mr. Attorney General, If he can give any information to the House as to what proceedings are or will be taken in the Law Courts on the question of the legality of the junior Member for Northampton sitting and voting in this House, and to state when a decision is likely to be arrived at?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, that, the hon. Member having been kind enough to explain that the Question referred to the sitting and voting of the hon. Member for Northampton during the present Parliament, he had to state that there was no intention on the part of the Government of taking any steps in the matter.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND)—GRATUITY TO A DECEASED TEACHER'S REPRESENTATIVES—CASE OF R. O'FLYNN, NEWPORT, CO. MAYO.
    MR. DEASYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the retiring gratuity of fifty pounds, recommended to be granted to the late Robert O'Flynn, National School Teacher, Newport, county Mayo, will be handed over to his widow?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I am informed that, according to the Report of the Registrar of Deaths, Mr. O'Flynn, whose widow is referred to in this Question, died a bachelor. The Law Officers of the Crown are of opinion that in the case of the death of a teacher before the Warrant granting the gratuity is completed there is no power to pay the amount to the personal representatives of the deceased teacher.

    INLAND REVENUE—DOG LICENCES.
    MR. MARK STEWARTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will consider the hardship of dog licences having to be paid by drovers in the exercise of their calling; and, if he will classify these persons with others engaged in agriculture, who pay no licence duty, and give them exemption?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): When the Dog Licence was raised from 5s. to 7s. 6d. (41 & 42 Vict. c. 15, s. 17), the exemptions were at the same time increased to such an extent that the amount of revenue collected under the increased duty is less than when the licence was only 5s. In these circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend to recommend any extension of exemptions.

    TRADE STATISTICS.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consider the desirability of giving more complete figures with regard to quantities in the trade statistics of the United Kingdom, so that more accurate conclusions maybe arrived at than can be obtained from figures of value only?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA)(who replied) said: The Board of Trade are anxious to give the quantities as well as values of articles imported and exported, and they will endeavour to do so as far as practicable. There are great difficulties in the way, owing to the miscellaneous character of the trade of the United Kingdom, and the objection of merchants to declaring particulars which they can only ascertain with difficulty themselves.

    PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—CAPPA PIER.
    MR. JORDANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the reason for the delay in vesting the Cappa (Kilrush) Pier, in the Town Commissioners of Kilrush, West Clare, under the Shannon Act of last year; and, if steps will be taken to hasten the action of the Irish Board of Works in this matter?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, the Board of Works had been in correspondence with the Town Commissioners of Kilrush about the Cappa Pier, and they were now awaiting a reply from the Commissioners to their last communication. There would be no delay in the matter.

    ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY—DISCHARGE OF GOVERNMENT WORKMEN.
    MR. KITCHINGasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the notice posted in the Enfield Small Arms Factory, announcing the intended reduction in the number of men employed there, stated that the step was rendered necessary "owing to the great reduction in the Estimates by the present Government;" and, if so, whether that is the usual form in which
    444
    to make such announcements; and, in what manner it is ascertained which men shall be discharged when Government establishments are reduced?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the notice referred to was quite unusual in form; and the Superintendent, Colonel Arbuthnot, has expressed to me his regret that he issued it. I may add that the passage quoted by my hon. Friend is not accurate, because no Estimates for Army Services were left to me by my Predecessor, and, therefore, I could not reduce them. I have, however, already stated to the House that we do not intend to maintain a programme based on the recent rate of manufacture. There are certain definite rules regarding service, &c., according to which men are selected when discharges are necessary, and these have been found to work well.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING—THE WRECK OF THE "LESLIE."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the heroic conduct of several of the Islanders of Innistrahull, off the Coast of Donegal, on the occasion of the wreck of the schooner Leslie, of Glasgow, on Friday night last, the crew of which they rescued at the imminent peril of their own lives; and, whether he will consider the propriety of some recognition of their services?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): My attention has been called to the wreck of the Leslie on Friday last. I have caused inquiry to be instituted into the case, in order to ascertain the nature of the services rendered by the Islanders, with a view to deciding whether it is one in which some recognition should be given. I have not got the particulars.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether this was not the third crew rescued lately by those Islanders?
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was not aware of the circumstances.

    METROPOLIS—WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED—NEW POLICE STATION AT HOLLO WAY.
    MR. BARTLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home De-

    445
    partment, Whether he can expedite the clearing of the ground and the excavations for the new police station in Upper Holloway, with a view of finding work for the unemployed?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. GHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that the purchase of this site cannot be completed till the 31st instant. No time will then be lost in commencing the work. The hon. Member will be glad to hear that the building of two new police stations has been commenced during the past fortnight, and a third (at North Fulham) will be commenced in a few days.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—BOARD SCHOOLS—INFANT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, in view of the diminished attendance in infant schools necessarily caused by the exceptional severity of the weather, he will consider the equity of making some allowance in the matter of average attendance to those managers of schools to whom, without any fault of their own, considerable loss is now threatened?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): No provision exists in the Code by which the Department is empowered to make allowance for diminished attendance; but Her Majesty's Inspectors have instructions, at their inspection, to take carefully into account all exceptional circumstances which may put the school into an unfavourable position.

    LAW AND JUSTICE—DURHAM QUARTER SESSIONS—INEQUALITY OF SENTENCES.
    MR. T. FRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the unequal sentences passed upon two men, at different quarter sessions at Durham for the crime of sheep stealing at Darlington on October 4th 1885; the originator of the theft, an ex-policeman named Adams, previously convicted, who absconded (but was afterwards apprehended), receiving only two months' imprisonment from January 4th 1886, whilst his accomplice Barron, long out
    446
    of work, and who confessed at the time to the part he had taken, was sentenced to ten months on October 21st 1885; and, if he will take steps to rectify this unequal punishment?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): The fact of the inequality of these two sentences is a thing much to be regretted. I have most carefully gone into all the facts, and have come to the opinion not that Barron's sentence was too severe, but that Adams's sentence, owing to a miscarriage of justice, was far too light. I should not feel justified, for the sake of reducing what is undeniably an inequality of punishment, in recommending a remission of the severer sentence. I have communicated with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions with regard to the two cases.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE—BRITISH COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ABROAD.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any objection to laying upon the Table the Papers referred to in the following extract from Lord Randolph Churchill's speech at Manchester on the 3rd instant:—
    "Lord Salisbury, setting aside altogether a Treasury Minute of Mr. Childers, which, to a great extent, cramped the efforts of our agents Abroad for fostering and encouraging British enterprise, sent special instructions to our agents Abroad that they were, on every occasion, to lose no opportunity of assisting British commerce, either in the person of individuals or in the form of co-operative effort;"
    and, whether this statement is correct?
    MR. TOMLINSONasked, whether the attention of the hon. Gentleman had been drawn to a statement made by a correspondent at Constantinople in The Times of that day to the following effect:—
    "Ever and always the English Representative here sternly and indignantly refuses to give his support to any British subject's demand for a concession.… so much so that the English applicant frequently obtains his end through a foreign Representative, instead of his own, or more frequently is left out in the cold;"
    and, whether this was the case?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): I think that the hon. Member can hardly expect me to answer, without Notice,

    447
    Questions referring to a matter which only appeared in this morning's paper. I would also beg to remind the hon. Member that our Representative, Sir Edward Thornton, has only been at Constantinople for the last fortnight. With regard to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I will take this opportunity of answering a similar Question which my noble Friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon Division (Lord William Compton) has put on the Paper. A diligent search has been made; but no trace can be found in the Treasury of the Minute referred to in the speech quoted by the hon. Baronet and the noble Lord. Should such a Minute ever be discovered, I see no objection to its being laid upon the Table; but I fear that I must damp the hopes of hon. Members by reminding them that, as Her Majesty's Agents abroad are entirely under the orders of the Foreign Office, it is hard to see how any such Minute can ever have emanated from the Treasury. With the exception of the Instructions sent to Her Majesty's Representatives in China and Japan—
    "To support British commercial interests where foreign Representatives interfered to their detriment,"
    and which were referred to in the letter addressed by the Foreign. Office to the London Chamber of Commerce on February 22, no Instructions whatever would appear to have been given by the Marquess of Salisbury to our Agents abroad relating to the promotion of British commerce. As to the steps which are being now taken by Her Majesty's present Government, I need only refer to the answer which I gave last Monday on this subject.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: In reference to the answer of the hon. Gentleman to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I wish, with the indulgence of the House, on behalf of my noble Friend who is unable to be here this evening, to state that he made the statement with regard to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) on what he believed to be reliable authority, and he is confident that he can, if necessary, justify the substance.

    IRELAND—THE MAGISTRACY—THE ENNISTYMON MAGISTRATES.
    MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
    448
    of Ireland, Whether, on the 19th November last, the constabulary at Ennistymon, county Clare, having arrested for drunkenness a man named Michael Cunningham, found upon him a loaded revolver, for which he had no licence; whether, after repeated adjournments, a prosecution instituted by the local Excise officer against Cunningham, for carrying the weapon without an Excise licence, was dismissed on the 24th ultimo, the presiding Justices, Mr. H. V. M'Namara and Mr. Thomas Lucas, explaining their decision by the statement that the case was peculiar, and that there was a point of Law involved as to which they could procure no direction from the authorities in Dublin; whether the same Justices have in several recent cases inflicted penalties upon poor farmers and herdsmen for having weapons required for the care of their farms and sheep, and did not in any such case apply for or await direction from Dublin Castle; what steps will be taken to apply the Law in the case of the bailiff Cunningham; and, whether the conduct of the Justices will be taken into consideration?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, the facts were as stated in the first two paragraphs of the Question, except Cunningham had a licence under the Peace Preservation Act. The point of law occurred at the first hearing of the case, and was raised by the Resident Magistrate. The matter was referred to Dublin; but, as there was no person there to give an opinion, the magistrates at last acted on their own view and dismissed the case. The Inland Revenue informed him that it was their intention to appeal in the case to the Quarter Sessions; but, owing to some irregularity, the appeal had to be withdrawn. Since then four persons had been fined at the same Petty Sessions for breaches of the Gun Licences Act; but the Bench on those occasions was not constituted as in the case referred to in the Question.

    CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND)—THE EATON BEQUEST.
    MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can say when the rights of the claimants to the Eaton Bequest, in abeyance since 1876,

    449
    will be inquired into and decided on; and, would he Lave any objection to give a Return of the several sums, left for charitable or industrial purposes, now locked up in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, showing the name of the testator, the date of death, the object of each bequest, and the amount, principal and interest, of the several sums so bequeathed, at the present time?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am advised that it is not possible to name any specific time at which the claim or claims to the Eaton Bequest will be disposed of. The Crown and Treasury Solicitor is at present inquiring into them, and he has been requested to expedite the matter. There are no materials for giving the Return mentioned in the Question, nor any staff available for the purpose. There is a list published in the Accountant General's Office which gives a statement of the names and particulars of suits in which funds are lying dormant. But the particular object of each fund or portion of it—where there is any such—devoted to charitable or industrial purposes could only be ascertained by unravelling the history of each suit from the papers connected with it, and these papers are not under the control of the Court officials.

    POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—BUBAL LETTER CARRIERS—THE BALLINGLEN AND MOYNE POSTMAN.
    MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, "Whether a sum of only seven shillings a week is paid to the postman for the daily carriage of letters and parcels post between Ballinglen and Moyne, the distance travelled on foot being four statute miles each way, and for a similar service for three days between Moyne and Aughavanna three shillings and sixpence for five statute miles journey each way; whether he is aware that the mountainous and exposed character of the roads makes the duty, especially in winter, very severe; and, will he bring the matter under the notice of the postmaster at Dublin, with a view of having this man adequately remunerated?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, the facts were as stated in the Question, and
    450
    he would lay the facts before the Postmaster Genera], in order to obtain for the man larger payment.

    PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION IN THIS HOUSE.
    MR. BUXTONasked the honourable Member for Staffordshire (North Western Division) as a Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will consider the advisability of establishing electrical or telephonic signals to the Library, Reading Room, and other parts of the House, whereby Members may be informed of the business under discussion, and of the name of the Member addressing the House?
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER), in reply, said, the First Commissioner of Works would consider the proposal of the hon. Member, which was one of some magnitude, in consultation with the officers of the House.

    PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—SPEECH OF MR. W. H. H. LYONS.
    MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the attention of the Irish Executive has been given to a Report in The Belfast Evening Telegraph of the 20th ultimo, of a speech delivered the previous evening, at a meeting in the Orange Hall Dundrod, by Mr. W. H. H. Lyons, described in the report as "D.G.M." of Antrim, who presided over the meeting; whether the following passage in the speech has been considered:—
    "In the case of any rising in Ireland he would certainly recommend the loyal minority in the North to lay their hands on every priest in this part of the country as hostages, and let it be known that if a hair of the head of any Protestant in the South and West were touched they would make quick work of them, "bishops and all. (Loud cheers);"
    whether Mr. Lyons is engaged in the public service as cess collector for the baronies of Upper Belfast and Upper Masscreene; and, what action will be taken in regard to him?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I cannot say whether this is a correct report of Mr. Lyons's observations, because this paper is not taken in at the Castle. In any case, whether the report be correct or not, in the capacity of cess

    451
    collector, Mr. Lyons is a servant of the Grand Jury, and the Government have no control over him.
    MR. SEXTON: As Grand Juries make suggestions to the Government, would not the Government make a suggestion to the Grand Jury in this matter?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: It does not follow that because the Grand Juries make suggestions to the Government that the Government should make suggestions to the Grand Jury.

    CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—INTIMIDATION.
    CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a Mr. M'Garigle, general merchant, hotel proprietor, and courthouse keeper in Tulla, county Clare, has been boycotted by order of the local branch of the National League; whether Mr. M'Garigle was appointed to take charge of the court-house in 1883, on the resignation of a Mr. Colbourne who went off to America; whether Colbourne returned, after an absence of more than twelve months, and, if M'Garigle was not forthwith called upon to appear before the National League to answer a charge of "situation grabbing;" whether M'Garigle has entered into securities with the Grand Jury for a period of two years, and if his general business has been entirely ruined, whilst he and his family are subject to daily insult and annoyance; and, if the authorities will take any action to protect a public official and loyal subject of the Crown under such circumstances?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): My attention was called to this case some considerable time ago, and the facts of it were pretty much as stated in the Question. I laid the case before my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and he advised that there was no evidence of an actual breach of the law. I am glad to say that according to the last report which reached me there has been an improvement in the public feeling towards Mr. M'Garigle. He is receiving all necessary aid and protection.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentle-
    452
    man was aware that Colbourne lost his situation because he was incarcerated under the Coercion Act?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Yes; I believe that is so.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Is it a fact that Mr. M'Garigle was summoned before the Tulla Branch of the National League as alleged in the Question?
    [No reply.]

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT (IRELAND)—VETERINARY PORTAL INSPECTORS.
    MR. COXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government will take into consideration the disadvantages in regard to salary, increment of salary, retiring allowance, dismissal without adequate notice, and the disallowance of the privilege of private practice under which the veterinary surgeons constituting the staff of veterinary portal inspectors in Ireland are placed, as compared with the veterinary surgeons employed by the English Privy Council; and, whether the Irish Government will take any steps to amend the unequal treatment of these public-servants in Ireland and England?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The salaries of Veterinary Portal Inspectors in England and Ireland necessarily vary in accordance with the size and business of the ports at which they are engaged. In respect to the other matters mentioned in the Question, I find that the Inspectors in both countries are treated on very similar lines, except that in England somewhat longer notice is given for the termination of an engagement, and there is a limited permission to engage in private practice. I think it is worthy of consideration whether the services in both countries might not be advantageously assimilated in these respects.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGES (IRELAND)—EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT BY LANDLORDS.
    MR. R. POWERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he would take into consideration to afford relief, by extension of time for the payment of tithe rent-charge in Ireland, to persons who could show that

    453
    they had not received the rents due for the gales in which tithe rent-charge was now claimed, or to accept payment thereof pro rata on the rent actually received?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The Land Commissioners do, in fact, extend time for payment to all payers of tithe rent-charge who satisfy them that they have not received their rents, and that they are not postponing their rent-charge—which is the first charge on the land except Crown and quit rent—to puisne charges. Other cases are examined on their merits, and such relief is given as the Commissioners think is required by the circumstances of the case; and I think that it is not desirable to alter the present system.

    FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—TEELIN PIER.
    MR. KELLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, How much money has been expended by Board of Works in connection with Teelin Pier, county Donegal, since it was first tendered to or handed over to the Grand Jury as a finished work?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, that £125 had been spent in completing the approaches to Teelin Pier, County Donegal, and £35 in removing stones; but nothing had been spent on the pier itself since its completion.

    ARMY—GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, What quantity of work is now being performed for the War Department on the Continent; what contracts are running; what is the total of those contracts in money and materials; and, what proportions remain to be completed?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I cannot give this information to day, and its preparation would involve a good deal of detailed calculation. If the hon. Member thinks a good public purpose will be served I am ready to order the preparation of the information he asks for; but I must request a few days' Notice.

    LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS 1883 AND 1885—APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL AGAINST SCHEMES.
    MR. TUITEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in case of an appeal to the Irish Privy Council against an improvement scheme sanctioned by the Irish Local Government Board, under authority of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 and 1885, the success of the appeal in regard to the merits of any portion of an improvement scheme leads to the rejection of the whole?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, the success of an appeal in regard to the merits of any portion of an improvement scheme did not necessarily lead to the rejection of the whole scheme. The Lord Lieutenant in Council might confirm the whole scheme, or might disallow it, or amend and modify it under terms and conditions set forth in the Order in Council.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS—ACCOMMODATION OF MEMBERS—LOCKERS.
    MR. O'HANLONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that many Irish Members are without lockers for the accommodation of their Parliamentary Papers; and, whether he could provide an increase of lockers equal to the number of Members of the House?
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER)(who replied) said, he was happy to say that steps would be taken to provide the additional lockers.

    CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has yet had under his consideration the Memorial of the Civil Service Writers, presented to the Treasury in August last, supported by the signatures of 120 Members of Parliament; and, if so, whether he can state to the House the nature of his decision thereon?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)(who replied): The Civil Service Writers' Memorial is before the Treasury. Its subject-matter, together with similar general questions

    455
    affecting the Civil Ser vice as a whole, is receiving our careful consideration, and I hope it will be possible before very long to announce the conclusions arrived at.

    COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE LISTOWEL SCHOOLS.
    MR. STACKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland are aware that a sum of £1,800 has been expended at Listowel, county Kerry, under the direction of a local Committee, in the erection of schools, to enable the Presentation Nuns to meet the necessities of the town and district in regard to education conducted by the nuns under the system of the National Board; and, whether the Commissioners will apply their rules as to grants for the erection of school houses so as to enable the Committee to clear off a debt of £1,000 incurred by the erection of the schools in question?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, the Commissioners of National Education informed him that under these rules they had no power to make a grant to pay off a debt incurred in the erection of a school.
    MR. SEXTONasked who made the rules?
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he could not say whether the Commissioners made their own rules or whether they were made for them.

    ARMY—DEFERRED PENSIONS—CASE OF JAMES BRADY.
    MR. O'HANLONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that James Brady, of Lisagavan, Kingscourt, county Cavan, served seven years in the Army, six of which was in India during the mutiny of 1857 and 1858, received a medal for same, got sixpence a-day pension for three years, with a penny per day for good conduct; whether he is now unable to work, being over fifty years old and in delicate health; and, whether this man will get the pension of sevenpence per day for the remainder of his days?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE)(who replied) said: There is nothing to take this case out of the usual course by
    456
    which the man will be allowed a pension of 4d. a day from the time he reaches the age of 50 years, which will be in April, 1887. He should then apply for his deferred pension.
    MR. O'HANLONsaid, he had not been able to hear the answer, and he would have to put the Question on the Paper again.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONErepeated the answer he had previously given.

    RAILWAYS (INDIA)—THE SCINDE, PUNJAUB, AND DELHI RAILWAY.
    MR. E. R. RUSSELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the Bill is to be brought in to enable the Secretary of State to issue India 3½ per cent. stock to the shareholders of the Scinde, Punjaub, and Delhi Railway; and, whether it is not important to shareholders, many of them trustees, that the Bill should become law by the 1st of May in order that dividends may be paid on the 30th June?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): The Secretary of State already has the power to issue India 3½ per Cent Stock in redemption of the annuities created in purchase of the Scinde, Punjaub, and Delhi Railway. This power is given under Section 2 of the Act 44 & 45 Vict. c. 53, as modified by Part 2 of Section 25 of the Act 48 & 49 Vict. c. 25.

    SOUTH AFRICA—AFFAIRS OF BASUTOLAND.
    MR. LEAKEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has read the Letter, dated 15th July 1885, addressed by Sir Hercules Robinson to the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, and inclosing Correspondence extending over the years 1884 and 1885, between the High Commissioner of the Cape Colony, the President of the Orange Free State, the Resident Commissioner in Basutoland, the Attorney General of the Cape Colony, and Mr. Van der Wath, on the subject of a horse forcibly taken from Van der Wath so far back as the month of November 1883 by one Bereng Letsea, and claimed as his own beast which had been lost, whereas it had been bought

    457
    out of a district pound in the Orange Free State by Van der Wath; whether any reply was sent to the Letter of Sir Hercules Robinson by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom he had referred the matter for instructions, or has been sent by the present Secretary of State; whether this horse case, which the the High Authorities of Cape Colony, the Orange Free State, and Basutoland had not been able to settle on the spot, has been settled by the interposition of the late or the present Secretary of State for the Colonies; and, whether he can suggest any loss complicated and dilatory method of administering the affairs of Basutoland than would appear to exist at present?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN):: I have read the letter of Sir Hercules Robinson, inclosing correspondence extending over the years 1884 and 1885, on the subject of the horse forcibly taken from Van der Wath so far back as November, 1883, by one Bereng Letsea, which does not seem to have been a very valuable animal, as his outside price was only £10 5s. No reply to this letter was sent by the late or present Secretary of State for the Colonies; but no doubt the case formed one of the subjects of discussion at the interview which took place between Sir Hercules Robinson and the President of the Orange Free State at Bloemfontein last November, and as the matter has not been mentioned in any subsequent despatch, I am in hopes that it has been settled without the interposition of the late or present Secretary of State. But Sir Hercules Robinson is about to visit England very shortly, and if my hon. Friend thinks it worth while to pursue the matter further, I may be able, after communicating with him, to throw some further light upon the subject. With regard to the last part of the Question, no doubt the difficulties of administering a country like Basutoland are great; but I cannot suggest any bettor mode of dealing with such matters as those to which the Question refers than to leave them to be settled by Colonel Clarke, the Resident Commissioner in Basutoland, who has discharged his duties with ability and tact, and to the entire satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government.

    COMMON'S AND OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS)—A RECREATION GROUND FOR FULHAM.
    MR. FISHERasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether a piece of land situated by the river in Fulham was presented and conveyed to the Board by the late Bishop of London for the purposes of a recreation ground; whether any offer has been made to the Board of any money for the purpose of providing labour for the laying out of that land as a recreation ground; and, whether the Board, in view of the large numbers of the unemployed in Fulham, will at once take steps to avail itself of any offer which may have been made or in any case will undertake to carry out this work of public utility?
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG): In reply to the hon. Member. I beg to state that no such piece of land was presented and conveyed to the Metropolitan Board by the late Bishop of London. A little more than two years ago the Bishop offered to the Fulham District Board the meadow adjacent to his Palace at Fulham, and the District Board asked the Metropolitan Board to accept the land and lay out and maintain it as an open space. The Board went to see the locality twice, and gave careful consideration to the matter; but, in addition to the expense of laying out, it would have been necessary to expend a large sum in protecting the land from overflow of the river, and it was not considered expedient to comply with the request of the District Board. With regard to the second part of the Question, an offer was recently made to the Board by the Committee of the Mansion House Relief Fund of a sum of money to be devoted to certain works, among which was named the laying out of a public garden at Fulham on the ground referred to. The Board, however, were unable to accept this offer, not being in possession of any land at Fulham which could be devoted to the purpose, and I am afraid they are not in a position to come to any other conclusion.

    EVICTION OF PITMEN (DURHAM).
    MR. A. E. PEASEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any truth in the account published in The New-

    459
    castle Daily Chronicle of March 5th, of several pitmen with their families being evicted from their cottages at the village of South Medomsley, in Durham, during the snowstorm of Tuesday last; whether it is a fact that the bailiffs were assisted in carrying out the evictions by the county police; and, whether, in the event of the account being a corect one, Her Majesty's Government can take any action to prevent the recurrence of such incidents?
    MR. JOHN WILSONasked whether it was true that the police, in assisting the bailiffs, used insulting language to the people, and brutal conduct to many of them, and caused serious damage to the furniture of those evicted by pitching it out in the snow?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I must have Notice of this last Question. It is impossible for me to have information on the subject. In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. A. E. Pease), I have to say that the accounts which have been published do not give all the material facts of the case. The men have been on strike for upwards of three months; and I am informed that they had ample time, after the usual legal notices, to remove their families and furniture to houses provided for them within five minutes' walk. As a matter of fact, the warrants, which were issued on the 4th of February, were not executed until one day before the statutory time expired; and the Police Authorities report to me that the men had been advised to remove peaceably, but that their chief representative declined, declaring that "they were determined to put the county to all the expense and trouble they could." Under these circumstances, it is no doubt unfortunate that the last day was a stormy one; but the fault was clearly with the miners. The police constables were present to preserve order, but no complaint was made as to their conduct, and they appear to me to have behaved well. My hon. Friend is aware that I have no authority over county and borough police, still less over bailiffs executing a civil process.
    MR. WILSONgave Notice that he should, on the first opportunity, call the attention of the House to the proceedings in question.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether there was any truth in the allegation that one of the men who was removing the goods became disgusted with the work, and declared that he could not proceed with it any longer, and that he was prevented from leaving the house by the police until the arrival of Inspector Oliver?
    MR. CHILDERSrepeated that he had no authority over county or borough police. All he could do was to apply to the Chief Constable for information. He suggested that the hon. Member should give Notice of the Question?

    CURRENCY, &c—THE APPRECIATION OF GOLD.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is within the scope of the Royal Commission on Trade Depression to inquire how far recent economic and agricultural disturbances may have been caused or aggravated by appreciation of gold, due to increased, demand for that metal for currency purposes in Europe and America; and, if he can say whether they have yet applied themselves to that branch of the subject?
    MR. MONTAGUasked whether the depreciation of silver would also be inquired into by the Royal Commissioners?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA), in reply, said, he was informed by the Earl of Iddesleigh, the Chairman of the Royal Commission, that the subject to which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) referred was within the scope of their inquiry, and that they were applying themselves to that branch of the subject. With regard to the second Question, he asked the hon. Member to give Notice.

    NAVY—H.M.S. "BENBOW."
    MR. LEICESTERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is true that arrangements are being made to remove H.M.S. Benbow from Victoria Docks to a Government dockyard for completion; and, if so, as a large number of men are at the present time engaged on the vessel, which cannot be ready for sea in less than 12 to 18 months, and considering that great dis-

    461
    tress already prevails in the east of London, whether he could allow the work to be completed in the Victoria Docks?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I have to say that, in accordance with the contract, the Benbow will be delivered and removed to Chatham in the course of next summer. The work then remaining to be done in connection with the armament and equipment of the ships is of a character practically necessitating her completion in a Government Dockyard, provision for the cost of which has been made in the Dockyard Vote of 1886–7. Another largo armourclad, the Sanspareil, is building for the Admiralty by the same contractors, and is now reaching a stage of progress affording employment to a largo number of men.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE — COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE WITH SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the negotiations with the Spanish Government, with the view of obtaining fair treatment in respect of duties for British exports to that country or to the Spanish West Indies, are making such progress as to make it probable that further Papers on the subject will be shortly laid before Parliament; whether any negotiations are pending with the Government of the United States of America with reference to the difference between that Government and the Government of Her Majesty in the interpretation put upon the Most Favoured Nation Clause in the Commercial Treaty between the two countries; and, whether, in default of agreement, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to secure such a modification of the existing Treaty as will make it capable of being understood in the same sense by both parties to it?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Immediately after the present Government came into Office, Sir Clare Ford, Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, was instructed to take steps with a view to the removal of the impediments existing to British trade with Spain; but no such progress has been made as to render it
    462
    probable that further Papers on the subject will be shortly laid on the Table. I may add that Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that any arrangement to be made ought not to be of a merely transient nature, and they believe that this is also the view of the commercial community in Great Britain. A Resolution to this effect was lately received by the Foreign Office from the Association of Chambers of Commerce. With regard to the hon. Member's Question as to negotiations with the United States, there is no disagreement with respect to the meaning of the existing Treaty which relates to trade between the British Possessions in Europe and the United States. The United States Government, however, are unwilling to extend its stipulations to the British West Indies; but Her Majesty's Government are expecting a further communication from Washington in reply to Earl Granville's despatch to Sir L. West of February 12th, 1885, which the hon. Member will find on page 20 of Commercial, No. 4, 1885.

    LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—SCULPTURES AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked the honourable Member for North-West Stafford, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the fact, as stated by Mr. Newton, in a lecture lately delivered by him at the Royal Institution, that there are in the British Museum—
    "A number of sculptures which have been buried in a cellar since the year 1852, which are defaced or begrimed with dirt, and utterly useless to anybody;"
    whether these sculptures are of great value and archœological interest both on account of their intrinsic merit and of the inscriptions upon them; whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate proposing alterations or extensions at the Museum in order to allow of the proper exhibition of these ancient works of art; and, whether, in case no such alterations or extensions are to be proposed, consideration will be given to the question whether any of these objects could be sent for exhibition to provincial museums?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)(who replied) said: The Newton Collection of sculptures are placed in a large basement room, imperfectly lighted; but they are kept in good condition, and are periodically washed by experienced masons. They were originally arranged for exhibition; but the room was found unsuitable for the admission of general visitors, and the light on one side has lately been intercepted by new buildings. They are examined by students, accompanied by a Museum attendant. A great part of these sculptures are known from engravings in the work entitled Museum Marvels, published by the Trustees, and they have been copied for publication by German Institutions. They form an essential part of the Museum Collection, and ought not to be separated from it. Proposed additions to the Museum buildings to provide for the proper exhibition of the antiquities in the basement have for same time been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked was not the room in which the sculptures were so dark as to render artificial light necessary?
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Basement rooms are generally imperfectly lighted.

    INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES)—LEGISLATION.
    MR. KENYONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for promoting intermediate education in Wales; and, if so, whether the Confiscatory Clauses of last year's Bill will be omitted in deference to the wishes of the Principality?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR)(who replied) said, the question was so intimately mixed up with the Educational Endowment Act of 1869 and the Amending Acts now under consideration of a Select Committee that the Government were unable to promise that a Bill would be introduced this Session until they knew what changes might be recommended by the Committee. In those circumstances, he could not say in what respect the Bill to be introduced would differ from that of last year.

    THE METROPOLITAN POLICE—PENSIONS—SIR EDMUND HENDERSON AND MR. WALKER.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the pensions which he has recommended for Sir Edmund Henderson and other retiring officials of the Metropolitan Police, are pensions to which they are strictly entitled under the rules of the service, on the ground of age, service, &c. and have not been awarded or specially increased on account of their recent services?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): The pensions to be awarded to Sir Edmund Henderson and Mr. Walker, the only other officer who has retired, will come strictly within the Rules of the Service. Mr. Walker's pension, coming wholly out of the Metropolitan Police Fund, has been already sanctioned by me. Sir Edmund Henderson's pension, coming partly and chiefly from the Imperial Fund and partly from the Police Fund, is still the subject of consideration with the Treasury.

    LAW AND JUSTICE (BANKRUPTCY)—ESTATE OF DR. FORBES WINSLOW.
    MR. BRUNNERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to an application, made on the 19th February, before Mr. Justice Cave, by the trustee of the estate of Dr. Forbes Winslow, bankrupt, for an order directing the landlord of the bankrupt to deliver up to him certain cheque books, letters, counterfoils, and documents essential in order to enable the trustee properly to investigate the debtor's affairs, which were held by the said landlord under an agreement reserving to him "the ordinary rights of the landlord;" whether the application was made under Rule 259 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1883, which provides that no person shall, as against the trustee, be entitled to withhold possession of the books of accounts belonging to the debtor, or to set up any lien upon them; whether Mr. Justice Cave decided that cheque books, counterfoils, letters, and similar documents were not within the Rule, although they might furnish materials for making up an account, and

    465
    that the Rule must be construed strictly; and, whether he is prepared so to amend the Law relating to distraint as to make it impossible to take away not only a non-trader's account papers, but the tools and instruments of a man's trade or profession, and the necessary furniture of his home?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): It is not within the functions of the Board of Trade to deal generally with the Law of Distraint; but in any future amendment of the Bankruptcy Act I shall be prepared to consider whether, for the purpose of bankruptcy, any such amendment as that suggested is desirable.

    METROPOLIS—DWELLINGS OF THE WORKING CLASSES — INQUIRY AT ST. JAMES AND ST. JOHN, CLERKENWELL.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received the Report of the Inspector who held the inquiry, suggested by the Mansion House Council on the Dwellings of the People, into the immediate sanitary requirements of the parish of St. James and St. John Clerkenwell as far back as November 1885, and whether he will lay the same before Parliament; and, if he has not yet received the Report, whether, in view of the importance attaching to the inquiry, he will give instructions to the Inspector for its immediate presentation?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, the Report of the Inspector who held the inquiry suggested by the Mansion House Committee into the dwellings of the people had been received, and would in all probability, when he had read it himself, be laid on the Table.

    POST OFFICE—PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENTS.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether "provisional" appointments have been made in the major and minor establishments of the Post Office; and, if so, whether they are made under the condition that, on the ratification of a provisional appointment, service shall account for the full appointment from the date of the making of the provisional appointment?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): Provisional appointments have been made to the major and minor establishments of the Post Office, in connection with the introduction of the 6d. rate for telegrams. The services of the officers so appointed will count from the date of their provisional appointment in those cases in which the appointments are made permanent.

    PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE KEEPER OF THE VICTORIA TOWER.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Who is the keeper of that part of the Royal Palace of Westminster which is known by the name of the Victoria Tower?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, the Victoria Tower, Westminster, was under the control of the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS—FINES AND PENALTIES.
    MR. KENYON(for Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether all fines and penalties imposed in courts of justice within the Metropolitan limits, which in other places go to the treasury of the county or borough in aid of local rates, are paid into the National Exchequer; and, whether he can state what was the amount of those fines during the year 1885?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): The general principle is that the fund which bears the expenses in connection with the Courts receives the fines which are imposed. In London, as the salaries of the police magistrates and the expenses of providing and maintaining the Courts are borne by the Exchequer, all the fines imposed with the exception of a few, go to the Exchequer. The amount paid to the Exchequer for the year 1885 was £10,981.

    POST OFFICE—TRANSMISSION OF PRINTED MATTER AT ELECTIONS.
    MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary to the Treasury,

    467
    Whether complaints have been made to the Post Office authorities as to the charge of one penny upon wrappers enclosing poll cards and circulars at Parliamentary elections; and, whether, considering the statutory limitations now placed upon the expenses of Parliamentary elections, the Post Office will consider some modification of their order, and admit of these circulars being transmitted for one halfpenny?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, this was not the case with his own election circulars, and it was only a matter that required a little consideration on the part of the candidate and his agents. The question had been considered by the Post Office, when it was found the regular charge could not be altered.

    POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH, &c. STATION AT TORY ISLAND.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have received several representations from Ireland, England, and Scotland, urging the desirability of establishing a telegraph and signal station on Tory Island, off the coast of Donegal; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the same?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): Several representations have been made from time to time for the establishment of a telegraph and signal station on Tory Island. The Post Office has no monopoly of the business of signalling ships, which is altogether outside the action of the Telegraphs Act. It is a business which is mostly undertaken by the Committee of Lloyds. Some time ago that Committee made an offer to establish a signal and telegraph station on Tory Island, and the Postmaster General expressed his readiness to grant a licence upon nominal terms for establishing telegraph communication with the main land; but the Lloyds Committee, owing to difficulties in the way of laying and maintaining the cable, did not proceed with the work. I do not think that I can hold out any hope that the Government will undertake to establish a telegraph and signal station on Tory Island.

    AFRICA (EAST COAST)—ZANZIBAR DELIMITATION COMMISSION.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information as to the progress made by the Zanzibar Delimitation Commission?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The Commission has been at work since the 10th of December, when its first meeting was held; but as it was then agreed that its proceedings should be kept secret, I am unable at present to give any further information.

    AFRICA (EAST COAST)—ANNEXATIONS IN ZANZIBAR.
    MR. HUTTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Consul at Zanzibar has communicated any information relative to further annexations made by Europeans since November 1885, on the Zanzibar Coast or in Eastern Africa; and, when further Correspondence with Her Majesty's Government on this subject will be presented to Parliament?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): No European Government has assumed the protectorate of any territory since the date named by the hon. Member, and it is understood that no annexations will be made while the Delimitation Commission is sitting. It is not proposed to present further Correspondence until after the Commission has finished its work.

    AFRICA (EAST COAST)—THE SLAVE TRADE BLUE BOOK.
    MR. HUTTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When communication and information relating to commerce, received from Her Majesty's Consuls at Zanzibar and on the Mozambique Coast during the past twelve months, will be presented to Parliament?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The Slave Trade Blue Book about to be laid on the Table will contain all the information on commercial subjects which has been received from Zanzibar. No information has been received from Mo-

    469
    zambique, the Consul having been granted leave to recover his health.

    POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—AGED COUPLES IN WORKHOUSES.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the extent to which sec. 23, 10 and 11 Vic. c. 109, by which it is provided that married persons, being both above sixty years of age, shall not be compelled to live apart in workhouses, has been allowed to remain a dead letter, he will urge upon the Boards of Guardians the necessity for complying with the requirements of the Act?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN): Last November my Predecessor at the Local Government Board sent a Circular to Boards of Guardians on this subject. I am informed that in a good number of cases in which provision has been made, as suggested in the Question, the aged couples prefer not to live together. But if my hon. Friend has any evidence as to any particular case he has in view in which such provision has been refused, I will take care that special representation be made to the Board of Guardians.

    POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND THE GOVERNMENT.
    MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the First Lord of the Treasury's Letter to Lord de Vesci, inviting information and expressions of opinion on certain Irish public questions, Whether he is aware that Count de la Poer, Chairman of the Clonmel Board of Guardians, Mr. William Malcolmson, Chairman of the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians, and other chairmen of boards of guardians in Ireland, have prevented the boards over which they preside from responding to the invitation of the Prime Minister, by refusing to allow any Resolution to be moved on the subjects referred to in the Prime Minister's Letter; whether such Resolutions have been moved and carried at many meetings of Irish boards of guardians, and also at meetings of town councils, grand juries, and other
    470
    public bodies; whether Count de la Poer and Mr. William Malcolmson have also refused, at meetings of their respective boards, to allow guardians representing the interests of tenant farmers to offer a Resolution on the injury done to the agricultural class by the sale of butterine as butter; and, what steps will be taken to secure that no chairman shall prevent the board over which he presides from affording information requested by the head of the Government, or from dealing with questions regarded as concerning the interest of the ratepayers?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that the Chairmen of the Boards mentioned in the Question declined to put certain resolutions to their Boards. I do not know whether other Chairmen have acted similarly; but, of course, I am aware that other Boards of Guardians and public bodies have adopted similar resolutions. The Local Government Board are not informed as to what happened with respect to the resolution on the injury done to the agricultural class by the sale of butterine as butter. There is no power in the Local Government Board to compel Chairmen to put resolutions of the kind, nor do I think it would be advisable to seek such powers. Whatever action is advisable would appear to me to be in the hands of the Boards themselves.

    METROPOLIS—WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED—THE NEW STREET FROM GREAT DOVER STREET, BOROUGH.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether, in view of the want of employment in South London, there is any immediate prospect of the proposed new street from Great Dover Street, Borough, through to Tabard Street, and the buildings for the re-housing of the working classes in connection therewith being proceeded with?
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG): I beg to inform the hon. Member that the Board hopes to commence the clearance of the remainder of the houses acquired for the new street within a month of the present date. A contract

    471
    will be entered into immediately afterwards for the construction of the street itself. When this work is completed artizans' buildings will be commenced upon the land to be devoted to that purpose.

    FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—ARD AND MASON ISLAND PIERS, CO. GALWAY.
    MR. SHEEHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Is it a fact that a gentleman has been appointed by the Board of Works to pay the wages, &c. on the piers being built at Ard and Mason Island (Galway) who lives a distance of twelve or fourteen miles from the works, and who has to be paid ear hire and travelling expenses each time he goes to and from the works; and, if so, how much travelling expenses are paid to him each time; if another paymaster under the Board, who is paying the wages at another work in the same locality, lives within a mile or two of Ard and Mason, whose travelling expenses would be comparatively trifling if he had been appointed to pay at these works; if the gentleman who pays at the Ard and Mason works is obliged to drive past the very door of the other paymaster when going to Ard and returning; and, if any satisfactory explanation can be given why the Piers and Harbours money should be so unnecessarily expended?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, the facts stated in the first part of the Question were substantially correct. The extra expense involved in the present arrangement amounted to about £2 out of a total estimate of £1,670. The Commissioners of Public Works, after careful consideration of the case, decided in their discretion to employ the present paymaster, who was already performing other duties which did not require his whole time.

    JAMAICA—FEVER AT PORT ROYAL.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID(for Sir THOMAS BRASSEY)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether an epidemic of yellow fever has recently visited Port Royal, and what number of cases have been reported from H.M.S. Urgent; and, whether any
    472
    facilities exist for removing men in the Naval Service from Port Royal to a sanatarium or hill station, similar to that occupied by the Military at Newcastle, Jamaica?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I regret to have to say that since October, 1885, 19 cases of yellow fever have been admitted into Jamaica Hospital from the Urgent, of which number four have terminated fatally. Besides these, an officer who was on board waiting to join the Wye was attacked and died. There has been one other case—from the Tyne. There is no "sanatarium or hill station" attached to Jamaica Hospital; nor is it thought by our medical advisers that any such establishment is necessary for such cases of infectious disease, as Port Royal is so swept by the sea breezes that it is considered more healthy than a hill station. I am informed that troops with yellow fever are not moved to the hill station occupied by the military at Newcastle, Jamaica, as suggested in the Question.

    LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—LOAN FOR BUILDING—CASE OF JOHN M'NAMARA, BRAWNEY, CO. WESTMEATH.
    MR. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John M'Namara, who resides at Golden Island, in the barony of Brawney, county Westmeath, applied to the Board of Works in July last for a loan for the purpose of erecting a house on a tenant's holding; whether his rent was paid, and all necessary notices served, and formalities required completed, and the security offered believed to be ample; whether the tenant and his family are at present located in a dilapidated and almost ruinous hovel on the holding; and, whether the Board granted the loan?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)(who replied) said, an application for a loan of £50 was made in July, 1884. Subsequently delay had arisen owing to disputes as to rent and sureties, and an appeal was brought forward by the landlord against the rent fixed by the Land Commissioners. Until the appeal, which was still pending, was settled the matter could not be proceeded with.

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
    MR. DE COBAINasked the Postmaster General, Whether, with a view to the greater usefulness of the Post Office Savings Bank, he would undertake to bring in a Bill, during the present Session, to extend the limit of amount that can be legally deposited therein within any current year, and also to extend the limit of amount that may stand to the credit of any depositor in the said Post Office Savings Bank?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)(who replied) said, that the Postmaster General was not at present able to give any undertaking in regard to this matter. A proposal of this kind was introduced into the last Parliament, and he might remind the hon. Member that it was strongly opposed on both sides of the House. The subject would, however, receive his consideration.

    BRITISH MUSEUM—DISMISSAL OF WILLIAM BRIGHTWELL.
    MR. CREMERasked the honourable Member for Staffordshire (North Western Division), as a Junior Lord of the Treasury, If he could state what were the acts of insubordination alleged as a cause of William Brightwell's dismissal from his employment as a gardener at the British Museum; what were the dates of such acts; whether any complaints in regard to idleness or insubordination had been made against him before he gave evidence at Bow Street Police Court; what was the evidence of the alleged idleness assigned as the cause of his dismissal; and, will he lay the evidence on both cases before the House?
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER), in reply, said, that there had been complaints with regard to Brightwell before he had given evidence at Bow Street Police Court. The Earl of Morley had considered the case, and fully indorsed the decision of his Predecessor at the Office of First Commissioner of Works.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked whether William Brightwell was not several weeks out of employment after his arbitrary dismissal, and whether employment was not given to him out of compassion at the House
    474
    of Commons at the instance of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?
    MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, Brightwell was now employed at the House of Commons, and might have been so employed immediately on his dismissal from the British Museum if he had chosen. The interval between his dismissal and employment at the House of Commons was due to no fault of the authorities. He was now employed at a lower rate of remuneration. The matter had been thoroughly investigated by the First Commissioner of Works, and upon that investigation he took his stand. He must ask the House to take it from him that no partiality of any kind whatever had been brought to the consideration of this question.

    FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (SCOTLAND)—DUES AT GIRVAN HARBOUR.
    MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the condition of the harbour of Girvan, in Ayrshire, and to the complaints of fishermen that heavy dues are exacted from them under the Provisional Order granted for the construction of the harbour; the original condition being that a depth of four feet would be maintained at low water, whereas the depth at low water does not now exceed two feet, that portions of the quay have fallen in, and that the harbour is in an unsafe condition; and, if he would take immediate steps to inquire into the case, and have the defects complained of remedied?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA), in reply, said, that the complaint to which the hon. Member referred had only lately been brought under his notice, and he had given instructions to have it inquired into.

    THE MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL.
    MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the Board of Trade Report on the Manchester Ship Canal Bill states that—
    "The conditions contained in Clause 3 of the present Bill are in accordance with Standing Order 167;"
    and, whether it is intended to extend in

    475
    future Standing Order 167, which is explicitly confined to Railway, Tramway, and Subway Companies, to other Bills?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA), in reply, said, he was aware that the Report of the Board of Trade stated, and with perfect accuracy, that the conditions contained in Clause 3 of the Manchester Ship Canal Bill were in accordance with those contained in Standing Order 167. He had no intention of proposing to extend the Standing Order to other Bills.
    MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of the decision of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill authorising the Manchester Ship Canal Company to pay interest out of capital, he intends to take steps to amend Standing Order No. 167, so that it may apply to Companies other than Railway, Tramway, or Subway Companies; and, if so, whether Standing Order No. 156 will still hold good, or whether he intends to amend the Joint Stock Companies' Acts, so as to abrogate the rule that no dividend shall be payable except out of the profits arising from the business of the Company?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA), in reply, said, he had already stated that he did not propose to extend Standing Order 167 to other Bills. Standing Order 156 would still hold good, inasmuch as it did not appear to him to have any bearing upon the question. He had no intention of amending the Joint Stock Companies Act, so as to abrogate the rule that no dividends should be payable except out of the profits arising out of the business of the Company.

    ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY—DISMISSAL OF WORKMEN.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated in a telegram exhibited in this House yesterday, that—
    "Notwithstanding recent telegrams from War Office, sixty viewers and ninety workmen were discharged from the barrel department of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield today;"
    and, whether there is any foundation for the rumour, which the same telegram says is prevalent there, that one
    476
    thousand hands in similar small batches will shortly be discharged?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANERMAN): In answer to my noble Friend, I am unaware of the existence of the telegram referred to, and I do not know how such a telegram came to be exhibited in the House. No discharges have taken place at Enfield, and none are at present contemplated. On inquiry, I find that a few men have been temporarily put out of work in consequence of the part of the manufacturing process in which they were engaged being for the moment too far in advance of the rest. This may be the origin of the report.

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—POLLING ARRANGEMENTS.
    SIR HENRY MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the last general election some voters were prevented from exercising the franchise, and very many others were put to most serious inconvenience by the very long distances they had to walk to the poll; and, whether he intends to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the appointment of polling places in counties?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS)(who replied) said: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I am not aware that any complaints have reached the Home Office with regard to the inconvenient arrangement of the polling districts during the last election. The polling districts in counties are fixed by Courts of Quarter Sessions; and they are the authority to whom any representations should be addressed. I can say nothing now as to any intention to legislate on the subject.

    ST. JOHN AND ST. JAMES, CLERKENWELL.
    MR. BAUMANNasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Middlesex House of Detention and the Middlesex House of Correction, both situate in the parish of St. John and St. James, Clerkenwell, and occupying an area of about eleven acres, are no longer wanted for the purposes of prisons; and, if so, whether

    477
    the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury will, in accordance with Clause 3 of "The Houses of the Working Classes Act, 1885," recommend Her Majesty, without further delay, to sell and convey that site, or any part or parts thereof, to the Metropolitan Board of Works, at a fair market price, for the purposes of the said Act?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS)(who replied) said, he had answered an identical Question the other day. He was now considering what was the best means of disposing of the sites under the Act of Parliament, and no unnecessary delay would be allowed to take place.

    ARMY—SURPLUS STORES—THE PLANT OF THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
    MR. JACKSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Schedule of railway plant, stores, and other material purchased for the Suakin and Berber railway now lying at Woolwich and other places; if he can state approximately its cost; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to dispose of it; and, if so, how, and when?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I should have no objection to present a Return of the Suakin and Berber railway plant, now lying at Woolwich and other places, if the hon. Member moves for it; but he will know, from his own experience at the Treasury, that the interest in and value of these voluminous and detailed Returns are rarely proportioned to the great cost and trouble their preparation entails. The approximate cost of these materials has been £320,000; and it is proposed to use them as opportunity occurs in constructing any railways that may be required for military or War Department purposes.

    BOARD OF TRADE—REPORT OF THE LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS COMMITTEE.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Report of the Trinity House, on the experiments made at South Foreland, to ascertain the best illuminant for lighthouses has been objected to by shipping
    478
    authorities, harbour boards, and others, on the ground that its conclusions are seriously erroneous, and that the experiments were not fairly made; and, whether the Board of Trade, in view of the correspondence which has taken place between that Board and such shipping and other authorities, will refer the report for examination to some competent scientific gentlemen quite independent of the Trinity House, and will submit their observations thereon to the House?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The only person who has, so far as I know, objected to the Trinity House Report, on the ground that its conclusions are seriously erroneous, and that the experiments were not fairly made, is Mr. J. E. Wigham, the well-known gas engineer and manufacturer, of Dublin. Applications—five in all—have been received from certain harbour authorities and shipowners asking for inquiry into Mr. Wigham's statements, but expressing no opinion as to the conclusions arrived at, or the manner in which the experiments were conducted. I have to-day received a Report, which I have not yet been able to read, from Mr. A. G. Vernon Harcourt, F.R.S., who, at the request of the Board of Trade, was present at many of the experiments, and who is a competent scientific authority, and quite independent of the Trinity House. I also expect Reports from the representatives of some Foreign Governments who attended the experiments. Until these Reports are considered, I am not in a position to come to any final decision upon the points at issue between Mr. Wigham and the Trinity House. The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses advise me that they concur in the conclusions of the Trinity House Report; and their engineers, who have had several opportunities of witnessing them, report that, in their opinion, the experiments have been conducted in a spirit of the most perfect fairness and impartiality to all parties.

    NAVY—REDUCTION OF DOCKYARD EMPLOYES.
    In reply to Mr. PULESTON (Devonport),
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT)said,

    479
    that there was no intention of making any reduction.

    SCARCITY OF EMPLOYMENT—THE RETURN.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURinquired, Whether the Returns relating to the prevalence of distress would be in the hands of Members in time for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. Dawson)?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN), in reply, said that the Return had already been laid on the Table "in dummy." The greater part of the information had been for some time in the printer's hands; but he was still waiting for some important replies. He hoped, in the course of a day or two, to be enabled to place the whole of the information in the possession of the House.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £31,997, 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 1887, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I have given Notice of an Amendment to this Vote, and I do not know whether the Vote itself is not capable of a still larger reduction than that which I am about to propose. The Committee will see that the Vote is divided into three heads—for palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, and palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. Now, in regard to the first head—namely, the palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, they may be looked upon as national monuments, and therefore ought to be maintained, although, with respect to Buckingham Palace, I do not see why there should be a large Estimate for maintaining it, seeing that it is generally empty. I do not find, however, that there is any Estimate for Buckingham Palace, although there is
    480
    one for the Royal Mews at Pimlico. I do not know what is in that Royal Mews; but I suppose it is horses, and that it contains those cream-coloured horses which only come out when Parliament meets and there is a Conservative Government in Office. The item which appears in the Estimate for the Royal Mews at Pimlico certainly appears to be a large sum. The next item is for Windsor Home Park, and the sum put down for that is £1,020. Now, I presume that this Home Park produces something; but there is no statement in regard to what it produces. Surely it goes to somebody, and I would ask to whom? It seems to me quite ridiculous that we should have to pay for maintaining the Home Park, and that the results of the expenditure upon the Home Park should not go into the Public Treasury. Then there is a sum in regard to Windsor Royal Kitchen Gardens. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] An hon. Gentleman says "No;" but here is an item for the cost—£217. I am not aware that the country gets anything in return from these Windsor Kitchen Gardens. If people have vegetable gardens, let them pay for them. Then there is a sum of £341 for Frog-more House and Grounds. They cannot be said to be in the personal occupation of Her Majesty, and I think there must be some mistake about that. The same remark applies to White Lodge, Richmond Park. I should like to know whether Her Majesty ever goes there, and what portion of the year she spends there? Next we come to the palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty. St. James's Palace is one of them, and as there are State rooms there, I suppose we must allow that item. I come next to the palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty; and the first item is an additional Vote for St. James's Palace, for the residence of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, for Clarence House, and for other residences of Members of the Royal Family. That Estimate amounts to £1,622. I find, further, that the Vote includes items for rent. I certainly do not know why rent should be paid for portions of the Royal Palaces; but there is an item here of rent—£440, and another item of £212, and two items for fuel, gas, and water—£3,678 and £290. Of course, Clarence House is technically regarded

    481
    as part of St. James's Palace. But the House has provided for the Duke of Edinburgh, who has £25,000 a-year; and it seems to me that when the House has given him £25,000 per annum, aud provided him with a house, it is perfectly preposterous that he should call upon us to keep the house in repair, and pay his gas and water rates. The next item is for Kensington Palace. The same remarks apply to that. One of the Royal Family lives there, and there is a charge of £218 for fuel and water, making the total Estimate for Kensington Palace £1,034. The next item is Hampton Court Palace; and I think we ought to allow that, because it is more of a National Palace than anything else, and possesses picture galleries which are thrown open to the public. The next item is Kew Palace and Kew Buildings at Kew Green, and Kew Royal Observatory. I make no objection to those items; but the next is an item for Hampton Court Stud House. I have more than once asked Questions with regard to that establishment. I presume that a stud is productive, and if we have to pay for it, I think we ought to have some foals there. Where do the foals go? Nobody has ever yet been able to give me a reason why we should keep up that stud house, or explained what benefit we derive from keeping it up. We do not get a foal; and nobody who understood business would have a stud of that sort. We have to keep the stud and maintain the building, and yet we derive no benefit whatever from it. The next item I make no objection to—namely, Military Knights' Houses, Windsor Castle. It is only right to allow that. But now I come to an item for Pembroke Lodge, Thatched House, and East Sheen Cottage, Richmond Park, Bushey House Gardens and Stables, Upper Lodge and Paddocks, Hawthorne Lodge and Hawthorne Cottage, Waylands, and the Park Carpenters' Cottages in Bushey Park. Now, I do not know who lives in these houses; but they are all provided for under the head of Royal Palaces. At any rate, I do not see the necessity for keeping up these Palaces merely for the pleasure of spending large sums of money upon maintaining them. I suppose that certain persons are allowed to live in them; but I do not know who they are. It is only reasonable that
    482
    with a Monarchy we should have a Palace in London, and another in the country. But why keep up a number of Palaces which are not in the occupation of Her Majesty, or even of Her Majesty's Family, for which we are called upon, year after year, to vote considerable sums of money? Let them be sold or let; but do not let us waste our money in keeping them up. I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain the reasons for keeping up these Palaces; but, in the meantime, I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £8,274. That will include the items for those portions of St. James's Palace not occupied by Her Majesty, but used as residences by the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke of Edinburgh, Kensington Palace, Kew Palace, Hampton Court Stud House, Windsor Kitchen Gardens, &c. So far as Kew Gardens are concerned, I have often been to Kew, but I never saw the Palace; but it is a red brick house, I am told.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £23,723, 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 1887, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER): My hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) asks what is the reason why we should maintain these establishments? Now, the reason why we should maintain them is, that an arrangement was made, upon Her Majesty's accession to the Throne, by which a considerable reduction of the Civil List was effected on the understanding that the Palaces and Pleasure Grounds belonging to the Sovereign were to be maintained and kept up at the cost of the nation. I see that the Civil List was reduced, first of all, from £1,750,000 to £510,000, and then, in 1838–9, it was still further reduced to £339,000. As far as I can see, we have really no option in the matter, because we have entered into an undertaking to maintain these Royal Palaces. With regard to the particular items to which my hon. Friend has called attention, the first is the Royal Mews at Pimlico. Now, I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that the building in question is of great size, and that it

    483
    necessarily involves a great deal of expenditure to keep it up. He asks if it is used for horses? Of course, from its title, he must know that it is used for horses. There are no less than 100 horses employed in the Royal service, lodged there, and there are also 230 persons quartered in the building. I do not think, therefore, that the Vote for the Royal Mews can be looked upon as excessive. Then, in regard to the Kitchen Gardens at Windsor, I do not know whether my hon. Friend objects to the maintenance of these Royal Kitchen Gardens, or to the sum proposed for that purpose.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I object to their maintenance altogether, as a rule.
    MR. LEVESON GOWER: Well, the Gardens in question come within the grounds of the Royal Palaces which were undertaken to be provided for by the arrangement of the Civil List, to which I have already referred. They supply the Royal Palaces, to which they are attached, with fruit and vegetables. Then, with regard to St. James's Palace, my hon. Friend objects to that part of the Vote which is required for the maintenance of portions of the Palace occupied by the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke of Edinburgh. With regard to Clarence House, I wish to point out that the Duke of Edinburgh has spent a considerable sum of money from his own private resources in improving and repairing this residence. I have no doubt that that is a circumstance the Committee will take into consideration in coming to a decision on the matter. Then, with regard to Hampton Court Stud House, the hon. Member seems to think that a stud house is a source of profit to the owners of it. There are many hon. Members, however, who will agree with me when I say that an establishment of this kind is not always a profitable one to maintain. This establishment is under the management of the Master of the Horse; and as the hon. Member is anxious to know what becomes of the foals which are reared there, I promise, for the information of the hon. Member and in order to satisfy his curiosity, to make inquiry, so that it may be seen what is done with these animals. In reference to the objection raised with respect to Frogmore, I have to inform the hon. Member that it is used for the reception of Her Majesty's
    484
    guests when Windsor Castle is full. The other residences referred to come under the head of "Grace and Favour Residences"—that is to say, houses as to which Her Majesty may exercise the right of allowing to be occupied by some Member of the Royal Family.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: There appears to be some slight misconception, either in my own mind or in that of the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee. I understand him to say that the Civil List was reduced very much on the accession of Her Majesty to the Throne. I have gone into this question over and over again; and I have now to point out that the reduction mentioned was purely fictive, and was obtained by omitting items which were formerly included in those going to make up the Civil List and transferring them to other places where they appear in the accounts. Not only has there been no reduction at all, but there has been an absolute increase. This fact was illustrated by the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Staffordshire (Mr. Leveson Gower) who has just sat down. The Civil List is now put down at £385,000; but that result can only be arrived at by omitting a large number of items, amounting to several hundred thousand pounds, which were formerly included in the Civil List. At first the Civil List included the whole Civil List expenses of the country. At present it includes the allowance to Her Majesty; but the other costs of Her Majesty and of the Royal Family, which were formerly included in it, are now separated from it, so that the Civil List stands at a higher figure now than it has ever done since the Revolution of 1688, with the exception of one extravagant period during the Reign of George III.
    MR. RYLANDS: I agree entirely with the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Staffordshire (Mr. Leveson Gower) as to the condition under which Her Majesty's Civil List was settled. I am quite aware that these Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, and others not in her occupation, are charges which fall upon the public Exchequer under an Act of Parliament. I, therefore, agree that the Committee are not in a position to repudiate the obligations which were

    485
    incurred at the time the Civil List was settled. An idea prevails, however, and I think a very proper idea, that it might be well that another opportunity should be taken—I hope the day may still be long distant on the demise of the Crown—of reconsidering, in a new Civil List, the conditions under which the present Civil List was settled. I think it would be open to the Parliament of that day to make new arrangements which, without being detrimental to the Sovereign, may be of great advantage to the taxpayers of this country. My complaint is not exactly upon the ground taken up by my hon. Friend who has moved the reduction of the Vote (Mr. Labouchere); but it has reference to the excessive charges always incurred in the maintenance of Royal Palaces and buildings in the occupation of individuals who contribute nothing to meet the expenses of their maintenance, but who, through a Department of the State, come to the House of Commons and ask for payment from the taxpayers. I would ask hon. Members whether, on looking through the columns giving the details of the Vote for the ordinary maintenance and repair of these buildings, they have not been struck by the fact that private buildings in the country never cost anything like the amount of expenditure incurred in the ordinary maintenance, nor would public buildings involve such an extravagant outlay if the persons enjoying the buildings had to pay for the repairs themselves. I remember, in a former discussion upon this matter, that an eminent authority upon such questions said most distinctly that great mansions belonging to the nobility never cost anything like the amount expended in the maintenance of the Royal Palaces; and he pointed out that the money voted by the House for these purposes was altogether excessive. I do not know whether my hon. Friend who defends this Vote has really any control over the expenditure in these matters; and I should like to know whether there is any hon. Gentleman upon the Treasury Bench who is prepared to get up and say to the Committee that he accepts the responsibility of this expenditure? Can the Treasury justify the expenditure, or will they tell us that they have secured a proper control over it? I should certainly like to see some hon. Gentleman get up and
    486
    take this responsibility upon himself. My hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) alluded to the Royal Mews at Pimlico. The amount asked for the maintenance of the Royal Mews is £1,220 for ordinary repairs and maintenance. Now, that seems to me to be a preposterous sum. The hon. Gentleman told us—what is, no doubt, the fact—that these Royal Mews are not only places for keeping horses in, but that they are really a private rabbit warren, in which a large number of persons live. I think it is altogether wrong that the House of Commons should be called upon, year after year, to vote large sums of money for the maintenance of the Royal Mews. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a division upon the rejection of this Vote I shall support him, simply on the ground that I believe this large sum for the maintenance and repair of this building is an excessive sum; and I have no hesitation in saying that if proper pressure were brought to bear upon the Government we should have the expenditure reduced. My hon. Friend who defends the Vote represents, I presume, the First Commissioner of Works. Now, I venture to maintain that the First Commissioner of Works ought to be in this House. The policy of putting the First Commissioner of Works, as head of one of the great spending Departments, in a House which does not control the Expenditure of the country, is altogether contrary to the course which should be pursued by a Government anxious to promote economy. I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) in his place; he was First Commissioner of Works under the late Government, and I challenge him to give the explanation I am now asking for. However economical the House of Commons may feel inclined to be, if we are to have the heads of the great spending Departments in the House of Lords, where the taxpayers are not represented at all, we shall never have any real control over the expenditure. I have no desire to carry the matter further; but although I take other grounds than those of my hon. Friend for supporting the reduction of the Vote, if my hon. Friend presses his Motion to a division I shall certainly go with him, as a protest against what

    487
    I believe to be an unnecessary expenditure.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 240: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 27.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask a question in regard to one item in this Vote—namely, the item for fuel, gas, and water on page 3. The sum put down for that service is £3,678, as compared with a total amount last year of £3,858, and showing an apparent saving of £180. Now, as a matter of fact, the year before last this item figured as £1,981, and the expenditure, as shown by the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, amounted to £1,842; so that the present Estimate is almost precisely double the actual expenditure of two years ago. When I come to examine the items set forth in subsequent pages in the Estimate, I find that the item for Windsor Castle was last year only £470, but is raised now, without any explanation, to £1,083, or something like 250 per cent. and another item for Hampton Court Palace, which was last year £373, has now suddenly jumped up to £1,262; being between three and four times as much as last year. The difference between these two items is very considerable, and so startling that before the Vote is passed I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of it will give some explanation to the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): Does the hon. Member move to reduce the Vote?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I do not wish to take that course if any reasonable explanation can be given.
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER): I must remind the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that the charge for fuel, gas, and water constantly varies, and that must necessarily be the case. To some extent the variation may be attributed to the varying cost of the materials, although, no doubt, more gas and fuel may have been used, and more money expended, in one year than in another. I would, however, remind the
    488
    hon. Member that this sub-head shows a reduction of £180 upon the Estimate of last year, and endeavours will be made to reduce the amount still further. Efforts have already been made to increase the sources of the supply of water, and I am happy to say that in some instances it has been found possible to do so. I am sure that every endeavour will be made to improve our resources in that respect.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done his best to vindicate the Vote; but I am simply asking him for an explanation in regard to extraordinary charges contained in it—namely, the charge for Windsor Castle, which was last year £470, and is now £1,033, and the charges for Hampton Court Palace, which were last year £373, and are now £1,262. Now, allowing the Board of Works the utmost latitude which the most generous Treasury could possibly sanction, I do think that such a remarkable increase for these two services require some special explanation. So far from the Vote being reduced, although the figures are as the hon. Member has stated, yet they do not quite tally with the Estimates of last year; because, although the sum last year was put down at £3,358, the sum expended was really only £2,250, so that, instead of there being a diminution of £180 this year, there is really an increase over the Estimates of last year by £1,488.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): My hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that there has been an increase during the past two years. The expenditure in 1880 was about £2,000; in 1881, £1,800; in 1882, £1,900; in 1883, £2,000; and last year, £2,250. It will be seen, therefore, that the sum has constantly varied. But this year the additional expenditure, I am informed, is in connection with Hampton Court Palace, and it has been occasioned by the improvements in the supply of gas; and in making better provision against fire by securing a more abundant supply of water it has been found necessary to construct large tanks.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What is the explanation in regard to the increase in connection with Windsor Castle?
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I can offer no explanation upon that point; but it seems to me that the whole Vote for Windsor Castle is less this year than last.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: There are some small items here which, although they do not amount to a great deal, require, I think, a little explanation. I refer to the items for rent. It is difficult to understand how £10, in the shape of rent, has to be paid for Windsor Castle; £25 for Windsor Home Park, and other sums of the same character in regard to the other Palaces and Pleasure Grounds. I would, therefore, venture to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to give the Committee some explanation in reference to these items in the Vote. There are some other items of rent which come on later in the Estimates, and probably the explanation given in reference to these items will afford some explanation as to those which still remain.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I have no doubt that the Members of Her Majesty's Government who have defended the Vote have given all the explanation which they are able to give, or of which they are possessed; but I hardly think that hon. Members will be satisfied with the explanation given, and I think the replies we have got have proved very conclusively how useless it is for the Committee to discuss the Estimates in the form in which they are now presented to us. If we call in question some particularly glaring instances of extravagance, some outlay which hon. Members cannot understand, the Secretary to the Treasury makes the best explanation he can, and says he will inquire into the matter; but nothing more is ever heard of the subject alter the Vote is passed. We had a signal example of that in the annual Question put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) respecting the foals reared at the Hampton Court Stud. I believe there are some foals, because I have seen notices of the sale of them in the newspapers. I would point out to the Committee how much more advantageous it would be if there were a Select Committee of this House sitting in one of the rooms upstairs who would call before them the heads of Departments, and all who are re-
    490
    sponsible for the spending of money, so that they might be able to give some satisfactory explanation of the different items of public Expenditure included in the Votes. If no satisfactory explanation of the Expenditure were forthcoming, then the Committee of Supply could, with confidence, disallow the Vote. At the present moment hon. Members are very much in the dark. There is a strong desire on the part of the Committee to give full effect to principles of economy in the Expenditure of the country; but when we question a particular item, and point out its extravagance, the Secretary to the Treasury and his assistants can give us no explanation. What we have been experiencing during the last half-hour forms a conclusive proof of the inability of the Committee to discuss the Votes which are brought before them, and shows the necessity of having a Select Committee appointed by the House to examine the Estimates beforehand with power to call the head of every Department before them.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the late First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) will come to the assistance of the Government, and be able to give the information asked for. The right hon. Gentleman, who has always performed in a satisfactory manner all the work he has undertaken in the House, may have better information in regard to the items included in this Vote than hon. Gentlemen now upon the Treasury Bench have yet had time to attain. But there is another suggestion I would also make, and that is that it would be well if in some things a Liberal Government would take a leaf out of the book of their Conservative opponents. Some years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith) was Secretary to the Treasury, he made a statement on going into Committee of Supply. In introducing the Estimates the right hon. Gentleman made a long and general statement, pointing out the difference and variations made in the Estimates for the year; and I have no hesitation in saying that the explanations which the right hon. Gentleman gave were most useful to the Committee, and tended materially to shorten the dis-

    491
    cussion of the Estimates in Committee. A Liberal Government had never adopted that plan; but, in my opinion, it is the right and proper plan to pursue, and it is the plan adopted in every other country with which I am acquainted. It is an invariable practice in other countries to explain the Civil Service Estimates; and I venture to hope that before an other year comes round, if Her Majesty's Government are still in Office, the Secretary to the Treasury will undertake to make a statement to the Committee. It would be an economy of time, because the Committee would at once have pointed out to them all the heads of Expenditure on which there is any variation, and the Committee would be able to do their work more thoroughly than they can do now. As to the appointment of a Committee to go through the Estimates beforehand—
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The question raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) is altogether apart from this Vote, and it would not be regular to pursue it further.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: Then I will do no more than express a hope that the matter will be considered by Her Majesty's Government; and I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) will be able to give an explanation in regard to these Estimates, if Her Majesty's Government are unable to do so.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I had no time to rise before the hon. Member rose himself, immediately after the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) sat down, or else I intended to rise at once to give an explanation, as far as I could, of the points to which attention has been called. The explanation of the term "rent" referred to by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) is a very simple one. These are old quit-rents, and the items appear in the Estimates year after year. There is no question as to the liability of the country to pay them. With regard to the general question, I can only express my entire agreement with the hon. Member for Forfarshire and the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid). So long as the
    492
    present slovenly, haphazard, inconclusive, unsatisfactory, extravagant, and foolish system is adopted, I can only do my best in answering such questions as may be put to me. I hope the House will discover some better mode of dealing with the Estimates; and, for my own part, I should be very glad to make such a general statement as that which has been referred to as having been made some years ago by the right hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith), when he was Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. PLUNKET: In answer to the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid), I must confess that I do not bear in my recollection all the items which were brought under my notice when I was First Commissioner of Works, and which I was required to consider in their preliminary stages before they were ready to be submitted to the House. If the hon. Member could only see the piles upon piles of Papers in the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Works connected with these Estimates, he would, I am sure, excuse me from bearing the whole of them in my memory. These piles of Papers are sent up to the Treasury along with our request that investigation should be made, especially when there is any increase proposed in any particular Vote, or even when there is a proposal for a reduction. The Treasury, I need scarcely say, applies a very strict and severe scrutiny to any proposal for an increase, although they are always ready to take immediate advantage of any opportunity for effecting a reduction. I can only say that while I was in the Office of Works all the Estimates that were sent up to the Treasury were most closely, and even most severely scrutinized; and I regret that it is not in my power to enter into details in regard to every item which may now be subjected to the criticism of the Committee.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain. I had no desire to cast any reproach against my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury; but what I meant to say was that the Secretary to the Treasury, having the work of the Office of Works thrown upon him suddenly, and in addition to his own, could hardly be expected to

    493
    know the details of the work of the Department as well as my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, who was in Office at the time the Estimates were prepared. I appealed to my right hon. and learned Friend, because I believed that he was in the best position to give information to the Committee; but, in doing so, I had no desire to reproach my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who does his work so ably and so admirably.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £1,625, Marlborough House.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £112,619, 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 1887, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am afraid I shall have to ask the Committee to divide twice on this Vote for the convenience of the Metropolitan Members, because they are exceedingly ready to suggest and support economy in the Estimates when it does not specially affect their constituents; but on this particular point they may be inclined to support the Treasury, seeing that the general public are bound to pay for the maintenance of Parks which ought to be paid for out of the rates contributed by the inhabitants of London. I will take the liberty, in the first place, of moving a reduction of the Vote by the sum equivalent to the amount now charged upon the Treasury for the maintenance of certain public Parks in London—that sum being £50,403. I deduct from the sum inserted in the Estimates for these Parks a sum of £6,000, which was agreed to in the last Parliament, for the erection of a statue to the late Duke of Wellington at Hyde Park Corner. This is a very old question, which has been frequently raised in this House in the last Parliament. The justice of charging the cost of the London Parks on the Treasury was never admitted by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial Bench. What those Gentlemen always said was, that they were going to bring in a Bill for the proper government of London, and that, when they did so, these charges would be done away with, or altered in some way or other. How-
    494
    ever, they never succeeded in passing the Bill, and I do not know that the Government are going to bring in a London Government Bill just now; and, therefore, I do not see why we should wait until we are in a condition to pass that Bill. We know that there are Parks all over the country, and that the inhabitants of most of our great towns pay for their own Parks; and I see no reason why the inhabitants of the whole country — England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—should pay for the maintenance of such Parks as those at Kennington and Battersea. It is sometimes asserted that although the country ought not to pay for maintaining Kennington, Victoria, and Battersea Parks, they ought, nevertheless, to pay for Hyde Park, St. James's Park, The Green Park, and other Parks which, in some mysterious way, are said to be National Parks. Now, I do not know, even taking Hyde Park, that it is a National Park. I know perfectly well that if this House were to say that the Business of Parliament should be taken away from London, and some other town should be made the Metropolis of the country, that whatever place was selected as the Metropolis would, as a quid pro quo, be most ready to undertake the maintenance of its own Parks. The fact that this is the Metropolis attracts a large number of persons to London, and the inhabitants of London get an immense benefit from being the source of attraction. I have said that this is a subject which has often been discussed in this House; and I think I may appeal to Conservative Members, as well as to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, that they ought to register at once, in the new Parliament, a protest against these continuous demands on the Treasury for what ought to be paid by London itself.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £62,216, 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 1887, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    DR. CAMERON: I must say that I am rather disappointed at the appearance of this Vote in the Estimates of the present year. We have heard in former times most useful disquisitions on this subject from the lips of the

    495
    hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary to the Treasury. When the hon. Gentleman occupied a position of greater freedom and lesser responsibility, there was no person who so often inculcated the sound and useful lesson that London should bear its own expenses. Only last year, I believe, the hon. Member expressed his regret that he had not yet succeeded in impressing his Colleagues with his own economical views; and if the reading of Hansard could have any effect in convincing them, there would be no more convincing arguments even than those of the hon. Gentleman himself. The other night we had this question raised upon the Crofters' Bill, and we heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), and other Members of the Government, lay down, with great emphasis, the important principle that, even for the purpose of carrying out recommendations of Royal Commissions, it would be unfair to tax the inhabitants of Dorsetshire and Devonshire for the expenses of benefits to be conferred upon Aberdeen and the Highlands of Scotland. Then, I think that, at all events, if that sound economic doctrine is to be adopted in connection with Scotland, we ought to know that it will be equally applied in the case of London; and if it is held unjust to tax London and the Midland Counties for the benefit of the Scotch crofters, then I beg to protest against the whisky and the tea of the Scotch crofters being taxed for the maintenance of the public Parks in the wealthiest City in the world.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: As representing a large constituency in Lancashire, I think there is a great deal to be said for the principle maintained by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). No doubt, there are some of the Royal Parks—such as Hyde Park, the Green Park, and St. James's Park—which are accessible to, and enjoyed by, the inhabitants of every part of the Kingdom when they come to London, as so many of them are in the habit of doing. Therefore, they have an interest in their maintenance. But there are included in this Vote other Parks which do not possess that national character, but are purely local pleasure grounds, which ought to be maintained by the population for whose benefit they have been made. Therefore, I certainly think there is a great deal to
    496
    be said for the principle maintained by the hon. Member opposite; but, at the same time, I think it would be most injudicious for the Committee to deal with a question like this on an Estimate framed on the spur of the moment by any hon. Member. If there is to be a redistribution in regard to the maintenance of the Parks of the Metropolis upon something like a fair principle, I think the question ought to be deliberately considered by the House, and that it should not be done by hon. Members who are not at all responsible for the Estimates. I think it would be trifling with the Business of the country if we were to interfere in this haphazard manner with expenditure which has been voted year after year. At the same time, I consider that the question is one which might fairly be considered by a Select Committee, with a view of placing the Expenditure of the country, in this and other respects, upon a more fair principle, and upon one which would not be unjust to the ratepayers of the rest of the Kingdom. Therefore, while I sympathize with the hon. Member in regard to the principle he advances—that the whole of the Kingdom, which maintains its own Parks and Pleasure Grounds, should not be taxed for the Metropolis—I think it is quite impossible to deal with the matter in the manner proposed by the hon. Member.
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER): While sympathizing with certain of the views put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), with respect to the maintenance of these Parks, I must point out that there are two special kinds of Parks embraced in the Vote. One which the hon. Member for North Manchester (Sir James Fergusson) has called national, or Royal Parks—such as Hyde Park, the Green Park, and St. James's Park, which stand in a different category from the comparatively new Parks, like Battersea Park and Victoria Park. By the London Government Bill provision was made for throwing the cost of the maintenance of these Parks on the Metropolis; the others were more properly Royal Parks? Why are they Royal Parks? They are Royal Parks because they are Crown property, which have been strictly thrown open to the public.

    497
    Take the case of St. James's Park, for example. That Park was laid out in its present state by George IV., and thrown open to the public in 1827–8. The charge for those Parks was thrown upon the Votes by an Act of Parliament passed in 1851. I must say that I agree with the hon. Member for North Manchester that this is not the occasion for ventilating any proposal for instituting a great change of this kind in the Estimates connected not only with the Metropolis, but with the whole of the country. No doubt, some change will have to be considered before long; but I hope the hon. Member for Northampton will not press his Motion to a division.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) ought to be grateful for the support which has been given to him from both sides of the House, a support based upon sound principles, and often enunciated by hon. Members now sitting on the Treasury Bench when they were independent Members, and which I have no doubt they are anxious to carry out. The object which the hon. Member for Northampton has in view is to place the charge for the maintenance of these Parks upon the Metropolis, and to remove it from the Estimates. I think that a very strong case has been shown why the Royal Parks should be supported by the Metropolis. No one can argue for a moment that the Royal Parks are not valuable as pleasure grounds for the Metropolis; and seeing that London has been relieved from any outlay of capital for the establishment of these Parks, surely it is only a moderate demand that London should be called upon to bear the expense of maintaining them. The hon. Member who has just sat down has urged that these Royal Parks may be more appropriately called National Parks; and he contends that they are valuable for people who reside in the country. But they are not valuable to the country in any genuine sense whatever. There is not one in a hundred who is able to enjoy them, and they ought not to be called upon to pay the expense of maintaining them. The inhabitants of London are, to all intents and purposes, the only persons who have any real enjoyment of them. People in the country cannot come to London without incurring a considerable amount of expense out of their own pockets, and that
    498
    expenditure is made larger in consequence of their being called upon to contribute to the maintenance of these Royal Parks. As they have already paid largely for the privileges which they are supposed to enjoy when in London, I think the case is clear that out of the pockets of those residing in London should come the cost of the maintenance of the Parks. I do not think the Committee is called upon to be put off any longer with the old story that some day or other there is going to be a measure which will throw the cost of these Parks upon the Metropolis. I would point out another fact—these Parks, in the main, are situated in the West End of London, and the cost of their maintenance ought to come out of the pockets of the rich West Enders. Most of the Parks themselves are not within reach of the people who reside in the East End of London; and, therefore, the charge should be made to lie where it ought to lie, and in that case it would fall upon the rich, who are really the only persons who enjoy the Parks. We have now in this House a real and genuine popular representation, both in regard to town and country, and I thick that we ought to undertake genuine economy in the administration of the affairs of the country; and I do not see that we could begin better than by dealing with partial charges like these. I shall, therefore, support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton; and I trust that some steps will be taken by the Government to prevent in future charges of this character falling upon the Estimates. I am glad to see the Home Secretary in his place; and I trust that the whole burden of fixing these charges where they ought to be will not be placed on the shoulders of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will be prepared to admit that there is really something in the complaint we make.
    MR. HICKMAN: The hon. Member for North-West Staffordshire (Mr. Leveson Gower) has attempted to justify this expenditure by saying that these Parks are thrown open to the public. Now, I maintain that Kensington Gardens are not thrown open to the public in any sense of the word. They are closed in the winter months as early as 4, and even in the

    499
    month of September at 6 o'clock; and, consequently, the public are excluded from them at a time which would be most convenient, pleasant, and suitable. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the question of closing Kensington Gardens should be carefully considered. Other Parks and Pleasure Grounds are allowed to remain open much later; and I do not see why these grounds should be closed as early as 4 o'clock. If it is only a question of the time of the park-keepers, then I think they might be opened later, and allowed to remain open later.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: As the question of Kensington Gardens has been raised I wish to say one word. I am not a Metropolitan Member, but I am a Metropolitan resident, and I should be quite prepared to bear my share if the expense of maintaining Kensington Gardens is thrown upon the parish of Kensington; but I think it should be only on the condition that the Gardens are properly kept up, and used for the recreation of the public. What I desire to call attention to is the shocking mortality among the trees in Kensington Gardens. All kinds of excuse have been made by the Department of Works, and we have been told that it is owing to the want of drainage, and one thing and another. I can testify, however, from my own personal observation, that nothing whatever has been done to stop the destruction of the trees during the past year, nor has a spade been put in to remedy the evil. I hope that some explanation will be given.
    MR. W. H. JAMES: I hope that before the Committee goes to a division we shall have an opportunity of hearing the views of the Secretary to the Treasury upon the subject. It is well within my recollection how frequently he spoke in the last Parliament, and urged the great hardship of throwing the cost upon the country of institutions which were mainly for the advantage of the Metropolis. If I am not mistaken, I think that he strongly objected not very long ago to the expense of the removal of the Wellington Statue from Hyde Park Corner being thrown upon the general taxation of the country I believe that the hon. Member made a speech on that occasion, in which he said that it was extremely hard
    500
    the general taxation of the country should be applied to the particular benefit of the Metropolis; and he protested against the ratepayers outside London being taxed for the sole benefit and advantage of the Metropolis. Those were the views of my hon. Friend when he had not a seat upon the Treasury Bench, and I should be very glad to see him exercising his influence now to put a stop to such a state of things, which certainly did not commend itself to my hon. Friend when he sat in this part of the House. Therefore, before the Committee goes to a division I hope we shall have the advantage of the opinion which my hon. Friend now entertains on this matter.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I must say that, in my opinion, the whole amount of the outlay paid by the State for the purpose of maintaining the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens should fall upon the Metropolis. There can be no doubt that the existence of the Parks very considerably enhances the value of property in the immediate vicinity, and I think that some plan ought to be devised for the purpose of taxing the property which is really benefited for the expense of maintaining the Parks. Upon those who enjoy the advantages they confer the cost of maintenance should be thrown.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDEES): There have been several subjects referred to in the course of the debate to which it will be hardly necessary for me to reply; in fact, I am unable to do so, because they are questions of pure detail, which do not come in any sense under my notice. I know nothing about the mortality among the trees—in Kensington Gardens, for instance—and I can say no more than that I have noticed it myself. I have certainly noticed the trees go off as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has described, and I have very much regretted it; but beyond the fact of having noticed the mortality I really know nothing. So, also, with regard to the closing of Kensington Gardens. The hon. Member says that they are opened too late and closed too early; but, if I remember rightly, that is a question which depends very materially upon the time of the year. I think it has always been the practice to close the Parks in accord-

    501
    ance with certain rules—for instance, that they should not be open before sunrise nor after sunset; but it is a question with which I am not able to deal. As to the opinions of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, all I know is that he has often addressed the House, and I believe that he entertains at the present moment the views which I also entertain on these subjects—namely, that when we come to deal with the settlement of the Metropolis in something like an intelligent manner, and when the rest of the country, so far as local affairs are concerned, has been satisfactorily arranged, it will be very much fairer that the general Parks enjoyed by the inhabitants of London should be kept out of the income of the inhabitants of London. I entirely concur in that, and I believe it is also the opinion of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury; indeed, my hon. Friend has expressed his views in that direction on more than one occasion pretty strongly. And now, with respect to the Royal Parks, allow me to say that in former years, up to a time not very long ago, the maintenance of the Parks did not fall upon the Estimates, but upon the Crown Revenue, and they were kept up without any Vote in the House of Commons; but afterwards a change was made, and instead of the expenditure in connection with the Parks being a deduction from the Revenue of the Crown Lands the gross amount of the Crown Revenue was paid into the Exchequer, and these charges were defrayed by Vote, so that they might be criticized from year to year by Parliament. That is the origin of the present arrangement, and it was formerly the practice not to defray any part of the expenditure for the Royal Parks by means of the Estimates. It was considered to be a legitimate charge upon the Crown Income; but it was ultimately thought better to pay a gross sum into the Exchequer, and impose the charges for the maintenance of the Parks upon the Estimates. I think that is a perfectly intelligible reason why the change was made; and I put it to the House that, as far as the Royal Parks are concerned, the general question raised by my hon. Friend does not apply. Now, I come to those Parks which do not stand in the same position as the Royal Parks—such as Battersea
    502
    Park Victoria Park, and Kennington Park. These have nothing to with the Crown Revenue, and I entirely agree that they should be maintained from local sources—that is to say, that the expense for maintaining them ought to be charged on the localities, and not upon the Revenues of the country. But how do hon. Gentlemen propose to carry out their views? It would seem, from what has been expressed not long ago, that the Metropolitan Board of Works, to whom hon. Gentlemen would hand over the Parks, is hardly a proper Body to be charged with the duty of controlling them. I, myself, have been much impressed with the feeling expressed, that the Metropolitan Board of Works is moribund. If that is so, I do not see how it can be said that they should be invested with further powers and further duties; indeed, I think there has been a very strong opinion expressed against giving any further duties to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Well, Sir, there is at present no other authority who can take over the Parks but the Metropolitan Board of Works. So that it comes to this—that within a few weeks of its having been declared by a large majority that the Metropolitan Board of Works is moribund, we shall be required to pass an Act of Parliament handing over to them the control of these Parks. Therefore, I submit this to the opinion of the Committee—that it would not be wise to add to the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works at the present time; and, consequently, that it would not be proper for us to pass, during the present Session of Parliament, an Act handing over these Parks to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Further, holding as I do the opinion that, under the settlement which must soon take place, the Parks should be under the control of a Body fairly representing the Metropolis, I deprecate their being handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works; and I ask the Committee, pending the arrangements to be made, to vote for the amount of this Estimate.
    MR. RYLANDS: I should like to make a few remarks upon this Vote in connection with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, because I think, with all respect for his great ability, that he has put this case before the Committee

    503
    in a manner which is likely to divert the minds of hon. Members from the real facts of the case. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Revenues of Crown property has nothing whatever to do with the question raised by the Amendment before the Committee. It is true the expenditure on the Parks, which before came from the Revenue of Crown property, has been put upon the Estimates, but the fact remains that the Parks are still Crown property; but I entirely dispute the deduction which the right hon. Gentleman would draw from that fact—namely, that it makes them occupy a position entirely different to the ordinary branches of expenditure. Before the time when the income of the property was handed over to the Exchequer a certain sum of money was devoted to the expenditure on the Parks; and my right hon. Friend says, no doubt truly, that it was thought better that that expenditure, instead of being hidden as it were by being deducted from the Crown Revenue, should be placed on the Estimates, and the larger sum brought to the credit of the Crown. But that, Sir, is no reason why we should not deal with the expenditure, as well as with any other charge upon the taxpayers of the country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows very well that formerly the charges for the Diplomatic Service were paid in the same way; because the expenditure in connection with it was considered an affair of the Crown. The Foreign Ministers being Representatives of the Crown, Parliament did not vote their salaries; but it was decided that that large expenditure should no longer be concealed from the House of Commons, and accordingly a Vote was taken, and appeared in the Estimates. And, therefore, I maintain that we are just as much entitled to say, with regard to this expenditure on National Parks, that the cost of their maintenance shall fall upon the London ratepayers, as we have to say that the London ratepayers ought to support Battersea Park and others, and to say that we will no longer vote this money. If this Vote is refused, what would be the result? Why, it would be absolutely necessary to deal with the matter in some way or other, and legislation on the subject must follow, which would bring the cost of
    504
    maintenance of the Parks on the population of the City of London. That would be putting the burden upon those who ought to bear it—that is to say, upon those who are immediately interested in maintaining the Parks, and taking it off those who are not immediately interested in maintaining them. Therefore, I trust hon. Members will have no difficulty whatever in voting against this expenditure, not for the purpose of doing away with the Parks, but in order to impress upon the Government to take such steps as may be necessary to throw the charge for maintaining them upon the right shoulders. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the idea of giving the matter into the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, then I would point out that, at the present time, the Office over which my right hon. Friend presides administers the Police, and that they are supported, to a large extent, out of the rates in London; and I say to my right hon. Friend that if he will undertake to administer the Parks also, I, for one, will give him my support.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: It is all very well for hon. Members from the country to contend that the cost of maintaining these Parks should fall upon the London constituencies; but I should like to place before the Committee the view which the London constituencies take of this subject. Well, Sir, the London constituencies are of opinion that London is badly treated, both by the Government and the House of Commons, in this matter. First of all, London is the only large town in the Kingdom which has not a system of Municipal Government; and, therefore, I say that it is very unreasonable that you should try to throw the cost of maintaining these Parks upon London, at a time when they are not under the control of the people of London. At the present moment, the people of London have no more to do with controlling the expenditure for maintaining the Parks than the people of Bradford have. I think it would be right that the management of all the Parks should be thrown upon the great London Municipality which I hope will be created next year, and then I trust that a proper rate will be made upon the houses in the localities benefited by them. I say that it is not right to throw

    505
    on the whole Metropolis the expenditure for Hyde Park, which is practically only enjoyed by persons who live within a limited area at the West End. In my opinion, there should be district rates for the maintenance of the Parks levied according to the districts which are benefited by them; and until that is done I think that the poorer districts of London, which are already overburdened with rates, have a right to say that we have no business to throw the expenditure upon them. My contention is, that, first, we should have an intelligent Body to control the London Parks; and, secondly, to apportion the expenditure upon them amongst those who ought to pay for them, because they benefit by them; and, as I have said, until that is brought about you have no right to say that the cost should be borne by the people of London. An hon. Member has referred to the Park at Bradford, and the Park at Manchester has also been referred to in support of the contention that the cost of maintenance should be thrown upon the localities; but I would remind the Committee that those Parks are under the control of Municipal Bodies and District Authorities, who can lay down rules with regard to them. The Royal Parks, on the other hand, are under the management of Rangers and other officers, who in no way consult the wishes of the people upon whom it is now proposed to throw the cost of maintenance; and I say it is unfair that the people of the Metropolis should be called upon to pay, as long as the control of the Parks remains in the hands of these officers. Such a proposal is contrary to all fairness, and, moreover, opposed to all the principles of legislation of late adopted in this House; and, therefore, I say it is the duty of Metropolitan Members to support the Vote as it stands upon the Estimates.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I should like, on this Vote, to say that, in common with others on these Benches, I regard the suggestion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that the cost of maintaining the Royal Parks should be thrown upon the Metropolis, as amounting very nearly to a breach of faith. As we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, the Royal Parks were the property of the
    506
    Crown. It was the same with the Royal Palaces, and, just as the Sovereign of the time allowed some Palaces to be occupied by Members of the Royal Family and others, the Sovereign allowed the Parks to be used by his faithful people. When the new arrangement came into operation the Royal Parks were handed over, like the Royal Palaces, to be maintained by Parliament; and as Parliament has accepted the Revenues of the Crown, so it is bound to pay for the Parks in the same way as it pays for the Palaces. The Parks were gifts of the Sovereign to the Metropolis, and as the nation has chosen to accept the Revenues of the Crown with regard to them, it is bound, in my opinion, to preserve those gifts. Of course, Sir, this is a defence of the principle under which the Royal Parks are maintained by Parliament, and it does not apply to the outlying Parks, such as those at Battersea and Kennington. If this Amendment goes to a division, I shall, however, vote against it, because I think it would be a great mistake to disturb the existing arrangements; but if any new Parks are made for London, Parliament should watch very closely any attempt to throw the expense of maintenance on Imperial funds. With regard to the suggestions of the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid), it seems to me perfectly right that if the Metropolis has to pay for the Parks it ought to have some voice in their management; but I think it would be very unfair if, as I understand the hon. Gentleman desires, the management of the Parks should rest with the large Municipality to be created some time or other by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, while the expense of maintaining them is borne alone by the districts in which they are situated. That proposal seems to me to be a confusion of two principles, centralization and decentralization.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I am gratified to hear that the views which I maintained when I sat below the Gangway are maintained there now, and that hon. Members who sit there are faithful to those views. I am not going to recede from a single opinion which I formerly held on those Benches; but, unfortunately, in those days I was as a voice crying in the

    507
    wilderness, and upon the Amendments which I carried to a division the House of Commons more than once came to an opposite conclusion to that which I desired. Well, Sir, the Committee has had the Provincial view of this question stated by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and my hon. Friend the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) has put the Metropolitan view; the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has stated the Treasury view and the view of the Government as to the best way of dealing with this question; while what I may call the high Tory view of the case has been laid down by the noble Viscount who has just spoken. Under the circumstances, the decision rests with the Committee.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I would ask those hon. Members who wish the charges for the Royal Parks to be thrown on the dwellers in London to answer this question—of what use are those Parks to the men of the poorer classes, and their wives and families, who live at a distance of a mile or a mile and a-half from them? They cannot use them, any more than those who live in Yorkshire, and therefore should not be rated to pay for them. I ask what is the area upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite demand that the charges for the maintenance of these Parks should fall? There is another point that I wish to bring under the notice of the Committee. The sums charged for Parks under this Estimate are not alone for London Parks. There are charges for Holyrood Park and Linlithgow Peel in Scotland. It seems to me a monstrous thing to put the charge for the Royal Parks upon the poor ratepayers and working-men of London alone, while the whole country gets the benefit of the Revenues derived from the Crown Lands of which they form a part.
    MR. MOULTON[Cries of "Divide!"]: I shall not stand between the Committee and the division for more than a few minutes, because, after all that has been said, I think the subject of the maintenance of the Royal Parks has been threshed out. But, as a Metropolitan Member, I wish to say that I thoroughly sympathize with the principle that the Metropolis ought to bear its own burdens, and be proud of bear-
    508
    ing them; and, holding that opinion, I desire to explain why it is that I intend to vote with the Government on this question. I am somewhat amused by the conduct of hon. Members from the country, who, while they are willing enough to vote public money in aid of local institutions, are very active in their opposition whenever it becomes a question of their having to contribute to anything of the kind in London. But I should like to ask them whether they think it right that the people of the Metropolis should be called upon to pay for an expenditure on Parks, the amount of which is entirely beyond their control? If those hon. Members will assist us in getting the interests and privileges of the people of the Metropolis placed in their own hands, it will be found, I think, that the whole of the Metropolitan Members will most cheerfully support them on the question that London should bear its own burdens. But until that is effected, and so long as the people of London are in the position of not being trusted with the control of their own destinies, I think they ought to bear some portion of this expenditure, which it is beyond their power to control.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I only wish to make a few remarks, for the purpose of assisting the Committee in coming to a decision on this Vote. There is a good deal more to be learned of the conditions on which the Royal Parks are held than is apparent. A large sum of money was undoubtedly voted for the creation of Regent's Park; but the revenue derived from houses round the Park is paid into the Consolidated Fund. If you take the case of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, you will also find the ground on which a row of houses is built was taken out of the original area, the revenue from which is paid into the Consolidated Fund. I mention these circumstances simply for the purpose of showing that there is another side of the question. As a Metropolitan Member, I am prepared to admit that the Metropolis should bear the charges which properly fall upon it; but I desire to point out that a division adverse to the Vote would not settle this question, and that there is involved in it a vast amount of change which I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared for. If the Metropolitan Bodies are to take charge of the Royal Parks,

    509
    without going into details I may say that arrangements would have to be made of greater magnitude than hon. Members probably have any idea of. I am convinced that when the Committee is brought face to face with all the circumstances the question will be found to be a very difficult one. If the Parks were the property of the Metropolis, it would, of course, have the right to do what it liked with them; but in dealing with this question other questions would come forward; and, therefore, I hope that the Committee will not hastily adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 114: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 28.)
    (4.) £47,865, Houses of Parliament.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Courtney, we have not yet disposed of the Vote for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): The Committee has just decided that a reduced sum be granted to Her Majesty for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens; and, therefore, the Vote has been disposed of.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I venture to ask a question relating to procedure; and it is whether there could not be some way of putting Votes by which subsequent Amendments may be proposed?
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It is too late to raise that question now.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am sorry that I have again this Session to raise a question which I have frequently raised in previous Sessions of Parliament, and that is the great want of accommodation in this House for the convenience of its Members. I raise the question again in this Session of Parliament with all the more confidence, because the circumstances of Parliament are very different from what they were in previous Parliaments. For one reason, we have a larger attendance and a more constant attendance of hon. Members than we have ever had before. I am afraid that the vote which has just
    510
    been given will cause some searchings of heart, especially to Members of the Government, as to whether this attendance is altogether an unmixed pleasure. Well, as a matter of fact, the attendance of hon. Members is far greater than ever; and the Irish Members are not now the only section of the House, as they were in previous Parliaments, who practically make the House of Commons their dwelling-place for the greater part of the day. I find that now a much larger number of hon. Members dine here than did formerly. The dinner hour, in the old sense of the word, has been practically abolished, and we have a large attendance and excited debates even in those weary intervals during which sometimes the Speaker, or Chairman of Committees, and the hon. Member who is airing his grievances, are the only occupants of the House. All these things mean that the inconveniences of this House press more seriously upon a large number of Members than they formerly did; and, therefore, I think I may now put forward my claim for better convenience with far more potency than I could on previous occasions. Now, my first charge against the House of Commons is the badness of its atmosphere. I understand that the scientific authority who has charge of the arrangements of the House maintains that the arrangements are perfection themselves. All I can say is this—that my experience is that after about two or three hours' attendance in the House, however fresh I may have felt at the beginning, my brain becomes—I can only express my exact meaning in a good Irish phrase—moidhered by the atmosphere. I may explain that moidhered means confused, bewildered, and a number of other things for which I cannot find a word in the Saxon tongue, owing to the smallness of the vocabulary. The reason is, that this House is kept too hot. [Sir HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: No.] I hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Durham say "No." I hope he will not suppose I have him in mind in connection with what I am about to say; because I know no man who is in spirit more juvenile than my hon. and gallant Friend. This House and all its arrangements were made on the supposition that Members of Parliament were always elderly men. Well, we have changed all that. It is

    511
    like a great many other things. The day of exclusively elderly Members of Parliament has passed, never to return. Well, this House is kept too warm, and the result is that, if a man spends four or five hours in it, he is not half the man he came into it. I do not know that the atmospheric effect of the House upon its Members has not, to some extent, been the cause of the exceedingly bad quality of the legislation adopted from time to time. My second charge against the House is, that its means of intercommunication between its different parts are most defective. Here is a startling state of things—that in offices in Fleet Street you can more easily learn what is going on in the House of Commons than you can in the Smoking Room, Cloak Room, Library, or the other apartments in the building. Here you are sitting in the Dining Room taking that scanty meal that the non-payment of Members of Parliament compels most of us to take, and just as you have started your humble chop you hear the division bell. I do not think it is the duty—necessarily the duty—of a Member of Parliament to attend every division which may take place in the House. Sometimes there are obstructive divisions, and to obstructive divisions, in the ordinary state of affairs, I am entirely hostile; accordingly, if I were dining, I would much prefer to continue my dinner than take part in an obstructive division. But I do not know whether the division is obstructive or otherwise, for I have no means of knowing what it is about. Why is it not possible, in these days of electricity and modern appliances, to have some means of sending to the Library and Cloak Room, and Smoking Room, and other parts of the building, some brief message informing us what the division is about, who are the Tellers, which is often an indication of what the division is about, and of other circumstances of that kind which it is necessary Members should know? These are the points to which I would like to call the attention of the Committee. I am glad to say that at last the Irish Party have succeeded in getting a room in which to hold their meetings. Formerly, all meetings had to be held in the Conference Room, and the result was that sometimes the teetotal advocates were found holding a conference in one-half of the room, while the friends
    512
    of the publicans were sitting in the other half. I am sure neither wished to take the other into their confidence. There is also a small matter—it is rather a matter of personal convenience than any other—which I should like to bring before the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and that is the necessity of having a few type-writers put into one of the rooms in the building. The type-writer is another of the modern inventions which the House, in its arrangements, seems to be entirely ignorant of. A good many of us are compelled to use type-writers instead of the ordinary pen and ink, and it would be a great advantage to us if a few type-writers could be placed in one of the Committee Rooms which are now unused. I trust the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to see his way to make some improvements in the directions I have pointed out.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I should like to say a word upon the question raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). I think that the condition of the House of Commons is a very remarkable one. If one desires to obtain a seat, one has to come down here about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, thereby, perhaps, neglecting other important business. It is impossible to get a place if one only comes down to the House just before Prayers. That is a very unreasonable state of affairs. I happen to have had the advantage of attending the Chamber of Deputies in France, and there I noticed that every Member has his seat. In my opinion, every English Member ought to have his seat also. It is unreasonable that Members should be required to waste many hours every day in order to be able to obtain places in the House of Commons; proper places ought to be provided for them. Now, the provision of places for every Member would involve public expenditure; but I venture to say that the constituencies would not grudge a reasonable outlay in affording proper facilities to hon. Members to discharge the duties imposed upon them. It is high time that we should have opportunities of taking places to a greater extent than we have now. Only 300 Members can be seated upon the floor of the House, and only 200 of these

    513
    can occupy places from which it is possible to address the Chair. Now that we have 670 Members, now that we have popular constituencies who expect, and have a right to expect, that their Members will attend to the work to be done, it is time the Government should consider what improved arrangements could be made in order that every Member may have proper accommodation. I am inclined to go a little further than that. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), that opportunities should be given to Members who happen to be in parts of the building other than the House of Commons, to ascertain the Business before the House. I, personally, have experienced great inconvenience from the want of intercommunication in the building. For several years I had the honour of being one of the Chairmen of the Committees that sit upstairs. Now, it very often happens that on Wednesday, when a Committee is sitting, the division bell rings, and all one knows is that a division is about to take place. One has to stop the proceedings of the Committee, and disturb the arrangements of counsel and witnesses, in order to run downstairs as hard as possible to get to the House within the two minutes allowed before the division. Now, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has very properly stated, it is not necessary that every Member should be present at every division; but now there is no means of knowing what the division is about. There ought to be some means of communicating with Members serving upon Committees and Members who happen to be in other distant parts of the building. The finding of these means devolves upon the Office of Works, and I hope they will speedily turn their attention to the subject. There is another matter which is of importance to many hon. Members. It is necessary, as I have said, to spend many hours here; we come here at 2 o'clock in the day and very often remain until 2 o'clock the following morning. Sometimes it occurs to each one of us that we may require to see somebody on business; but, at the present time, there is no place which is at all private where a Member and a friend could go to discuss business. I think some little apartments, such as the voting booths prescribed by the Ballot Act, might be provided, where Members could go with
    514
    persons to transact business. There is absolutely no convenience afforded to Members to discharge their private duties at the time they are endeavouring to do the work required of them by their constituents; consequently, I urge upon the First Commissioner of Works, or upon his deputy in the House of Commons, the necessity of providing greater facilities for Members to transact their private business while in attendance upon the House. These are matters which I have often pressed before, and I cordially join the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in the complaints he has made.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I am very glad that I am able to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) upon this subject; the want of better accommodation is very keenly felt. I support the hon. Member with peculiar pleasure; because I gather from the interest the hon. Gentleman takes in bringing about better arrangements in the House, and in securing better accommodation generally for hon. Members, he has no very great expectations of a Parliament being established in College Green, Dublin. I hope consideration will be given to the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I trust that it will be necessary to make arrangements for the accommodation of the 86 Gentlemen below the Gangway for a long time to come.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has raised a subject of considerable importance—namely, the state of the atmosphere of this House. I do not quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House is kept too warm. I think it would be exceedingly comfortable, were it not for some of the bad smells, which, in constant succession, invade the House, to the detriment of the comfort, and even the health, of Members. Last year, this question became such a very pressing one, that a Select Committee of the House was appointed to consider it, and of that Committee I had the honour to be a Member. We reported, up to a certain point. We found that the system of drainage was in a satisfactory condition, though not of the most approved construction. It is not a good

    515
    system—the drains are too large, and I should not say they are made on the very best principles of drainage; but, as far as it goes, it appears to be well worked, and we reported accordingly. There is one point which we had not an opportunity of considering before we separated, and that is where the bad smell came from. Our opinion was that it came from somewhere outside—whether from some manufactory down the Thames, or from the drainholes, which we know are open in a very offensive way, we could not say. What I would suggest is, either that the old Committee be re-appointed, or that some expert be appointed to consider the question, and endeavour to find out the origin of the smells which at times are only too painfully perceptible.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I think that this Vote affords a legitimate occasion for asking whether the time has not arrived when there should be some relaxations of the restrictions imposed, not only on the public, but upon Members of the House, after the occurrence of certain unfortunate events now a considerable time ago. I need not enumerate these restrictions. It is enough to say that some of them are vexatious, and that others put obstacles in the way of the transaction of Public Business.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I must point out that this Vote is for the buildings, and that, therefore, the hon. Member's remarks are inappropriate.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Then I will say, Sir, that I should like to know when Westminster Hall is to be once more open to the public, and when next the public will have the privilege of inspecting both Houses of Parliament on one day of the week? That was a privilege which was very much appreciated by at least those who came to London from the Provinces. I do not think there is any edifice in the Metropolis which excites a greater amount of interest on the part of our countrymen in the Provinces than this edifice does. That is an interest which should be encouraged rather than checked; and I hope it will now be felt that the time has arrived when the restrictions may be relaxed, and when the right, or privilege, formerly enjoyed by the public in visiting the
    516
    Houses of Parliament may be restored to them.
    MR. D. DAVIES: The scarcity of accommodation in the House is a matter which affects me personally. I am an old Member; but ever since the commencement of the present Parliament, I have not been able to get a seat at all upon my own side of the House. I am only an intruder on the Opposition Benches—I am, in fact, here on sufferance. I sit here, because I find that, as a rule, there is more room on this side of the House than on that; but my constituents are rather inclined to fear that I am getting a bit of a Tory, and my sitting here may have the effect of confirming in their mind that fear. My inability to find a seat upon my proper side of the House, therefore, may be a serious matter to me at the next Election. I think it is rather hard upon me. I am willing to do my duty to my constituents—they sent me here, and I find there is no seat for me. I think it is a great waste of time to come down three hours before the House meets. I think the man who goes about the place without a hat rather a fool than otherwise. I have never done, and I will not do it. I am getting older and wiser, and I shall be very much surprised if the new men who have turned us out of our places do not learn wisdom in a few months. I do not believe in the new Members. I have no doubt matters will right themselves in three or four months; but, in the meantime, we are to be punished. When I have complained of the want of a seat, I have been told I can go up to the Gallery. The other day, I heard one Gentleman speak from the Gallery; but I thought he looked rather odd. I do not want to go into the Gallery and make an ass of myself. Certainly, the inconveniences experienced are very great, and I think it is very likely they will continue. They will until there is a Dissolution; and I have got it in my mind that a Dissolution is not very far off. If I have to sit upon the Opposition Benches, it is more than likely that some of my constituents will say I am an old Tory. I only mention this, that it may go forward to my constituents that it is not my fault if I am obliged to sit on the Tory Benches.
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER,): I think I may fairly lay it down as a

    517
    general principle, that these buildings and the arrangements of the House are made for the convenience of hon. Members, and that, therefore, any representations hon. Members may make will be carefully looked into by the First Commissioner of Works. I am sure my noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) will do what he can to meet any reasonable requirement. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has complained of the atmosphere of the House. I should have thought that, considering the number of people—Members, strangers, reporters, and others—who are here night after night, the atmosphere is rather good than otherwise. I see that the average temperature is 63 degrees; but, of course, if hon. Members desire to alter the temperature, the matter is in their own hands. Personally, I think the House is kept at a very comfortable temperature. Besides, as the evening wears on, the ventilation improves, and that is to be attributed to the good management of the Ventilation Department. There are very few variations in the temperature. There may, however, be variations in the temperature of hon. Members themselves, according to the subjects under discussion, and the hour at which the subjects are taken. Such variations, of course, it is impossible to prevent. The question of intercommunication is a very important one, and I am glad it has been raised. The Committee will remember that this evening a Question was asked of me by the hon. Member for the Walthamstow Division of Essex (Mr. Buxton) with respect to increased communication, and that the answer I gave was—the matter would be fully considered. I may say that is not a mere phrase; for I am confident the First Commissioner of Works will take every step in order, if possible, to meet the requirements of hon. Members. He will, if he can, so arrange that Members in the Smoking Room or Library, or other rooms, may know what a particular division is about, or who the speaker is at any given time. As to the Tellers, I may remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that the Tellers in a division are not named until the doors are shut. It will be impossible, therefore, to communicate to Members the names of the Tellers, in time for Members in the Library, for instance, to take
    518
    part in the division. The hon. Gentleman has asked that typewriters should be provided. There is one great objection to typewriters, and it is that they make a good deal of noise. Their introduction, however, is really a matter of arrangement between the Speaker and the Librarian of the House, and if any representations are made I am sure they will be carefully considered.
    MR, T. P. O'CONNOR: I think it would be very objectionable to put typewriters in the Library, because of the noise they make. What I suggest is, that some be put in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, which are now absolutely deserted.
    MR. LEVESON GOWER: But the Librarian would have to supply them. In regard to the smells, my hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) will see, from the Estimates, that a sum of £400 is to be devoted to sanitary works. It is possible that these works may, in a minor degree, prevent the smells. I believe the bad smells complained of arise mainly from two causes—namely, the opening of a manhole of the main sewer in Parliament Street, and the burning of refuse somewhere up the river. I am not stating this as an absolute fact, but as one of the theories to explain the prevalence of these bad smells. With regard to the manhole, instructions were given in the proper quarter that the necessary means should be taken to stop the nuisance; but as to the burning of refuse up the river, it is not within the province of the House to interfere. It is rather a matter for the Inspector of Nuisances. I will not detain the Committee, but will merely add that I am sure the representations made by hon. Members either to the Office of Works or to the officers of this House will meet with every consideration.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is to be thanked for having brought on the question of the accommodation in this House. The hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. D. Davies) says the new Members are, perhaps, not better than the old ones, and that, of course, is a matter of opinion. When this House was originally made, it consisted of a different class of Members. It was a House of private Gentlemen, who thought it was not necessary to come down here

    519
    to listen to debates or to take part in divisions, except on important occasions. At present, however, the House is largely frequented by Members, and I think it is a good thing. When a man is elected, it is his business to come here to take part in divisions and discussions of all kinds. But, at the present moment, on the floor of this House there is accommodation for but one-third of the Members. What is the consequence? Why, we have to come down here to look after our seats at an early hour, and in order to secure them have to attend Prayers. ["No, no!"] An hon. Member says "No!" but I maintain that the only reason Members attend so early is to secure seats, and I will show that it is so. The hon. Member knows that the men of light and leading sit on the Treasury and Front Opposition Benches. These Gentlemen can get seats without coming to Prayers, and I never yet knew but one Gentleman, either amongst the Ministers or ex-Ministers, condescending to pray to his Maker in this House; so that when the hon. Member says "No!" he clearly confesses that he has not followed what takes place on the Front Benches. I daresay it does hon. Members good to come here to Prayers; but I assert that hon. Members not only come down at an early hour, but even attend Prayers, in order to secure seats. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who is not here, I think, tonight, has suggested that a Select Committee should be appointed to look into this matter. He has received from the Treasury Bench replies of a somewhat evasive character. I have never been able quite to understand whether this Select Committee will be granted or whether it will not; but I think the tone of the discussion this evening ought to show the Members of the Government that there is a very strong, real, and general desire on the part of Members of the House that something should be done to afford better accommodation. The feeling is that a House can be made—that acoustic science has reached a point by which it can be made—capable of containing all its Members. Such a House would not have to be very much larger than the present Chamber; and I think the change ought to be effected as soon as possible. At any rate, I do
    520
    think sufficient ground has been made out for giving consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question. I do not know who is leading the House just now—whether it is the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Heneage)—but I do trust that someone on the Front Ministerial Bench, in view of the general desire of the House that at least a Select Committee will be appointed, will declare that the Government have decided upon that step.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I quite agree with the remark made by the hon. Gentleman as to its being a primary element in the comfort of hon. Members in this House that they should be assured of proper and suitable accommodation, no matter at what time of day they may enter the House; but I do not agree with him in his opinion on his statement of fact with reference to the attendance of hon. Members at Prayers. I have seen in attendance at Prayers Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench and Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench; but, at the same time, I think it undesirable that the test of attendance at Prayers should be imposed in order that a Member may secure a seat. This question of the accommodation of Members is practically in the hands of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who is not here now, but who has taken great interest in the matter, and has already moved in it. The first step which he suggests should be taken is, that the Report of the Select Committee which sat about 10 years ago, and which thoroughly discussed this subject and considered the plans of the late Sir Charles Barry, should be printed and circulated. I myself endeavoured to obtain that Report, but was not successful, the Treasury at the time not being prepared to assent to the expense. However, the Prime Minister has consented to its being printed, and it will be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of a few days. When it has been circulated, if hon. Gentlemen think it desirable that the question should be further considered, or that other steps should be

    521
    taken, then will be the time for the Government to say what view they take with regard to it. I am sure the Government will take an interest in the matter. At the present moment they conceive that the House should not embark on any course rashly, although, at the same time, they consider that everything reasonable ought to be done to meet the convenience of hon. Members. The first Session of a new Parliament differs from all others. When the Parliament of 1880 met, the tide of attendance at first rose very high, and so continued for the first two or three months; but later on it ceased to reach the same height, and so far as the years 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885 were concerned, the accommodation provided in the House was practically found to be sufficient. Whether that be so or not, the question is both before the House and the Government, and it will be for them to decide as to what is the wisest course to take. In reference to dealing with the House as it stands, I can assure hon. Members that it is the desire of the First Commissioner of Works and the Treasury that every reasonable expenditure should be incurred to promote the comfort of hon. Members. The main point referred to to-night by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was as to some mode of intercommunication between the different parts of the House. I am entirely at one with him on the point. It seems to me ridiculous that a Member in the Lobby, in the Dining Room, the Library, or elsewhere in the building, should have no means of knowing what is going on; and I shall certainly think the inventive faculties of the Office of Works at fault if no remedy is obtained. I cannot subscribe to the opinion that the House is ill-ventilated and unhealthy. If hon. Members get headaches through bad ventilation, it is not in the House itself that the mischief is caused, but in the Lobbies, the passages, and the Library. The House, so far as ventilation and atmosphere are concerned, is one of the most delightful buildings in the Kingdom; I doubt if any other building has so completely solved the problem of ventilation and warmth. An hon. Member says it is too hot. I wish he would come and sit on the Treasury Bench; I can assure him that it is very cold here. I do not know
    522
    whether the cold air comes in from behind the Chair, or not; but certainly my complaint, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends who sit here, goes in the opposite direction to the complaint of the hon. Member. I think an atmosphere of 64 degrees is not an objectionable atmosphere; and, though we are bound to make provision for the comfort of the talented and aspiring and promising young men who have found a place in this House, we must not lose sight of the older men, whose experience is valuable, and the preservation of whose health is a matter of some importance. As to the sanitary state of the buildings, I agree that the smells are very bad indeed. They are very bad now, and have been bad the whole of this week. I have called attention to them, and am of opinion that steps should be taken to remedy the evil forthwith. I think the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Carvell Williams) called attention to the exclusion of the public from Westminster Hall. Well, that is a question with which the First Commissioner of Works and the Treasury have nothing whatever to do. It is entirely in the hands of the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the peace of the country and the public welfare. If a Question is addressed to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) on the subject, no doubt he will give an answer.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: And about access to the House?
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The regulations affecting access to the House are in the hands of the Speaker.
    MR. H. CAMPBELL: I wish to say a word as to the ventilation and atmosphere of this House, as I have had some experience of the Chamber and its surroundings. If any hon. Member wishes to satisfy himself as to the state of the atmosphere in the rooms connected with this House, and will betake himself to the Tea Room, sit down and take a cup of tea near one of the windows, or, in fact, in any part of the room, he will find himself attacked by most objectionable and dangerous draughts. You cannot sit down near one of the windows nor at the side of the room for half-an-hour, without going away with a severe cold. So much for that. Strong representations have been made here on the question,

    523
    and I hope that the authorities of the House who have charge of the matter will attend to them. If the atmosphere of this Chamber is as good as hon. Members have urged, it is as well to make that of the surrounding rooms equally perfect. With regard to the writing materials supplied to hon. Members, they are far below in quality what would be found in the poorest office in the City. Take the quality of the note paper.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: That has nothing to do with the building. It will come under the Stationery Vote.
    MR. H. CAMPBELL: I thank the House for the indulgence it has afforded me. The question of typewriters is another matter in which I and several other Members of this House are interested. I happen to use a typewriter, as several other hon. Members do; and anyone who has used one for any length of time must know that it is a great convenience to those who have enormous duties to perform. That being the case, I maintain that these representations establish the necessity of putting typewriters in some part of the building. It is said that we must go to the Librarian or the Speaker for these things; but that is clearly a method of shelving the question, as that of the supply of lockers to Members has been shelved. At present, hon. Members have no place in which to put their papers; and I think this want should be supplied. I can assure the Government that the question will be reverted to again and again, until the demand of hon. Members is satisfied.
    MR. DUCKHAM: We are called upon to pay a large sum for the restoration of Westminster Hall. The matter has been adverted to in the columns of The Times; and, as the House is aware, Mr. Dick-Peddie, a retired architect of some distinction, a Member of the Committee, strongly protested against the plans adopted, and others drew attention to the subject, and took great interest in the proceedings of the Committee which sat upon it. This is called a Vote for the restoration of Westminster Hall. I cannot imagine anything more wide of the mark than that. Those grand old flying buttresses which we can now see at the side of the Hall will be cut off, so
    524
    to speak, by the roof of the new building Part of these buttresses and the massive stone corbels from which they spring, will be underneath the ceilings of the new rooms. There will be a series of rooms constructed to be appropriated to no one knows whom or what; and underneath there are to be a lot of vaults. Whether or not, in these days of teetotalism, they are to be let out as wine vaults, I do not know; but, whatever use they are to be put to, I certainly think hon. Members ought to hesitate before they hastily sanction these works, which we know will be so costly. It is proposed to spend £35,500, and for that expenditure we shall get what will be of little or no use whatever. If a cloister were made alongside the Hall, where carriages and horses could be sheltered from the weather during the time they are waiting for Members, there would be some use in spending money rather than on the so-called restoration; but, according to the designs I have seen, the new building will be of no use to anyone. I do think that a Vote of this kind should be seriously considered before it is assented to by this Committee.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I desire to address a few remarks to the Committee in reply to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Duckham), as I was one of the Members of the Committee which dealt with the question of the restoration of Westminster Hall. The term "restoration" is, to a certain extent, misleading, as the object of the proposed plan is not exactly to restore buildings which have been on that side of Westminster Hall, but to erect some building which will be in character with the Hall. I desire to point out to new Members that this question has been most carefully considered by a Committee, and that their Report, which was nearly unanimous, was adopted by the House last Session by a very large majority, after a long debate. Moreover, the sum of £10,000 has already been voted on account. The Committee and the House approved of the plan suggested by Mr. Pearson, one of the most eminent architects of the day, and one who has devoted much time and thought to the structure and history of Westminster Abbey as well as of the Hall. It would be improper for me now to discuss the scheme; but, with

    525
    reference to the buttresses to which the hon. Member has alluded, I may state that their condition was such that it would have been impossible to have kept them in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, and the proposed treatment of them will not hide the upper part of them. As to the vaults, the hon. Member may rest assured that they will not be lot out as wine vaults. In truth, there are no vaults at all, as under the upper rooms there is only a long passage. Then the hon. Member has suggested, in lieu of the proposed building, a cloister where carriages and horses could take shelter. I would venture to ask either new Members or old Members whether such a proposal would be consistent with the beauty and dignity of such a building as Westminster Hall?
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: There are only very few lockers for the use of hon. Members. We were told to-day that a certain number will be added, and an hon. Member very properly asked whether sufficient for all Members would be supplied. The Committee would be glad to have a definite statement on that head. I myself should be glad to have a locker; but I was told that I was not one of the first to make application, and that therefore I might have to wait until the Ides of March to obtain what I want. I do not wish to wait until the Ides of March; therefore, I should like now to ask whether this accommodation will be given to all hon. Members?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In spite of what has fallen from the Secretary to the Treasury, I remain of the opinion I expressed with regard to the atmosphere of this House. It may be that the Irish physique is different to others; but the fact remains that the atmosphere to us is bad, and it affords us an additional reason for the demand for a Parliament of our own. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), I would inform him that when I complain of the atmosphere in the House it is not, as he seems to imagine, because I believe that I and my Friends will have to tolerate it much longer. That is not my idea. I do not mind telling him a secret. My opinion is that the more comfortable this House is made, the more frequently my hon.
    526
    Friends will attend, and the more frequently they attend the more frequently they will vote, and the oftener they vote the sooner there will be an end of them here. I see in the Estimate an item—"Cost of lighting by electricity the House of Commons and Offices, £460;" and another item—"Supply of oil lamps for the Committee Rooms, Lobbies, Reporters' Rooms, Residences, £1,880." Why, if the cost of electricity is so small, should we not have more of it? I think the House would be vastly improved if we had electricity in place of gas. I feel convinced that the gas overhead, above the glass roof of the House, is as largely responsible for the intolerable heat we endure as the stubborn heart of the Committee. I think electric lighting would remedy the evil of which we complain. The electric light was tried here once; I remember the night very well. I came in, and by the light of the electric lamps saw the Prime Minister standing at the Box and making a very eloquent speech. The light seemed to me to be perfectly satisfactory; I do not know why it was not continued. Some thought that it made their faces and figures a little too apparent; but I am sure the outlines of the fine Vandyck face of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) have nothing to fear from the glare of the electric light. The hon. Member, I trust, will join with me in urging the Government to substitute for the gas above our heads the cooler and more grateful illumination of electricity. In conclusion, I would say to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, if about two years hence certain events have not come to pass, and the hon. Member renews his offer of a place on the Treasury Bench, I promise to give it serious consideration.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The question of electric lighting was fully considered in the last Parliament, and there was an overwhelming consensus of opinion against it. Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who was then First Commissioner of Works, was rather anxious that the experiment should be tried; it was tried, and the House was dissatisfied with it. It was done away with. With regard to the question of heat, I have been always under the impression—though, no doubt, some hon.

    527
    Members may know more of these things than myself—that the gas is so arranged that no heat can descend from it. I have always understood the light we receive to be a reflected light. As to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid), I have to say that we are doing the best we can with reference to the lookers. We have only a limited amount of space to put at the disposal of hon. Members; but we have every reason to believe that when the available space is fully utilized, it will be found that we have a locker for each Member. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for the Leominster Division of Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) as to the restoration of Westminster Hall, I would point out that the matter was discussed in the late Parliament, that we had a debate lasting six hours upon it, and that a great division was taken in which only 40 hon. Members voted against the scheme. Having regard to the shortness of life, and the multiplicity of subjects we have to deal with in this House, I think we may regard that as a closed question.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I do not agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) with regard to the desirability of lowering the temperature of the House. If it is too hot for him let him have a private refrigerator for himself—I should not grudge him the luxury. But I do agree with him on the question of electric lighting. As to the experiment the Secretary to the Treasury refers to, it was a very partial one. It was only made one night, I think. I am told that the ladies object to gaslight—that it interferes with their complexion. I do not know if hon. Members object to electricity on that ground. However that may be, I think the experiment is worth repeating. When we tried the experiment, electricity had not made the progress in this House that it has since achieved. We had not the electric light in the Library and the side Lobbies that we have now. If anyone thinks it better to have gas for this Chamber than electricity, let him go upstairs as I have done and examine the lighting arrangements. They have as little wood as possible for fear of fire; but, small as is the amount of wood in use, the danger is great. No doubt everything is done scientifically; but I cannot believe that it is healthy to have
    528
    that extremely hot place between the roof of the building and the House. Anyone who goes upstairs and sees the extraordinary mass of light there is, must come to the conclusion that electricity would be infinitely preferable to gas.
    MR. HARRIS: I have been in many public gallaries, in many churches, and other public buildings; but I must say, wherever I have been. I have never experienced so bad an atmosphere as I have experienced in the House of Commons. It seems to me to be entirely owing to the want of having some scientific man who understands ventilation to take the subject in hand. I feel that whoever has charge of the ventilation arrangements take duties on themselves that they do not understand or know how to perform. If it is possible to get someone fully competent to deal with the matter, it would be very desirable to do so, out of consideration for the health and convenience of hon. Members.
    DR. TANNER: People have a right to take care of themselves, and always do so; and it is owing to this circumstance probably that to-night we have heard so many remarks concerning the atmosphere and temperature and ventilation and drainage of the House. Though much has been said on the subject of temperature, this interesting fact has not been remarked upon—that that temperature varies. It varies in different ways—it has done so very frequently in the course of this evening. And not only that, but everyone who sits on these Benches cannot look around without being cognizant of the fact that we are at this moment inhaling a vapour. Where does that vapour which is so detrimental to everyone who sits on the floor of this House come from? Partly it is owing to the bad system that you have at work in the House. You have air pumped up through the floor—and I would ask hon. Members to take cognizance of that—it is pumped through the floor, through some musty tarpauling arrangements which must necessarily be filled with dust. The heated air must carry up particles of dust which we must all inhale. If anyone doubts this, let him pass up from the floor of the House to the Gallery, and see what comes to pass there. The

    529
    air on the floor is not the same as it is in the Galleries. I trust the Committee will excuse me offering these few remarks; but everyone likes to look after himself, and Members of this House are second to none in that respect. Though the time may come when the Irish Members will have to leave this House—I am sure we hope it may come soon—at the same time, there is no reason why the evils that exist in the House, and which are capable of being remedied, should go on for ever.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £500, Gordon Monument.
    (6.) £192,221, Public Buildings, Great Britain.
    MR.. RYLANDS: I think this is a Vote of very serious importance, and one on which a very considerable economy may be effected by care on the part of the Treasury. Hon. Members will observe that under Sub-head C. there is a very considerable increase from £39,000 odd to nearly £18,000, an increase of nearly £8,000. Of that increase, £2,800 is charged for the rent of Dover House, Whitehall, which is proposed to be used for the accommodation of the Secretary for Scotland. It seems an extraordinary sum to pay; still, that is the charge, and it represents the value of the house which, under the late Government, was voted in this House for the Secretary for Scotland. I think the Committee might very properly desire to consider how far such an arrangement as that is justifiable. I shall be glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury why an office for the Secretary for Scotland might not have been provided in the Home Office, instead of this very large building having been provided. Considering the amount of business which is likely to come into the office, I think it will be found that a property the rental of which is £2,800, is very much in excess of that which ought to have been obtained for the purpose. I will not move the reduction of the Vote now, although it may be necessary to do so later on. There is another large increase which is for temporary offices for the Admiralty. This is an increase of £3,700, and I shall be glad to hear under what circumstances these temporary offices are required. Another large sum
    530
    is £700 a-year for the rent of No. 34, Queen Anne's Gate, and I should like to know for what purpose that house has been taken? If my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Stafford (Mr. Leveson Gower) can tell me—I should like to ask him what means were taken to determine what amount of rent ought properly to have been paid, and whether he is satisfied that the Government are not paying a very much higher sum than other persons occupying similar houses close by? Well, I have alluded to several increases in which new charges have come upon the Vote, and which I think deserve attention. I should like to make a general remark on the total sum we are called upon to pay. I would ask my hon. Friend whether it would not be possible, by thoroughly overhauling the expenditure under these different heads, to materially diminish the charge under this Vote? I know that there is a disposition in Public Departments to get accommodation of this kind without considering the cost; but it appears to me that a considerable reduction might be made in the total sum of £44,383 now charged for the rent of offices, especially if some of the unoccupied rooms, of which there are many, in the House of Commons were utilized. The late Commissioner of Works was of the opinion that some of these rooms might be so used, instead of remaining, as they were at present, altogether useless. I shall be glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the Government will do something in regard to these matters.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I agree to some extent with the observations of my hon. Friend in regard to these rents, and I should be glad to see my way to get rid of some of them. With regard to the particular question of the sum of £3,700 for the house in Northumberland Avenue, and the £700 for No. 34, Queen Anne's Gate, those are offices or premises taken for the use of the Admiralty pending the rebuilding of the Admiralty Offices in Whitehall. Having regard to the position of those buildings, I do not think that any mistake was made in regard to the rents which are to be paid. I will not go into the subject of the new Admiralty Offices, because it was promised that Notice should be given when the discussion of that matter

    531
    is to be taken. In reference to the rent I paid for Dover House, I am not going to defend that at all. My impression is that the taking of this house for Scotch business is an indefensible arrangement altogether, and the rent paid, amounting to £2,800, I consider to be an extravagant expenditure. I find, with regard to Ireland, that the amount paid for the Irish Office, where, with all due respect to Scotland, there is quite as much business transacted as at the Scotch Office, is only £550 a-year; and I think that suitable offices might have been obtained for the Secretary for Scotland at a rent somewhere between this amount and the large sum now paid for it. It was not the intention of the late Liberal Government to appropriate Dover House for such a purpose; and I can assure the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that the placing it at the disposal of the Secretary for Scotland is a temporary arrangement, and the matter will be further considered. If the opinion of the Committee should coincide with that of the hon. Member, that the sum is too large, the Government will do their best to carry out the wishes of the Committee. The rent of the houses in Queen Anne's Gate is mixed up with the greater question of the new Admiralty Offices, and I do not think the premises could have been obtained at a lower rent. The rent was fixed by the Board of Works, and I think the hon. Member may rest assured that the sum paid is the market value. In regard to the general Vote, I may say that a great number of public buildings are included in the amount. We have done all in our power to keep it down to as low a figure as possible; and I do not think that we could have done any more consistently with the actual exigencies of the Public Service.
    CAPTAIN VERNEY: The Vote which I wish to call attention to is the Vote relating to Menai Bridge. I refer to Vote 8, which deals with the ordinary repairs of asphhalte and roadways. I wish the Committee to consider the peculiar position of the Menai Bridge; because, with the exception of the railway tubular bridge, it is the only means of getting from the Island of Anglesey to the mainland, the ferries being made use of only in favourable circumstances. It connects two counties, and, in my opinion, is a great
    532
    national work, and the responsibility for it is much too important a matter for it to be handed over to the authorities of the two counties; and therefore it remains as a great Government work. Well, the tolls upon this bridge are quite unreasonable, and inflict a great injury upon the counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon, especially as the bridge is largely used by tourists, who come to view the beautiful scenery which abounds in its neighbourhood. The tourists drive up to one end of the bridge and leave their carriages because of the heavy tolls. I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to consider the question of this burden of heavy tolls which fall upon those living in the neighbourhood of the bridge. A small carriage with four wheels, such as tourists generally use, is charged 1s. to cross the bridge. That is a heavy tax for a miserable one-horse carriage to pay for crossing; but if there are two horses, the charge is 2s. What we want the hon. Member to consider is, whether he will not let the toll be a uniform one of 6d. per horse. There is a gentleman living in the neighbourhood of the bridge, who drives a "random tandem" — three horses in a row—and he is only called upon to pay 6d. for crossing, because his trap has only two wheels. This is a very important matter to all in North Wales. I believe that if the tolls were reduced the bridge would be much more used than it is at present; and I trust that some hope will be held out to us that these matters will be put in a more favourable position.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I hope the Committee will apply to Wales the same principle which it has applied to London. The proposition of the hon. and gallant Member is, that the care of this bridge, which is a local matter, and any loss sustained in its maintenance, shall be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. Now, I should like to point out that this bridge was built out of loans advanced by the Government; and without going into details at too great a length, I may mention that on the 31st of March, 1885, the principal debt due to the Government was £231,498, and there was an accumulation with interest of £471,307, making a total liability in respect of the bridge of

    533
    £702,805. Now, the tolls of which my hon. and gallant Friend complains have amounted since 1873 to £18,510, and it has cost the Government during that period £10,800. In that sum there is no charge for interest, but only for actual working, and our net profit on this bridge has been only £641 per annum. In 1881 an offer was made to the Local Authorities of Anglesea and Carnarvon to hand over the bridgs on payment of a lump sum, but the offer was declined by both counties; and, under these circumstances, my hon. and gallant Friend comes and asks us to make a still further reduction in the tolls. However, I can hold out no hope that the Government will consent.
    MR. BAKER: I was rising for the purpose of drawing attention to the very same facts which have been mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Fowler) when the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Verney) interposed. I should like to refer for one moment to the question of Dover House. The rent certainly does seem an enormous one for the purpose to which the premises are going to be applied; and if we pass the Vote now, we shall be relying upon the promise of the hon. Member that such a sum for the Office of the Secretary for Scotland will not appear again in any future Estimates.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: I wish to call attention to this sum of £32,000, which is put down for the purchase of premises in Staple Inn for the accommodation of the Patent Office. Staple Inn is a property belonging to a Society of a very ancient character, established in order to increase the knowledge of the law. The gentlemen who had control over it, instead of continuing its existence so as to promote legal education and to continue legal institutions, thought proper to allow their numbers to gradually decrease, and then to appropriate the corporate property to their own personal advantage. Her Majesty's Government have now purchased a portion of the property which has been misappropriated. I should like to have some explanation as to the circumstances under which the purchase has been made, in order that some light may be thrown on the transaction to which I have referred; and I should like some information as to the way in which the price to be paid has been
    534
    arrived at. I am informed that the total price of the whole Inn, when the Governing Body disposed of it, was something like £60,000 or £70,000; and although I do not know how much of it the Government have now bought, £32,000 certainly seems a large price to pay for a portion. I should like to know also what the Government propose to do as to the title to this property—whether, in the investigation of the title, they can look into the misappropriation of which I complain?
    MR. TOMLINSON: I should like to ask the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) what he meant by his remarks in regard to Dover House? He has told us that the Secretary for Scotland can be housed more cheaply, and that the present arrangement is only to be temporary. However that may be, his statement seemed to me to be left somewhat in obscurity as to whether Dover House is eventually to be used for Public Office purposes at all, or whether it is going to be turned back into the position of a private residence. I cannot help thinking that, whatever happens, we should have an assurance from the Government that this house, which is so well situated for public purposes, shall not be allowed to go into private occupation again.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I think that the case which has recently been made out, in regard to the expenditure on London and the country, is very much strengthened by this Vote. Here there is a large expenditure, and nearly all of it expended on London. I wish to say this on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that he recognizes the observations which were made by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) as a distinct pledge that this question of Dover House will be looked into by the Government during the year, with a view of seeing that the country is not subjected to so heavy a charge as £2,800 a-year for the purpose of providing an office for the Secretary for Scotland.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERS: I should like to ask whether these are not the facts in regard to the Menai Bridge? It is true that it has cost a great deal of money; but was it not originally constructed with the view of completing an expeditious

    535
    military route to Ireland; and is it not maintained to enable us to move troops rapidly should occasion require? If that is so, it is not quite fair that the burden of the cost should be thrown upon the two poorest counties in Wales. It is distinctly a road constructed and maintained for Governmental purposes; and, therefore, I think the burden of its maintenance ought to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. I want to know, also, why we should be called upon to pay for improvements to Aberdeen University and Marischal College? I do think it is shabby that the richest of the Three Kingdoms, Scotland, should come upon the English Exchequer for repairs in their Universities, and for large subventions to their institutions. The Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester pay their own way; and I do not think it is fair that this House should be called upon to pay for these trivial things, and I think that they ought to be resisted. I want to know why windows erected in Marischal College should be charged to the Imperial Exchequer?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I cannot say for what purpose the Menai Bridge was originally required. In reference to the Scotch Universities, the question involves a very old story and a very old bargain, when the Crown undertook to supply the Universities with certain necessaries. As to Dover House, I can assure hon. Members, who are anxious on the subject, that the Government have not the slightest intention of parting with it. It is far too valuable a property, and far too valuable a site; but what I wished to point out was that £2,800 a-year was to high a rent to pay for the offices of the Scotch Department. I do not know what the judgment of the Government will be, but they will certainly consider the necessity of paying £2,800 a-year for an office for the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to Staple Inn, I am not able to discuss the question as to whether the authorities at that Institution were justified or not in selling their property, and whether or not they ought to have appropriated the proceeds to legal education. All I can say is this—that before they part with their money, the Government will take care that they have a good
    536
    title to the property. The question is, whether we are giving a proper price, when we are giving £32,000 and when the present rental is £1,575 a-year? The purchase was negotiated by a very eminent surveyor, and he was satisfied that the property was well purchased at the sum of £32,000.
    MR. J. WILSON: In regard to Dover House, it is proper to remind the Committee that not only the business of the Secretary for Scotland, but the entire business of the Lord Advocate is done there. In short, the entire business of Scotland, both legal and civil, is done there. It is said that the rent is a very high one; but hon. Members may know that rents are all high in the neighbourhood of Whitehall. I trust that the business of the Scotch Department will not be removed from Dover House, and that it will not be relegated, as it has been in the past, to some back lobby in a top flat. I find that the Receiver in Bankruptcy pays £2,400 for his office, and yet the Committee begrudge this £2,800 for the entire business of Scotland. I have been surprised to hear hon. Members object to the appropriation of Dover House to the business of Scotland, on the ground that the cost to the "English" Exchequer would be large. I submit, however, that surely Scotland has as great a claim upon the Exchequer as England; and hon. Members may rest assured that when Scotland gets one small quantum out of the Exchequer, it gets nothing more than it has paid for. I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Lord Advocate in his place (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). I am sorry he was not here sooner; but I should like to ask him his opinion as to what better use Dover House could be put to, now that it has been adapted to its purpose as the office of the Scotch Department?
    VISCOUNT WOLMER: I see that there is a charge for the maintenance and lighting of Westminster Bridge. Now, it appears to me that these matters ought to be paid for out of the rates of London, and not out of the national finances. As a county Member, I cannot see why the country should be called upon to pay for the lighting of these parts for the benefit of the population of London. I believe that there is to be another bridge built

    537
    below London Bridge; but I do not know that they are going to ask us to pay for the lighting of it out of the general rates of the county.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I wish to ask the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury for information with regard to two items in this Estimate. The first has reference to the repairs of the fabric of Glasgow Cathedral, for which there is a charge of £400. I assume that the case of Glasgow Cathedral differs from that of others, as being under the control of Her Majesty's Board of Works; and if that example be followed it will form a useful precedent for legislation in future. I should like to know if this Vote appears on the Estimates for the first time, or whether the total Vote has received the sanction of the House at a previous time? I would also ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any property, by the revenue of which the Cathedral benefits? My second question has reference to the item of £3,100 for ordinary repairs and maintenanance of Public, Ecclesiastical, and Collegiate buildings, Scotland. I should like to know whether these are in the same position as Glasgow Cathedral—that is, are they under the control of the Board of Works?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I am sorry that I was not in my place when the Committee were discussing the question of Dover House; but, after the speech of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. John Wilson), I think I ought to say something on the subject. When the Secretary for Scotland was appointed, I quite considered, being then the Lord Advocate of Scotland, that the appointment was made in order to give greater dignity and effect to the interests of Scotland in the country and in this House; and as the Secretary for Scotland then appointed was, at the time, suffering badly from gout, I was left in the position of doing the best I could for Scotland in this matter. I was told that it was impossible to get Dover House, and I accordingly inquired as to other houses which we might be able to get, and I must say that the only alternatives were three rooms in Richmond Terrace, or an upper flat above a new post-office somewhere in the slums of Covent Garden. I do not think that any Member for Scotland will say that
    538
    either of these would afford fitting accommodation for the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate; and I venture to concur with the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh that the discomfort to which former Lord Advocates and those connected with them were subjected in the Home Office was not to be faced again, unless absolutely necessary. I do not think either the three rooms in Richmond Terrace or the flat above the post-office in Covent Garden were suitable for the accommodation of the Department, and the best proof of that is, as I am able to state to the Committee, that not a single hole or corner in Dover House remains unoccupied at the present moment; indeed, some of the staff there are unreasonably crowded. I must say a word also on the subject of the Education Department. At the time when I was Lord Advocate, I had to pay a visit to my friend, Mr. Craik, in the Department, and I venture to assure the Committee that no sanitary officer could have inspected the rooms in which the Scotch Education Department was located, and done anything else than condemn them as absolutely unfit for any person to carry on business in, having regard to its size, and considering that this gentleman had to receive numbers of persons on business, and occasionally deputations, in the course of the day. But, in point of fact, there was no other accommodation to be got, except that which I have referred to—the three rooms in Richmond Terrace, the 10 or 12 rooms in the slums of Covent Garden, and Dover House. But I will tell the Committee something more. It was not intended, and I hope that it is not intended now, that Dover House should be made into a source of gain to the State by taking rent for it. The intention was to turn it into a residence for a Minister of State. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but I venture to say that this a correct statement. The intention of the Government was on this occasion changed, and intentions may change also with a change of Government. As I have stated to the Committee, so it was stated to me. It was thought proper for the State to expend a very large sum of money in order to make Dover House a fit residence for a Minister of State. The in-

    539
    tention was to transfer the Scottish Office to the house to be vacated by the Minister of State. That was the state in which matters were when I succeeded in having the Scottish Office placed in Dover House. I hear it is now proposed to locate the Scottish Office in a house at about £300 a-year rent. I do not care much about the amount of the rent.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: No such statement was made as to locating the Scottish Office in a house of £300 a-year rent. What was stated in the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, that the present Government considered £2,800 to be a very high rent to pay for the Scottish Office, and that they would consider the whole question; but there was no mention of a rent of £300 a-year.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be angry with me. I took it that when the sum of £300 was mentioned to me by my hon. Friends near me, that that was a kind of money estimate which they formed from the tone in which the subject was spoken about by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I can assure him that Dover House affords no very considerable amount of accommodation. I do not know what the present Secretary for Scotland and the present Lord Advocate may feel, but the late Secretary and the late Lord Advocate would not have accepted the kind of accommodation offered to them at all. Now, whatever may be in the future with regard to Dover House, I have only to repeat what I have said already, that if any persons imagine that Dover House can be placed in a fit position to be the residence of anyone who would take a house of that size and distinction, without a very large expenditure, representing the rental of the building for a great number of years, they are very much mistaken. That house could never be made fit for a residence such as I have described without being practically gutted. If the Government are prepared to face that outlay, and get another office for the Scottish Department, then let them do so. I do not know whether Gentlemen opposite will receive any information from me on the subject; but some practical Members say the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh will bear me out when I venture
    540
    to assure the Committee that they cannot make Dover House a fit residence, in order to get a rent from it, without a very large expenditure indeed. If the Scottish Office is driven out of Dover House, it will be a matter of very great regret to the Members for Scotland on whichever side of the House they may sit, and it will also be a matter of very great regret to the Scottish people. I beg that it may be remembered that the buildings occupied by the Irish Office are very much larger and higher rented than Dover House; and if it is necessary to appoint a Secretary for Scotland to give dignity to the business of Scotland, I think it proper that the Department should be suitably housed. I do not say that if you can get room elsewhere for the Department, and for the deputations which they will have to receive occasionally from Scotland, it may not be desirable to make a change; but I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, that to make a change which would once more degrade the Scottish Offices to the condition in which they were for a great many years before they were established at Dover House, would be a great mistake as regards the popularity of the Government, and also as regards the feelings of the Scottish people. We are not so easily roused as our Friends from Ireland; but we have some feeling that we ought to be treated with respect, and I hope hon. Members for Scotland will do their duty in preventing the removal of the Scottish Offices.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not see why there should be any opposition to the Vote. We know that the rent of houses is very high in London. There are at St Anne's Gate three houses, the rent of which is £3,200 per annum, and which certainly have not as much room in them as in Dover House, at the rent of £2,800 a-year. But I do not think the Committee quite realizes the fact that Dover House belongs to the nation already, and that in paying the rent we are simply taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. I think there was a general idea expressed in the newspapers, that it was desirable to use this house as a residence for the First Lord of the Treasury, but it did not go beyond a general idea. Now we are asked to oppose this Vote, or, at any rate, it is suggested

    541
    that the Vote is wrong, because this house costs so much money. But what would hon. Gentlemen do with it? If the house were not used for the Scotch Offices, the Government would use it for the Admiralty. In point of fact, situated as it is, we could never think of reletting it. You want a Scotch Office, and you have the Scotch Office there, and I do not think, with every wish to practise economy, that it is too much money to take, if we are to have a Scotch Office at all.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am sure that Scotch Members entirely sympathize with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) in his anxiety that the Scottish Department should be well and properly housed. I do not know the value of Dover House, or whether any house more suitable for the Scottish Office can be found; but I do expect that care will be taken that the Department will in every way be suitably established.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has not replied to my questions about Glasgow Cathedral.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The Vote of £400 for repairs to the fabric of Glasgow Cathedral is in addition to the sum of £500 already voted. The repair of the Cathedral is under the control of the Board of Works.
    MR. JACKS: I think if the hon. Gentleman will only consider the amount of taxation which Scotland pays as compared with the money expended on Scotland, I feel sure that he will not find fault with expenditure for Dover House. I have had occasion to visit Dover House since I had the honour of a seat in Parliament, and I am of opinion that it does not constitute at all an extravagant provision for the requirements of the Scotch Department. In point of fact, I think the officials have every claim to the accommodation which it affords.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I think I ought to answer the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate as to the intention of a for-
    542
    mer Government with reference to Dover House. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Administration, it was my duty to look into the question with a view to its being adopted as a residence for the Prime Minister. We came, however, to the conclusion that, although Dover House under its former tenancy was a good London house, it would not make a satisfactory residence for the Prime Minister. It was necessary that in the Prime Minister's residence there should be proper rooms for the Cabinet, and that the Prime Minister's own Secretaries should be accommodated. Those requirements were not fulfilled in Dover House, and we therefore came to the conclusion that it would not form a suitable residence for the Prime Minister. As to whether the Scotch Offices should be located in the building, I will offer no opinion; but considering the proximity of Dover House to the other Offices, I think it would be unwise to let it again. I think the late Government came to a wise conclusion in not using it as a residence for the Prime Minister.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The few words I have to say upon this Vote have no reference to Scotch matters. There is under Subhead A a charge for various alterations, new fittings, and the completion of works now in progress, amounting to £5,687, on account of the Royal Courts of Justice; and under Sub-head B a charge also on account of the Royal Courts of Justice of £24,575 for various purposes, including ventilation. This is, no doubt, intended to cover the cost of ventilation; but, as a matter of fact, the Royal Courts of Justice are not ventilated. Anyone who goes to them is aware that there are still many things to be done there in the way of ventilation. I have experienced what is the condition of the atmosphere which has to be passed through in order to get to the Courts, and what it is in the Courts themselves. The air in the corridor is not so bad as in the Courts, where it is exceedingly unpleasant, and one requires strong nerves to escape unpleasant consequences. The atmosphere in the morning is bearable, but in the afternoon it is positively poisonous. I would refer to the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Mellor), who, I am sure, will be prepared to

    543
    endorse what I say. Last year there was the sum of £1,962 unexpended under Sub-head A, which was returned to the Treasury, and if the Government are in difficulty as to how they can spend that money, I venture to say that they could not better expend it than in ventilating the Courts of Justice.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I understand from what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that it was resolved that Dover House should not be used as a residence. I am also in a position to say—whether the decision originated with the late Government or not — that Dover House was inspected with the view of ascertaining whether it was suitable as a residence for the Prime Minister, and whether it was suitable as a residence for the Scotch Minister, and the late Government came to the conclusion that it was quite unsuitable.
    DR. CAMERON: There is an amount of £1,500 for additional accommodation that may be required for vaccination stations. The provision seems to be a very large one, and I call attention to that Vote because it is one of those cases in which grants-in-aid are given in England, without any corresponding grant being made to other parts of the Kingdom.
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER): In answer to the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), I have to say that £200 is included in the charge for alterations at the Royal Courts of Justice for the purpose of ventilation, and the work contemplated will, I hope, be found to remove the inconvenience of which the hon. Member complains. Of course, if the result is not satisfactory, the subject will come before the Commissioners of Works, and I am sure that in that case everything will be done to remove the defect. With respect to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Doctor Cameron), the charge he refers to is to carry out a general arrangement for providing vaccination stations, in order that pure lymph may be obtained for vaccination purposes throughout the country.
    DR. CAMERON: I think my hon. Friend who has just spoken is rather
    544
    mistaken in his answer with regard to vaccination. However, I will not pursue the question now, as I may have an opportunity of raising it hereafter.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The item of £1,500 is purely for additional accommodation that may be required for public offices during the present year. The amount is estimated on the basis of previous years. The expenditure last year was between £1,100 and £1,200. The amount in question is taken to enable the Treasury to have funds in hand to meet expenses. It has nothing to do with vaccination.
    Mr. T. H. BOLTON: I gather from what has been said by the hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury that very little is intended to be done in the way of ventilation to the Royal Courts of Justice. I wish to say that in my opinion it is necessary that attention should be paid to this matter. The rooms attached to the Courts, the Courts themselves, and the corridors are very badly ventilated, and there is no doubt that something must be done to remedy the evil complained of. Certainly a larger sum than £200 will be necessary to correct the defective ventilation at the Courts of Justice.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I venture to think that we are taking up rather too much time on this Vote in discussing the small matter of ventilation, and I propose that we should proceed to pass the Vote. At the same time, I take the opportunity of replying to the appeal of the ex-Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) by saying that, with all regard for the glory of Scotland, I wish to be as careful about voting money for Scotland as for any other part of the Kingdom, and I venture to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Scotland's glory can scarcely be kept up by means of expensive buildings in London.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £19,060, Furniture for Public Offices, Great Britain.
    (8.) £227,464, Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.
    (9.) £29,150, County Court Buildings.
    (10.) £6,370, Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.
    (11.) £9,360, Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
    (12.) £258,000, Surveys of the United Kingdom.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) how this Survey is going on, what position we are in, in how many counties the Survey is still unfinished, and whether we may yet expect, as we were led to expect last year and the year before, that the Survey will be completed in a shorter time than it was originally intended? I think it was promised that the whole of the Survey would be completed within six years. Is there any hope of that promise being fulfilled? It is a very important thing, for the transfer of property especially, that the Survey and maps should be completed. They are the best guides we can possibly have; and, therefore, I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to assure us of their speedy completion.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot); and, so far as the Treasury is concerned, the Survey will be pushed on as rapidly as possible. I find that during the last year, 1885–6, much greater progress was made than was anticipated, owing, to a large extent, to the fine weather. It is expected that in 12 months the whole of the Field Survey will be completed. I think the original estimate was that the whole would be completed by 1890. I have always advocated this as a wise expenditure. The completion of the Survey is a matter of interest to all classes of the community, and should be pressed on as quickly as possible. We will do all we can to expedite the work.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: On page 46 hon. Members will see the heading "maps for the Land Judges' Court, Ireland," and at the bottom an asterisk referring to a note, which says that the £3,405 proposed to be taken "will be repaid from the proceeds of sales of estates." That Vote appears year after year; in fact, the money has not been paid. The arrears due to the Land Judges' Court
    546
    go on increasing year after year. We have had an assurance from the Treasury that some practical steps would be taken to recover some of the money; but the arrears now amount to a very large sum indeed, £10,000 or £12,000. I should like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to make any effort to get this money?
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The attention of the Treasury has been called to the heavy arrears to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, and directions have been given to take proceedings for recovery in those cases in which receivers have been appointed. It is not an easy matter to recover these sums; but if we can recover them we will.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What do the arrears amount to?
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: £12,919, and during the last 12 months they have increased by several hundred pounds.
    Vote agreed to.
    (13.) £19,742, Science and Art Department Buildings.
    (14.) £11,477, British Museum Buildings.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Before this Vote is passed, I should like to ask whether anything more has been done towards lighting in the evening the Natural History Museum at South Kensington? A very strong feeling was expressed on a former occasion that that Museum ought to be lighted at night for the benefit of the industrial classes. An enormous sum of money has been spent upon the Museum; but it is turned to very little use. I pass it frequently, and notice that in the day time it is visited by no one but a few nursery-maids and children. I do not think any Museum could be used by the working class to greater advantage. It is not one of those Museums which contain indecent pictures, from an inspection of which there is a question whether the working classes benefit. I believe there would be no danger in lighting the Museum at night. It is merely a question of moderate expenditure. I think that, considering the largo sum already expended on this Museum, and that the use of the Museum would not only be doubled, but trebled, the Government

    547
    would do well to consider favourably my suggestion.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) is not present; because, in his absence, I cannot give any positive answer to my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell). I quite agree with him as to the great value of the Museum, and the great desirability of making it accessible to all classes. The suggestion the hon. Gentleman has made shall be carefully considered, and we will see what can be done.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) £17,598, Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: This Vote has strangely increased during the last two years. In the year 1884–5 the original Estimate was only £9,347; but a Supplementary Estimate for £3,500 was brought in, making a total of £12,900. The expenditure, however, only amounted to £10,800. In the Estimates last year the amount asked for was £15,502—that is to say, 50 per cent more than had been spent in the previous 12 months. Now, we have a further increase of £2,000, bringing up the total to £17,500, very nearly double what it was in the original Estimate, no longer than two years ago. One item—that for the Holyhead Harbour—is more than the whole of the original Estimate two years ago. I think it is fair matter for consideration why there should be this continual extraordinary increase on this particular Vote. I do not know whether there is anything exceptional in the present time; but if there is, I should be very glad to ascertain what it is. I should also like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury why the London and North-Western Railway Company are not called upon to contribute something more than they do towards the Holyhead Harbour, and why the whole of this charge is to be borne by the country?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The great increase on this Vote arises from the work upon the Holyhead Barbour. The work has
    548
    been undertaken with the view of facilitating the transfer of the mails, and it is part of the contract with the Railway Company that the charge should be borne by the Government. The work will not occur again, so that this is only a temporary increase.
    Vote agreed to.
    (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, 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 1887, for constructing a new Harbour at Dover."
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I think, Sir, that after the discussion which the Committee will recollect took place in the earlier part of this Session we are bound to have some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) upon this very important subject. Now, the Committee will not probably be aware that since 1834 this question of the Dover Harbour has been constantly before the country. Every Government had declined to entertain it until, in 1873, the Government of Mr. Gladstone obtained a Vote of £10,000 for the purpose of undertaking preliminary works. The other day we had a Vote of £60,000 for buildings in which to lodge convicts engaged in carrying out a work which the House of Commons and the country has never sanctioned. The cost of this new harbour at Dover is to be estimated by hundreds of thousands of pounds. It has been proved by every Committee that has inquired into the subject, and every Government has acknowledged the fact, that a harbour at Dover would be absolutely useless as a harbour of refuge. The Government obtained a Vote the other night of £60,000 for the purpose of erecting convict barracks, with a view of making a harbour; but they told us that the House of Commons and the country were not pledged at all to the harbour. I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will be good enough to explain to the Committee this Vote of £1,000. I observe that the present Government are adopting the principle of putting down very small—infinitesimal—sums, with the view of compromising the House of Commons to Votes which ultimately become hundreds of thousands of pounds. This question,

    549
    as I say, originally came before the Government of Lord Beaconsfield; and the Government of Mr. Gladstone, in 1873–4, obtained a Vote of £10,000 for preliminary works. It was understood that the £10,000 were required to commence works which were estimated, according to the plans, to cost £1,000,000 sterling. Now, the other night the Government informed us they had no plans whatever—that they intended to take a Vote in order to get plans made. The Government of Mr. Gladstone brought forward this scheme; but when that Government fell, and Lord Beaconsfield's Government succeeded it, I recollect perfectly well that the new Government was asked whether they intended to accept the plans of the late Government. Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli, admitted that the Bill—there was a Bill before the House—of Mr. Gladstone's Government was inherited by his Government; but they wished time to sift and digest the evidence concerning the Bill. In 1876 they promised to bring in the Bill; but, having considered and sifted the matter, they, like every Government since 1834, very wisely decided to proceed no further in the matter. The real truth is that the Dover Harbour Board is always pressing this matter on my noble Friend (Lord Granville), who does everything he can to induce the Government of the day to carry out this magnificent scheme. I should like the Committee to understand what the present plan of the Dover Harbour really is. It is said that the scheme will cost £1,250,000 sterling; it will probably cost between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 sterling. Those who have been long enough in the House know, from the experience of the expenses at Alderney, that hundreds of thousands of pounds are, upon works of this kind, thrown into the sea. I maintain that the harbour it is proposed to make at Dover will be absolutely valueless for the purpose for which it is to be constructed. Now, this harbour is to contain, according to the present plan, an area of about 640 acres. There will be 640 acres of deep water for ships-of-war, and the rest will be shallow. It is well known—and I see upon the Treasury Bench the hon. Baronet the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), who is well competent to give an opinion upon the subject—that a ship-of-war,
    550
    when it is riding at anchor in a harbour, requires about 40 acres to play in; therefore, if you have here only 140 acres of deep water in the proposed new harbour at Dover, only three ships-of-war, or four at the outside, can be rested. Well, now, the Report of every Select Committee has been against this scheme. I am astonished at the Government of the present day—an economical Government—undertaking a scheme of this kind—that a Government which tells us they are reducing the Estimates on every hand should undertake an expenditure of this kind. I warn the Committee that if they agree to the present Vote of £1,000 towards the expense of constructing a new harbour at Dover, they will commit themselves to an ultimate expenditure which can only be calculated by hundreds of thousands of pounds. I have ventured to trouble the Committee on this question, because I take a great interest in it, having considered the subject in years gone by. I do believe that, in the course they are now taking, the Government are involving the country in an expenditure which they will find will not produce the advantage expected of it. I trust that the Secretary to the Treasury, or some other Member of the Government, will favour the Committee with some observations upon the subject, in order that the Committee may sift the question thoroughly before they pledge themselves to this vast expenditure.
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir EDWARD J. REED): I regret I am unable to support all the statements of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel). I happened to be a Member of the Committee which was appointed by the last Conservative Government but one to consider this question; and I can say that, after taking a great deal of evidence, all the Members of that Committee, with one exception, were in favour of the construction of a harbour at Dover. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) was against the proposal altogether; and I was against it, as proposed, upon the ground which the right hon. Baronet has very properly touched upon—namely, that while the evidence of the Army and Navy Authorities went to demonstrate the necessity of a deep-water harbour at Dover, for the purpose of coaling Her Majesty's

    551
    iron-clad ships and the embarking and disembarking of troops, the harbour, as proposed, included a comparatively small proportion of deep water, and a very large proportion of shallow water. That came about from the circumstance that the Government of the day were anxious to keep the estimated cost of the works below £1,000,000 sterling. I suggested to the Committee the desirability of not making the question one of finance only; because I desired that the harbour might be so constructed—of course, with some increase of expenditure—that it would accommodate large ships, which the evidence showed it was necessary to accomplish. The Committee, with the exception of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire and myself, if I remember rightly, were entirely in favour of the proposal even as it stood.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: As a commercial marine harbour?
    SIR EDWARD J. REED: No; mainly for the purpose of the coaling of Her Majesty's Fleet, and for the accommodation of Her Majesty's transports. Of course, the commercial consideration entered into the scheme; but the evidence was very powerful as to the desirability of having a harbour at Dover for public purposes. After the Committee had reported, a Member of the Admiralty Administration of that day came to me, and asked me what could be done to induce me to support a measure in the House for the construction of the harbour; but I obstinately—I hope not too obstinately—adhered to my view that, while it might be proper to expend even more than £1,000,000 sterling of public money upon a thoroughly efficient harbour, it was highly improper to expend such a large sum upon what would manifestly be a wholly inefficient harbour. In the end, the Government withdrew its proposal. I am not in a postion to express an opinion as to any contemplated form of harbour that may now be proposed; but I think it right to say that, since the period at which the Committee sat, very great improvements have been made with respect to the dredging of solid bodies from the bottom of the sea. I believe it would now be a comparatively inexpensive process to convert much of the shallow water there into deep water, in comparison with what it would have been before
    552
    the improvements in dredging; in fact, it would have been impossible before those improvements. If it could have been shown to the Committee that the harbour originally proposed would include a large measure of deep water accommodation for Her Majesty's ships, the proposal would, I am sure, have received the assent of the whole Committee, with the single exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I, as an Irish Member, cannot assent to such an expenditure upon the Dover Harbour, while there are Irish harbours wholly unprotected. We, in Ireland, contribute more than our proper share of Imperial taxation, and yet there is a positive refusal to expend any money in the improvement of our harbours. In Bantry Bay, for instance, fishing is seriously impeded by anchors lying at the bottom. There has been no attempt on the part of the authorities to remove them. Again, there are shoals in Bantry Bay, on one of which Her Majesty's vessel the Seahorse went ashore some years ago, in consequence of there being no marks to indicate where the shoal was. I think the Irish Members will not assent to this expenditure without a guarantee, at least, that the obstacles to fishing in Bantry Bay will be removed.
    MR. RYLANDS: I move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): We have no objection to the Motion, because we feel that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) has initiated a discussion of the greatest importance; and it is desirable hon. Members should have the opportunity of stating their views, and that the Government should have an opportunity of giving an explanation. It was understood that Progress should be reported at an early hour, in order to enable my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) to make his statement upon the introduction of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: Perhaps the Home Secretary will say whether he proposes to take the Compensation for Damages Bill to-night? It is rather too bad to keep us here night after night upon the off-chances of the Bill coming on.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I have received applications from many quarters to go on, and I intend to go on if I can get any hon. Members to stay.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can now say, with anything like certainty, when the Civil Service Estimates are likely to be renewed?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I propose to take them to-morrow night, if there is a reasonable opportunity. It has been arranged that the Navy Estimates shall be taken on Monday, and the Army Estimates on Thursday.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: It is a surprising thing that the Government should bring forward a Vote for £1,000, and not be prepared with any explanation of it.
    MR. CHILDERS: We promised at Question time to report Progress early, in order to allow my right hon. Friend (Mr. Muudella) to make his statement. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) has raised a discussion of the greatest importance, not as to £1,000, but as to £1,000,000 sterling. Undoubtedly there are at least half-a-dozen Members, if not more, who wish to speak on this subject; and therefore it would be quite impossible to conclude the discussion in time to allow my right hon. Friend to make his statement.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th March],
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of Railway and Canal Traffic; and for other purposes."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA): In introducing a measure of the great complexity and importance of a measure dealing with Railway and Canal Traffic, I think it will be well if I give a brief retrospect of the legislation since 1854 which bears upon the subject. In that year an Act was passed by the late Viscount Palmerston for giving facilities for through traffic over different railway Systems, and to prevent undue preference. From that year down to 1867 there was no legislation and no inquiry with regard to the railway systems of the United Kingdom; but in 1865 a Royal Commission was appointed of very eminent and able men, of which the present Duke of Devonshire was Chairman. It sat for a long time, took a great deal of evidence, and in 1867 made a Report which went very thoroughly and completely into the whole of the principles which ought to govern legislation in the matter of railways. The question of unequal rates was then, as now, a subject of contention between Railway Companies and the public—it is, indeed, a question which has exercised the public mind ever since 1845—but the public interest in the subject has been developing of late years, and it has been quite recently very much increased in consequence of the depression in trade and agriculture. The Commission I refer to went very deeply into the question of rates, and reported—and here I may say that I will trouble the House with as few quotations as possible—especially in regard to inequality of rates. It reported that—
    "Inequality of charge in respect of distance, besides being a necessary consequence of this competition, is an essential element in the carrying trade—that is to say, the principle which governs a Railway Company in fixing the rate is that of creating a traffic by charging such a sum for conveyance as will induce the produce of one district to compete with that of another in a common market."
    And they sum up their judgment on this question of inequality of rates in the following words:—
    "The power of granting special rates thus permits a development of trade which would not otherwise exist, and it is abundantly evident that a large portion of the trade of the country at the present time has been created by and is continued on the faith of special rates."

    555
    I draw the attention of the House to these words, because we have recently heard equal mileage rates advocated; and the whole tendency and result of all inquiries that have been made, from the very first inquiry that took place down to the last in 1882, shows that equal mileage rates are practically an impossibility. In 1872 a strong Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed to consider the question of Railway Amalgamation. I need hardly say that the Report of that Committee was of a very exhaustive nature, and of very high authority, having regard to the fact that among the Members of the Committee were the Marquess of Ripon, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Redesdale, Lord Monk Bretton (then Mr. Dodson), Mr. Chichester Fortescue (now Lord Carling-lingford), the late Lord Belper, Sir R. Assheton Cross, the late Mr. Ward Hunt, and others of great weight. They decided that the principles laid down by the Duke of Devonshire's Commission were sound, and with regard to the proposal to introduce equal mileage rates they declared it to be impracticable. In their Report they say—
    "The proposers of equal mileage have admitted that there must be numerous exceptions—e.g., where there is sea competition (i.e., as above stated, at about three-fifths of the railway stations of the United Kingdom) where low rates for long distances will bring a profit, or where the article carried at low rates is a necessary, such as coal. It is scarcely necessary to observe that such exceptions as these, while inadequate to meet all the various cases, destroy the value of 'equal mileage' as a principle, or the possibility of applying it as a general rule."
    That Committee made a variety of valuable recommendations, amongst others the appointment of a Commission; and as a result of that Report the Railway Commission of 1873 was appointed, and an Act was passed giving extensive powers to that Body. I think experience has shown that the powers conferred on the Commission by the Act of 1872–3 were too restricted. And not only were the powers too restricted, but the jurisdiction of the Commission has been considerably limited since its appointment by the action of the Courts of Law. The powers which the Courts possess of limiting the jurisdiction of the Commission by prohibition or certiorari has been freely exercised, and the usefulness of the Commission thereby cur-
    556
    tailed. Nevertheless, it has done really good service to the community. Its decisions have given general satisfaction to the trading community; it has operated, so far as the railways are concerned, in terrorem; and we believe it is capable, if strengthened, of doing much good and useful work. Now, the most recent inquiry is the one of 1881–2 by a Committee of this House, over which Mr. Evelyn Ashley presided, and on which, no doubt, all the various interests were represented. The railway interest was fully represented. ["No, no!"] Well, there were nine Members representing that interest on the Committee. The best proof of the strong convictions which were entertained by different sections is that there were 100 divisions on this Report, and that some of the decisions were conflicting. There were very few occasions on which there was anything like unanimity. I must demur to the statement of my hon. Friend behind me, that the railway interest was not satisfactorily represented on that Committee. It was fully and adequately represented. However, Sir, we are all familiar with the Report of the Committee, which made a number of recommendations, none of which have been yet put into the shape of a Bill. I think many of these recommendations, notwithstanding the statement that the railway interest was not well represented on the Committee, are exceedingly valuable, and I hope we shall embody them fully in the measure I am now about to submit to the House. The next step was the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend who was then President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). That Bill was not considered, for various reasons, and was never discussed by the House. In consequence of the withdrawal of that Bill last year, the principal Railway Companies introduced Bills of their own, proposing new classifications and revisions of rates. The fate of these Bills was certain from the moment of their introduction. No doubt, they were objected to by the commercial and trading community, and they were practically rejected by the general feeling of this House. It was felt, not merely upon the merits of the Bills, but on the ground of procedure, that it was not right that such great changes should be effected by the means of Private Bills, introduced by Railway

    557
    Companies, who, if objecting to modifications made in their Bills by Parliament, could withdraw the measures altogether. Now, I have brought down the history of railway legislation from 1854 to the present time. We have arrived at a point when it is admitted that the condition of affairs with respect to railways is not satisfactory. There are statements made from all classes of the community, with regard to the treatment they receive from the Railway Companies. There is no doubt that the Schedules annexed to the present Act governing the rates and charges of Companies are obsolete, and greatly need revision and reform. It has, therefore, become necessary that some course shall be taken at once to satisfy the reasonable demands of the public, strengthen the Commission, and prevent what I am afraid is now a good deal too common—namely, undue preference being given to the large and heavy traffic, to the neglect of the local and intermediate traffic. But there is a good deal of exaggeration and misconception with respect to the rates charged, and I cannot substantiate some of the statements made; on the contrary, I think they will not bear investigation. For instance, I do not think it is correct that it has ever been possible to send grain from England to New York, in order to bring it back to London, or that sheep have been sent from Colchester to Rotterdam, in order to bring them to London. Various statements of that kind have been made, and I think they have been exaggerated and misleading. Those who make them cannot substantiate them. Yet, I am bound to say, there is much reason for many of the complaints we hear. I am daily almost overwhelmed with evidence of the inequalities existing between the rates charged for different articles of produce, according as they are British or foreign, coming from the same towns in the same quantities and under the same conditions. There is sometimes a variation of as much as 50 per cent—e.g., between foreign cattle and home cattle. There are great inequalities in the charge for the carriage of foreign and home cattle from Newcastle to Wakefield, and from Newcastle to Chesterfield, and so on—inequalities which would seem so arbitrary that I can understand the trades generally, and the agricultural classes in particular,
    558
    feel considerable irritation and annoyance at the disadvantage under which they are placed as compared with the foreigner. I do not believe the Railway Companies wish to discourage the development of English trade. On the contrary, their interests are really identical with those of the public generally. But I am afraid that railways in the past have been conducted during the period of prosperity very much on the same lines as the general business of the country. We have all made too much of the grand commerce. Everybody desired to deal with goods in bulk, and to send large quantities. The agriculturists despised petite culture; the manufacturers and merchants despised petty commerce; the railways despised petty transport. We have been prosperous—too anxious only to cultivate the great trades and heavy traffic, to deal with great bulks, and have been too neglectful of the development of smaller affairs and the smaller traffic and commerce, to which we shall probably have to pay more attention in the future. With regard to many of the complaints which have reached me as to some of the charges, I am bound to say that I think certain of those charges are doubtful in point of legality; and that being the case, where it is conceived that the rates are not consistent with the spirit of the Acts under which the railways work, we may fairly ask—"Why do not the traders appeal to the Commission on the subject—why have they not combined to put a case before them to try the legality of those doubtful charges?" Well, they have done so in a good many cases; but, in reply to that question, it may be said that the traders—especially the small traders and producers in the rural districts—are unwilling to incur the costs of litigation; and, moreover, it is a very unequal affair for such traders to enter into a contest with powerful Corporations having a large capital at their back, which they do not hesitate to use for the purpose of maintaining their vested interests. That fact will, perhaps, account, in a great measure, for the continuance of these inequalities of charge which are complained of, and for the apparent indifference with which the traders, especially in the agricultural districts, regard them, and for their unwillingness to bring test cases into Courts of Law for the purpose of having

    559
    doubtful questions determined. I have no desire to exaggerate the feeling that exists on this subject; but every hon. Member in this House knows what the feeling of his own constituency is. But while there is this feeling in this country, the same kind of contest is being carried on in every other country. The question of railway rates and charges is a subject of the liveliest interest in France at this moment—in fact, there have been very excited discussions upon it there during the past few days. I have received from the Foreign Office information that complaints are made in France by the French manufacturers that the through rates from England to Germany, Switzerland, and Italy are so low that it is impossible for them to compete with the English manufacturers in the German and Belgian and Italian markets; and this complaint is especially made by the coal miners of France. In connection with a strike now going on there, it is complained that English coals sold in the interior of France are allowed preferential rates, and that French coals are handicapped thereby. It is said that more is charged for the carriage of French coal over short distances than for the carriage of English coal over long distances. The same contest has been going on in the United States for many years, and there various different forms of dealing with railway rates have been tried. There, I think, some progress has been made towards arriving at a solution of the question, more, perhaps, than has been made in any other country; and it is possible that we may have much to learn from that country on the subject in the future. I am sure that the House will not forget that while the traders have brought forward many well-founded complaints against the Railway Companies, yet that in legislating with regard to Railway Companies we are dealing with interests of great magnitude. It would, in fact, be suicidal if we were to do anything that would seriously interfere with the successful working and management of our railways. It has been said by Viscount Sherbrooke, I think, that the railways have contributed largely to the fortune of everyone but their own shareholders. I do not think anyone desires unduly to limit the railway rates. It may be desirable, to a certain extent, to regulate the through rates charged by the Companies; but it may be fairly said that
    560
    the interests of the public and of the railways are so bound up together, that if Railway Companies will adopt a liberal policy towards the public, nobody will profit by that course as much as the Railway Companies themselves. Wherever the railways have adopted a liberal policy towards the public, they have been liberally rewarded for it. There can be no better illustration of the truth of my statement than is to be found in the result of the liberal course which was taken by the Midland Railway some 10 or 12 years ago, upon the advice of Sir James Allport, when they determined to make only two charges for conveying their passengers—one being at the rate of 1d. a mile, and the other at the rate of 1½d. a mile, and this for the shortest route. In this way they reduced the number of their carriages and the haulage on their lines very materially. There is no better travelling in the world than that afforded by the Midland Company, who convey their passengers to the North at the rate of 1d. per mile in comfortable and well-ventilated third-class carriages; while their first-class carriages, for conveyance in which they charge only 1½d. per mile, are the most roomy, the most convenient, and the most luxurious that can be found anywhere. The liberal reduction of fares to which I have referred was made in 1872, in accordance with the advice of Sir James Allport and Mr. Edward Ellis, head Superintendent; and nothing has ever answered the expectations of a Company more completely than this arrangement. Comparisons have often been made in this controversy between the rates of English and foreign railways; but in comparing them we must not forget to compare, at the same time, the relative costs of making the respective lines. No doubt, this House has done something to increase the cost of making English railways, and, no doubt, the landowners have also contributed to increase that cost; while no class of the community has profited so largely by the formation of railways as the landowners themselves. The disparity between the cost of making English and foreign railways is enormous. Let me give the House some statistics on this subject which have been prepared at the instance of the Board of Trade, showing the capital invested in English, Colonial, and Foreign Railways, and the

    561
    cost per mile of making them. The capital which has been invested in railways in the United Kingdom amounts to £801,000,000, the cost of construction has been at the rate of £42,000 per mile, while 18,864 miles are worked at a cost of 63 per cent on the receipts. In the Colonies £362,000,000 has been invested in railways, which have been constructed at a cost of £12,000 per mile. In foreign countries £3,288,000,000 have been invested, the average cost of construction being £16,400 per mile, as compared with £42,000 in England. Here are the figures concerning a few of these foreign countries. That in which the railways have been most expensive, next to our own, has been France. The cost of construction there has been £28,000 per mile, in Germany it has been £21,000 per mile, in Russia £15,000 per mile, in the United States £13,000 per mile, in India £13,000 per mile, and in Canada £12,000 per mile. So that it will be seen that English railways cost 50 per cent more than the next most costly railways—the French. Now, it will be interesting to the House to know the rates of dividends among the English railways. Preference dividends range from about 4 to 4¼ per cent. On the ordinary capital, amounting to about £300,000,000, the dividends are as follows:—
    "£48,000,000 of ordinary Stock pays no dividend; £3,000,000 pays under 1 per cent; £14,500,000, above 1 and not over 2 per cent; £9,500,000, 2 and not over 3 per cent; £21,000,000, or nearly £22,000,000, 3 and not over 4 per cent; £70,000,000, 4 and not over 5 per cent; £65,000,000, 5 and not over 6 per cent; £60,000,000, 6 and not over 7 per cent; £3,800,000, 7 and not over 8 per cent; £1,000,000, 8 and not over 9 per cent; £1,228,000, 9 and not over 10 per cent; £30,000, 12 and over 13 percent; and £1,512,000, 15 per cent; or, on the whole, an average of 4¼ per cent."
    Now, it would be impossible, at this stage of the Bill, to give illustrations of the difficulty of making through rates and short-distance rates comparatively equal and just. But there is one illustration that has come before me which I will submit to the House, which will show, perhaps better than a long statement, how possible it is to have a long distance rate which may seem very low, but which is regarded by those who pay for the traffic as being very heavy. I hold in my hand a Correspondence, put on the Table on Monday night, in relation to
    562
    the rates charged for the conveyance of fish from Wick. The Wick fishermen complain of the high and almost prohibitive railway rates on their fish despatched to England. They say—
    "Considering the continued low prices, it is utterly impossible for us now to pay 80 s. per ton, as we are greatly handicapped with large quantities of fish coming from Norway, Sweden, and France, these fish being sent by steamer, and landed in London and other English ports, at 2s. per package, whereas we have to pay 9s. per package of a similar size by rail."
    They go on to say—
    "On the other hand, if you make a reduction in the carriage rates we are confident it will not only largely benefit the fishing communities, but that it will likewise also largely benefit the Railway Companies and the consumers in England and all concerned. At present almost the whole of the autumn catch of herrings, which is the principal catch of the year, is salted for exportation to the Baltic ports. If sufficient encouragement were given by low carriage rates, several hundred thousand tons of the autumn catch of salted herrings would be sent in a fresh condition to the English markets. In this manner the glut in the foreign markets would be prevented, better prices would be obtained by those engaged in the fishing industry, the rolling stock of the Railway Companies would be more fully and more profitably employed, and a large quantity of cheap and nutritious food would be brought within reach of the working classes in the large manufacturing towns of England in these depressed times."
    The answer of the Railway Company to this is—
    "My Directors (of the Midland Railway) considered the present rates very favourable to the trade of Wick and Pulteneytown, as upon reference to a schedule of rates, which I sent to the Board of Trade on the 24th of June, 1884, it will be seen that fish is carried from Wick to London, by special or passenger trains, a distance of 742 miles, for 65 s. per ton in three-ton lots, although for the same description of fish from Leith to London, a distance of 388 miles, the rate is 60s. per ton."
    The House will see that you may have a rate for a short distance—even a very low rate—for, say, 50 miles, which, when multiplied fourfold, would be practically a prohibitive rate. Therefore there must be special rates for long distance traffic in order that the public may get the advantage at the centre of consumption. While I have complaints from the rural districts that foreign produce passes their door at half the rates the Companies charge for the same kind and amount of produce home-grown, importers are also complaining of the difficulty of distributing their produce owing to high rates. I remember a

    563
    striking illustration of this with respect to Australian meat. There has been within the last few years an increase in the importation of frozen meat from Australia, and when it conies to London by steamer the importers are anxious to distribute it all over the country. No doubt, in the large towns, the people are anxious to obtain the benefit of this cheap import. Well, the importers complain, and they substantiate their case, that they have been required, in the first place, to pay 50 s. a-ton for meat sent from London to Liverpool, whereas American meat is sent from Liverpool to London at 25 s. a-ton, or just half as much. It is clear that the railways gave a special rate to Liverpool; but they would not give one to Manchester, so the rate was 25 s. per ton from London to Liverpool, and 50 s. per ton from London to Manchester. As a result, the frozen meat was sent to Manchester from London viâ Liverpool at 25 s. to Liverpool, 12 s. back from Liverpool to Manchester, so as to save some 12 s. 6d. or 13 s. per ton. The evidences of this kind of anomaly are, I am sorry to say, too abundant. There is hardly enough consideration, I believe, on the part of Railway Companies of what is fair to the public. Where there are competing lines, or where the lines converge at competing points, there the rates are low enough. I do not know that they are not, in some instances, even too low, because there is some evidence that the able and astute managers of these railways—and I do not know a more capable and astute set of men, taking them as a class—are not quite sure whether, in some of these cases, they are making a profit or not. They only know what the result is in the end. Where there is no competition—where the railway has, practically, a monopoly, and there are no lines converging at competing points—the through rates are too high, and the local traffic is not sufficiently considered. Well, Sir, I have now said all that I need say as to the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. I may say that I regret very much that my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) is not in his place to-night. I have received a note from him expressing his regret that, through indisposition, he is unable to be present here to-night. I should have liked to express to him my acknowledgments for
    564
    the great care and thought and attention he devoted to the subject during the time he was at the Board of Trade. When I took Office I found that a measure had been fully prepared by him, and a measure which, I am sure, must have caused him a great deal of anxiety and care. During the time I have been at the Board of Trade I have given as much thought and attention to the subject as I possibly could. I have had the assistance not only of officials of the Board of Trade, but of the Law Officers of the Crown, and of the Lord Chancellor, in considering how we can make this Bill most effective for its purpose. And I may say that though, in some important respects, it may differ from the measure of my right hon. Friend, yet all his important provisions are included in it. When he comes to compare this Bill with his own measure, I think he will find very little that was in his absent from this. We have made some changes, and some important additions, which I will state to the House, and which, I think, will commend themselves to the House for their usefulness. The present Bill does not deal with the question of safety. I thought it better not to include questions of safety in the Bill. There was a danger of overloading the scheme. The question of safety is one which, I think, should be dealt with separately; and, as a matter of fact, private Members have Bills before the House dealing with it—Bills which I consider will be well worthy of consideration in Parliament. I have confined my Bill to the question of rates and fares, and the business of the Railway Commission. We propose to introduce very important changes; and I must say I think it is only right that I should acknowledge that the Commission, though much fettered in its work, has earned the respect of the community. I should be very sorry if, in consequence of any changes we may make in the Commission, it should be thought that we do not sufficiently appreciate the services of the gentlemen who, during the last 13 years, have devoted themselves with so much care and courtesy and devotion to the business of that Court. I wish to speak in the highest terms of Sir Frederick Peel, who has presided over it. No one could possibly have discharged his duty with more painstaking, with more conscientious-

    565
    ness, and with greater determination to master every point of the cases brought before him, and no one could have been more anxious to show in his judgments a complete mastery of every detail. But in committing very large powers to the new Court—in enlarging the legal powers of the Commission—it has been felt that it is necessary that the First Commissioner, or the Chief Commissioner, should be a man possessed of legal knowledge and legal training, having the authority and standing of a Judge of the High. Court. It has been felt, Sir, that the effect of appointing a man of that standing will be to shorten the proceedings of the Court, to add weight to its proceedings, and to limit the number of appeals; and I think, on the whole, it will be found to be a measure of economy. The Bill is divided into five parts. The first deals with the constitution of the Court of Procedure of the Railway Commissioners; the second with the jurisdiction of the Court; the third with railway traffic; the fourth with canals; and the fifth with miscellaneous matters. Well, it is provided in the Bill that the Court shall be a permanent Court of Record. The uncertain tenure of the Commissioners hitherto has detracted much from the dignity and authority of their Court. The necessity for its being continued from year to year has been injurious to it. The powers of the Chief Commissioner will be exercised in England by one of the Judges of the High Court, nominated from time to time by the Lord Chancellor; in Scotland, by a Judge of the Court of Sessions, nominated by the Lord President; and in Ireland, by one of the Judges of the High Court, nominated by a like authority. The other two Commissioners will be laymen, practical men of business. In every proceeding before the Commissioners the Chief Commissioner is to deliver judgment; and on all questions of law his opinion is to prevail. The only difference between this clause and the clause of my right hon. Friend is that he proposed a trained lawyer, not making him a member of the High Court of Justice. I confess that this is not at all essential to the Bill, and no part of the principle of the measure. I have no very strong opinion with regard to it. I only take the best evidence I can possibly obtain. Nevertheless, I must say that it all
    566
    points to the appointment of a Judge to deal exclusively with this business. Of course, when the Railway Court is not sitting he may have time and leisure to devote to other judicial functions. In the next clause, as the House, no doubt, will have gathered, we intend to provide that the Court shall proceed to every locality where its services may be required, whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland. Of course, the English Judge will not preside elsewhere than in England. The lay Commissioners will sit in Scotland with a Scottish Judge, and in Ireland with an Irish Judge. Every order of the Commissioners shall have the force of a judgment. No appeal from the decision of the Commissioners will be allowed on any question of fact; but on questions of law an appeal will lie to a Superior Court of Appeal. Beyond this there will be no appeal, unless the Court of Appeal themselves direct one to the House of Lords. I come next to the question of complaints. Complaints may be made to the Commissioners by any Local Authority or body of traders or freighters. It is deemed very important that we should extend the locus standi, and make it as large as possible, so as to include all persons who have complaints to make. I will just read the clause dealing with this matter—
    "A complaint of a contravention of section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as amended by subsequent Acts, and a complaint under the principal Act, and any Act amending it, and under this Act, may be made to the Commissioners by (a) any local or harbour board, any council of a city or borough, any representative county body which may hereafter be created by an Act passed in the present or any future Session of Parliament, any justices in quarter sessions assembled, or any public local authority which now is or hereafter may be established under any general or special Act; or (b) any association of traders or freighters, or any chamber of commerce or agriculture, who shall obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade, that they are, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, entitled to make such complaint, without proof that the complainants are aggrieved by the matter complained of."
    It is impossible, I think, to draw a clause more comprehensively. As I have said, no appeal shall lie from any decision of the Commissioners upon any question of fact, or from any decision of the Commissioners, regarding the locus standi of a complainant. The Bill strengthens the power of the Commissioners very liberally, and in giving

    567
    such extensive powers the House will see the importance of the presiding Commissioner being a trained lawyer, whose decisions will carry weight and authority. Passing to another point, we extend the jurisdiction of the Commissioners to special Acts, and to all questions respecting tolls, rates, or fares; and we give them power also to award damages. Now, Sir, the Bill also provides that the public bodies may apply corporate funds, or may pay out of the rates the cost and expenses of any prosecution arising under the Act. Now, I come to the question of traffic, and with regard to the 24th clause I wish to point out that it is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. The 24th clause requires that—
    "Notwithstanding any provisions that may be contained in any general or special Act, every railway company, within twelve months from the commencement of this Act, shall submit to the Board of Trade a revised classification of rates and charges, and a revised schedule of maximum rates and charges."
    I know it may be said by the Railway Companies that we have no right to require this from them; but I think anyone familiar with the Regulations of this House, from 1838 down to the present time, will see that the House has had the right to exercise this control. I will read the clause of the Act of 1845, and the Standing Order of the House is in the same spirit, and almost in the same words—
    "And be it enacted that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to exempt the railway by this or the said recited Act authorized to be made from the provisions of any general Act relating to such Acts, or of any general Act relating to railways which may hereafter pass during the present or any future Session of Parliament, or from any future revision and alteration under the authority of Parliament of the maximum rates of fares and charges authorized by the said recited Act."
    So that every Railway Company has contracted with the public and with Parliament that they shall, from time to time, be liable to such conditions as Parliament may see fit to impose. We provide also that, in framing such classification and schedule, the nature and grounds on which terminal charges are proposed to be made, and the circumstances under which they are proposed to be made, shall be fully stated. Well, Sir, when a Railway Company has sent in its new classification and schedule to the Board of Trade, what is to happen?
    568
    We have provided for that. We shall advertise, so that the Board of Trade may receive representations from any part of the country, or from anybody interested, against either the classification or the maxima. It was thought that the Railway Commissioners would be the right authority to receive, consider, and revise the new classification and schedules; but the more that comes to be considered, the more it will be found to be impracticable. The Railway Commissioners are a Court of Law; and as these matters will be matters of consultation, we think they can be done better without a man in a long robe, but that we should appoint assessors to argue out the questions which may arise. Accordingly, with great deference, we think the Board of Trade ought to undertake this work. The Board may appoint assessors to meet the parties, and when the difference is argued out it is provided that they shall frame the schedule of charges in the way they think just and reasonable, and submit them to Parliament as a Provisional Order. If unopposed, they would pass into law in the ordinary course; but if opposed, these Provisional Orders would be treated in the same way as other Provisional Orders, except that they would be submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament; so that Parliament will have the schedule, classification, and maximum entirely under its control. Provision is also made for amending and re-adjusting from time to time these rates and maxima, and also for grouping rates and settling questions of undue preference. And in the matter of undue preference, we provide that where it appears desirable, wherever there are unequal charges, the burden shall be thrown on the Companies to show what is the reason of the inequality, and the Board shall take into consideration what are the justifications of any inequality. So that, on the proof of inequality, it will lie on the Railway Company to show that such inequality does not constitute undue preference. Well, Sir, I have stated something of the power of the new Commission with regard to the schedule, maximum, and undue preference. We also provide for annual Returns, bringing the canals under the same heading as the railways. We authorize the public authorities to expend sums of money for the purpose

    569
    of application to the Commissioners. Now, I come to a clause which is entirely new, and which may excite a little harmless ridicule, but for which I am prepared to take the responsibility. It has been found in the United States, notwithstanding that they give the Commissioners the same legal power and control as we propose to give our Commissioners, that there is room for something like negotiation—for the Commissioners or other independent bodies to arbitrate between Railway Companies and traders, to bring the two parties together, and bring them to something like an agreement. There is a very remarkable Report which has just been issued by the Bureau of Labour at Philadelphia. It is from the work on Railway Transportation by Mr. Hadley, head of the Bureau of Labour Statistics of Connecticut, who, I believe, has the honour of having started the scheme which I now submit to the House. I will read a few lines of it, if the House will permit me, to show precisely what the scheme is. He says—
    "There is another class of Commissions of quite a different character, Commissions with little or no power to act, and simply established for the sake of securing publicity. The success of such Commissions has been in some instances surprisingly great. This was especially the case with Massachusetts under the leadership of Charles Francis Adams, jun. The Massachusetts Commission was established in 1869. At first a great many people were disposed to treat it with good-natured ridicule. It had really no power, except the power to report. But its Reports were strong enough to command respect and even obedience. The Commissioners were by no means infallible. Some of their theories were wrong. They were in favour of a partial State ownership of railroads, which could not have done what they expected of it, and would probably have proved a great misfortune. But the Commissioners had something better than correct theories; they had practical business sagacity. They abandoned courses which proved wrong; they followed up with successful persistence those which proved right. Gradually but surely they introduced improvements in accounting, which since 1878 have been further extended by the Commissioners of other States. In the same way they gradually compelled the roads to adopt safety appliances by educating public opinion to a point where it demanded such action. And in the same way they exercised a decisive influence on the policy of the railroads with regard to rates, leading them to develop their local business instead of confining attention to the through business,"
    Now, what do we do? It is set forth in the 28th clause, and I hope Parliament will think it worthy of its consideration. It provides that—
    570
    "Whenever any person sending or desiring to send goods by any railway, is of opinion that the railway company is charging him an unfair or an unreasonable rate of charge, or is in any other respect treating him in an oppressive or unreasonable manner, such person may make a complaint to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, if they think that there is reasonable ground for the complaint, may thereupon call upon the railway company for an explanation and endeavour to settle amicably the differences between the complainant and the railway company. For the purpose aforesaid, the Board of Trade may appoint either one of their own officers, or any other competent person to communicate with the complainant and the railway company, and to receive and consider such explanations and communications as may be made in reference to the complaint; and the Board of Trade may pay to such last-mentioned person such remuneration as they may think fit, and as may be approved by the Treasury."
    I see this proposal is received by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) with a smile; but it has met with success, and in America they have shown what can be done by mediation.
    "The Board of Trade shall, from time to time, submit to Parliament reports of the complaints made to them under the provisions of this section, and the results of the proceedings taken in relation to such complaints, together with such observations thereon as the Board of Trade shall think fit."
    Now, the Report of the American Commissioners shows that there is nothing to which Railway Companies are so amenable as public opinion; and the Reports made from time to time of these complaints, and the way in which they are dealt with, will, I believe, constitute a very important mass of evidence, as to the way in which the railways of the country are managed, not only for the guidance of railway managers, but also for the guidance of Parliament, as to how it may have to deal with them in future. I have the strongest conviction that what has happened in America will prove to be our case here, and that by securing proper management you will do much to prevent the permanent interests of railways being sacrificed to temporary interests, and also secure the interests of the public. There is no necessity to appoint a Commission, because these complaints will be made to the Board of Trade, who will appoint an assessor or one of its own officers to hear complaints from time to time. It will not, of course, listen to frivolous complaints; and it may make rules and charge a small fee to prevent vexatious and unnecessary complaints, and the

    571
    result of this, I believe, will be to prevent a good deal of litigation, because when men having one object in view get together round a table to discuss any questions they generally arrive at a reasonable result. The last number of Bradstreet's Journal speaks of the almost unvarying success which has attended the work of the Commissioners, and the extension of it. Last year has been free from litigation, and it speaks of the good done by the Railway Commissioners in bringing the Railway Companies and the public together in friendly discussion. Having now submitted the Bill to the House, I must appeal to hon. Members on a subject of such importance, where such vast interests are concerned, to give this measure a patient and careful examination. We do not claim for it that it is incapable of improvement, and, no doubt, it will be in the power of hon. Members to discover and repair many defects in it. All I can say is that we shall welcome, from any quarter whence they may come, suggestions which tend to improve the measure which I now ask the House to read the first time. I believe there is no desire in the House or in the mind of the public to harass the Railway Companies, or to diminish their lawful gains; but there is a desire to regulate the monopolies they have enjoyed, so as to conduce in the future more effectually than in the past to the interests of the country and to the national prosperity.
    MR. HICKMAN: I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I address myself to some clauses of the Bill. I should like, first, to express my sense of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the great care and knowledge which he has bestowed upon this Bill, and the lucid manner in which he has placed its provisions before the House. If, therefore, I call attention to one or two points which it seems to me have been overlooked, I beg the House to consider that I do so not in a carping spirit, or with a desire unduly to criticize the measure. In the first place, I have not heard, in the course of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, much about canals. ["Yes!"] If the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the subject, I am, of course, glad to be corrected. I will turn to the question of through
    572
    rates. I should like to see powers given to the Commissioners to declare through rates between points connected by two or three different lines, so that the public may not incur terminal charges three or four times over on the same traffic. There is another point to which I desire to call attention. I should be glad to see something done with regard to unequal rates between different districts. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there will be power to deal with unequal rates as between different classes of traders; but we want, also, power to deal with unequal rates as between different districts. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty which traders have in contending with and prosecuting their rights against powerful Railway Companies. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that it was proposed that persons having complaints would be able to make them to the Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade would appoint assessors to stand between the Railway Company on one side, and the person making the complaint on the other; but I did not gather from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that there was any power to enforce their decision.
    MR. MUNDELLA: The permissive clause, under which the Board of Trade will report the result of its mediation.
    MR. HICKMAN: Then, Sir, it would appear that the tribunal will be unable to decide questions of this character. If that is not so, I shall be glad to be corrected. The right hon. Gentleman said, in the course of his speech, that equal mileage rates have been found to be impossible, because, in some cases, there was sea competition; but I entirely fail to see why sea competition should make equal mileage rates impossible. It is, perhaps, impossible to make mileage rates on coal equal to those on articles of more bulk and greater value; but I submit that for equal distances and for traffic of the same character there might be equal mileage rates. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that other countries are complaining of the railway rates, and he mentions that complaints are now being made in the United States of America. But, Sir, at the present time corn is being carried from Chicago to New York at one-seventh of 1d. per ton per mile, and the rate for

    573
    iron from Birmingham to London is 1½d. per ton per mile, or more than 10 times as much as the cost of bringing corn from Chicago to New York. That, Sir, is not the only instance I could give; and if the right hon. Gentleman will examine the valuable Returns made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Oxfordshire (Sir Bernhard Samuelson), he will see that in all cases—at any rate, as compared with the district which I have the honour to represent—foreign railway rates are lower to the extent of 40 or 50 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said that English railways cost more to make than foreign railways; but I suggest that the explanation of that is that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the cost of a single tract in America and compared it with the cost of, say, a quadruple tract in this country. The London and North-Western Railway, to a large extent, consists of four lines; and it is obvious that the cost of its construction is more than that of a railway having only a single line. Having made these few observations, I beg to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the very lucid statement with which he has accompanied the introduction of this Bill.
    MR. J. C. BOLTON: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated, in the course of his speech, that many exaggerated statements have been made, and many complaints with regard to railway rates which have not been substantiated. Sir, I think that any hon. Member who takes the trouble to examine the evidence produced before the Railway Commission in 1881–2 will find that many of the statements made then were very much of the same character as those to which the right hon. Gentleman has to-night alluded, and that when those statements were thoroughly examined they were found to be what I may call entirely bottomless. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen dissent from that statement. I refer them to the evidence and to the Report of the Committee, in which they will find my words fully borne out. But the right hon. Gentleman himself seems to have some belief in those statements. The right hon. Gentleman read a paragraph from a letter which he said had
    574
    been laid on the Table of the House from the Provost of Wick, and various other gentlemen connected with the fish trade in that district. The paragraph was to the effect that the Memorialists that, if sufficient encouragement were given by low carriage rates, several hundred thousands of tons of the autumn catch of herrings would be sent in a fresh condition to the English market. Now, if there were any Members of the Fishery Board here, they would, I think, be able to bear me out in saying that there is no such thing as several hundreds of thousands of tons of fish caught on all the Coast of Scotland together. But, if further proof is required, I hold in my hand another letter signed by the same gentleman who led the signatories of the Memorial—namely, Mr. Rae, Provost of Wick, dated March, 1885, and which is upon the same subject. Complaining of the exorbitant rates charged by the Railway Companies for the transport of fish from Wick to London, amongst other things he says that during the herring season—that is to say, the same time as is mentioned in the other letter, from about the 20th of July to the 6th of September in each year—"Almost the whole catch of herring, ranging from 100,000 to 120,000 barrels, is salted for exportation." Now, the difference between the two statements is that in one it is said that, with low rates, several hundred thousand tons of herrings would be sent from Wick to London; and, in the other, it is said that almost the whole catch of herrings, but ranging only from 100,000 to 120,000 barrels, is salted for exportation; whereas, if the carriage rates to the English markets were more reasonable, a large proportion of this would be sent fresh to the English capital. Now, Sir, what are those exorbitant rates? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is a special rate of 65 s. per ton for 741 miles; but I will take the higher rate—the rate charged for smaller quantities—the ordinary rate, which is 80 s. per ton. These same gentlemen, in a letter to which I have alluded, say that the cost of herrings on the quay at Wick is £3 per ton, and they complain that the carriage of these herrings is £4 per ton. The total cost of herring laid down in London is, therefore, £7 per ton. I will assume that each herring will weigh half-a-pound, and that will give 4,480 herrings

    575
    to the ton; the cost of the fish in London, therefore, including the carriage, is £7 a-ton, or 1,680 pence, and three-eighths of 1d. is the cost of every herring laid down in London. Where, then, is the enormous reduction which can be made in the carriage rates which will enable the fishermen of Wick to catch their hundreds of thousands of tons of herrings and send them in a fresh condition up to London? Well, Sir, there is a very similar statement in the document to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and that is with respect to the carriage of codfish. The Memorialists state that the cost of codfish at Wick is from 9d. to 1s. each, and they complain that the rate for them is 11d. 2d.; but they do not tell us what is the average weight of these fish, and we shall, in consequence, have to arrive at it by calculation. Assuming the freight to be £4, there are about 69 fish in a ton, which gives for each fish the weight of about 32 lbs.; and, therefore, hon. Members will see that, at the rate complained of by these gentlemen, codfish are laid down in London at something less than 1d. per pound. If hon. Gentlemen know anything about their own housekeeping, they will perceive from this that the scarcity of fish in London is not due to any extravagance in the rates of carriage charged by the Railway Companies. I have gone into the details of those matters for the purpose of disabusing the minds of hon. Members, as far as I can, and for the purpose of explaining the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has alluded; and I have now merely to say in conclusion, as a Member of the Railway Committee referred to by him, that I am satisfied that the railway interest was not over-represented on that Committee. Out of the 27 Members of the Committee, only seven represented the railway interest. There were some Gentlemen who came there—I do not wish to speak particularly—with their minds made up that the Railway Companies were acting very improperly, and no evidence that we could produce was sufficient to disabuse their minds of that impression. But the minds of the majority of the Committee were disabused, and over and over again since then Railway Managers and Railway Directors have informed the Board of Trade
    576
    that that they were perfectly willing to do all in their power in support of a Bill based on the recommendations of that Committee, and they wish for nothing better so far as the railway legislation of the future is concerned.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Sir, I desire to add to the acknowledgments already made the expression of my appreciation of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I shall not occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes, and I should not have taken part in the discussion but for the unfortunate absence of the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Stanhope). Sir, I acknowledge the very fair and kind way in which the right hon. Gentleman has intimated that he is aware of the labour bestowed on the preparation of the Bill by Members of the late Government. It is not my intention to criticize to-night the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman; but I think I may say at once that we on these Benches consider that the subject before us is one which ought to be discussed in a friendly and not in a Party spirit, and with the desire of producing a measure which will deal out justice to the Railway Companies, and which will, at the same time, confer benefits on the trade of the country. I am sure that hon. Members will bear in mind in discussing this question that it is one which on almost every point presents two sides, and that it will be most necessary to balance the scales of justice so as not to confer upon either parties a benefit to which they are not entitled. I may, perhaps, be permitted to say a few words only of a general character on some of the leading points to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred; and I do so very willingly, because it has been my good fortune to have to consider this question on both sides for some years. I have seen the working of this Commission from the point of view of the Railway Companies, and I have seen the working of the Commission from the traders' point of view; and, therefore, I trust that I shall, to a certain extent, be able to assist the House in their discussions on this Bill. I am exceedingly glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that he, and those who have assisted him—amongst others, the Lord Chancellor—

    577
    have come to the conclusion that it is right that this Commission should be presided over by a competent lawyer, and a lawyer who holds the position of one of Her Majesty's Judges. If there is one thing which has done more harm than anything else, it is the feeling that this is a tribunal where something "more than justice" can be obtained. It is hardly necessary to point out that "more than justice" means injustice, and that, both from the traders' point of view and from the point of view of the Railway Companies, a bold and firm judgment is required of matters of law which will command the respect of both sides. There is another most important consideration in connection with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which must, I think, commend itself to the House, and that is the question of utilizing judicial strength. It will be remembered that for a very considerable portion of time every year the Commissioners have had practically nothing to do; and I think it would be a very great advantage to the country if the time of any Judge who presides over railway cases should be devoted to other business when such cases do not call for his services. There is another point which I ask the House most carefully to take into consideration; and that is, the question of assessors who are to sit in England, Scotland, and Ireland at the side of the Judge. Of course, I recognize to the fullest extent the great advantage of assessors, and I am quite sure that those who practise in those Courts in which assessors sit for the purpose of assisting the Judge, or before tribunals where an engineer has to be called in to assist a lawyer, or a lawyer called in to assist an engineer, must be convinced that this is a convenient form of tribunal. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it is always necessary that an assessor should sit, because there are a large number of cases which do not involve any questions of a technical kind at all. I speak in the hearing of many hon. Members who have conducted cases before the Commission, and I say that although there are cases requiring technical knowledge, there are a large number which depend entirely and solely on the construction of Acts of Parliament; and I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it is worthy of consideration
    578
    whether or not there should not be power in the parties, or in the Court itself, to dispense with the sittings of assessors where it is deemed that their services would not be required. By that means it seems to me we may further utilize the Court, by enabling them to employ their time in other ways. I do not wish to discuss the question as to whether it is better that the classification should be settled by the Board of Trade or the Railway Commission. I quite agree that there is a good deal to be said for the Office presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, and I assure him that whatever were the views put forward by the late Government they were not final, and that the question was left for discussion. It is a most difficult question, and I agree that it is very desirable to have a preliminary discussion in the nature of a familiar forum where the parties can discuss their difficulties. I think all the Railway Companies will agree that a new classification is required; and I do not believe that anyone would contend that the classification which has grown up in Committee Rooms is of the kind which should continue. It must be remembered that the question of short-distance traffic is one of exceeding difficulty, because a mere mileage rate which might be proper for long distances would not do for short ones of a few miles. I have seen a rate as low as 3d. for a distance of four miles; but I have no doubt that many hon. Gentlemen will know that it is impossible to move a ton of goods under a cost of 1s. or 1s. 6d. That which requires very careful consideration is the adjustment of rates, both in the interest of traders and of Companies; because to a great extent, at the present time—and I can give chapter and verse for what I say—there is no doubt that the long-distance traffic has been the source of profit which has enabled the Companies to carry the short-distance traffic at all. Therefore, you will have to see that each description of traffic bears its own burden, and that it produces some remuneration to the Railway Companies for carrying it. But I quite believe that there will be no indisposition on the part of the Railway Companies to deal with that matter upon a proper footing. Then, Sir, I think that it will be necessary to give very careful consideration to the question of awarding damages.

    579
    Although I do not object to the principle, I may say that it has often been pointed out that the remedy for undue preference does not consist of necessity in lowering the rate paid by a particular applicant—it may consist in raising the rate charged to people about whom he complains. So far as I can see, if proper provisions are made, the question whether it is right for a Court presided over by a competent Judge to give damages is one well worthy of the consideration of the House; but I do not think it desirable at once to adopt the principle until we see a little more of the way in which it is proposed to be worked out. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the smile which passed across my countenance if he supposes that I was laughing at anything which he said. Nothing was further from my mind; I smiled at a remark of one of my hon. Friends, and certainly not at any proposal which he brought forward. I am as much as anyone in favour of negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, or anything which will bring the parties together; but I am not sure that it would be wise to take a step in the direction of holding over either party the power of public complaint, which might encourage the ventilation of grievances which have no substance in them. Still, with regard to this, I only say that the clause by which the right hon. Gentleman sets store is a difficult one; and I trust that it will receive the most fair and candid consideration from every hon. Member on this side of the House who takes part in the discussion. I shall not enter tonight on any discussion of legal mileage rates, or of the rates on foreign produce; but I should like to say that, although there may be very little difficulty—and I think there is very little difficulty—in dealing with the rates on foreign produce, as compared with the rates on home produce, if it be treated as a question of law, yet the matter has great difficulties when you come to deal with it on commercial grounds. It may be to the advantage of the community that there should be some power of carrying imported goods at cheap rates; but my only desire in referring to the subject is to keep before the minds of hon. Members the fact that this question of the carriage of home produce as compared with foreign will require the most
    580
    careful attention of the House. Having made these few observations, I have only to express the hope that the House will not think I have done wrong in simply calling attention to the particular points which interest us, and on which we desire to assist Her Majesty's Government. I do not intend anything like instruction to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I beg to thank for the very clear and interesting statement which he has given to the House.
    COLONEL SALIS-SCHWABE: I should like to make a few observations upon this subject, which I believe is of great interest to the community at large, and which is most certainly of great interest in Lancashire. In that county we have found that our profits have almost, and in many cases quite, disappeared, and that wages have gone down; but the railway rates remain just as they were formerly, with the exception of a small reduction which has taken place since the Manchester Ship Canal Bill was introduced. Now, among the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) for the present high rates, it is said that there has been considerable extravagance in the purchase of land and the construction of the railways; but if that be the case, I say it is no reason why the consequences of that extravagance should be made good by a tax on the trading community. If it be necessary to help the railways out of their difficulties, let it be done by some general tax. Then, again, we fail to see the justice of two rates, one for goods for exportation, and another for goods for the home markets. If it pays the Railway Companies, as apparently it does, to take goods for exportation from Manchester to London at 25s. per ton, we cannot see why they should charge 40s. per ton for goods to be sold in this country. It is certainly to be hoped that the Bill will carry out the object we have in view—namely, that the Railway Companies shall no longer be allowed to carry on their business to the injury of the mercantile community.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I desire to make my acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) for the very able and clear statement he has made with regard to a measure which is, perhaps, one of the most important that this House has

    581
    had to deal with. If anything were necessary to recommend it to the impartial consideration of hon. Members on this side of the House, it would be so recommended by the handsome and generous manner in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the labours of his Predecessors in connection with this Bill. I think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman leaves little to be desired, in so far as it shows that he has realized the fact that the difficulty to be contended with is only to be met by a practical remedy. The right hon. Gentleman appears thoroughly to understand the difficulties which now exist with regard to rates which he calls obsolete, and as to the practice of Railway Companies, with local traffic, and with the rates—of which he gave us examples—for the conveyance of foreign stock and home stock. I wish to mention a point on which all those who are interested in this subject feel very strongly—namely, that in entering into a dispute with one of the Railway Companies before the Commissioners the persons interested are entering into a very unequal contest. We have had from the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. J. C. Bolton) an interesting statement with regard to the rate of the carriage and cost of fish brought from Wick to London; and there was at the conclusion of his speech one sentence which struck me as being of great value. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, with reference to the Committee on Railway Rates which sat in 1881–2, that he wished for nothing better than that the railway legislation of the future should be based on the recommendations contained in the Report of that Committee. Exactly; I can quite understand that. It is a very natural suggestion; but I hope, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the whole of the remedies which will be provided for the evils which now exist will not be confined within the narrow limits of the recommendations of that Committee. That Committee did good service in bringing forward a good deal of evidence; but there are reasons why it is thought that the recommendations contained in their Report should not be accepted as a settlement of the question. It is quite clear from the feeling out-of-doors, which is both justifiable and has been justified, that, having regard to the
    582
    undue preferences which have been given and are given—undue preferences given not only between place and place, and between trade and trade, but also, in the way which comes most home to us, undue preferences as between our own and foreign produce—the time has come when it is absolutely necessary that this question should be grappled with boldly and settled. As far as can be judged from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he appears to deal with every point which we have urged. It is not for me, without having had an opportunity of reading the Bill, to give a definite judgment upon the matter; but I am bound to say that, on the face of it, we have every reason to be well satisfied with the proposals of the Government. I say that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have grappled with the subject boldly, and to be anxious to deal with it effectually. The Railway Commission, as I understand, is to be strengthened by the appointment, as its head, of a Judge of the High Court. That, Sir, will undoubtedly have the effect of causing the decisions of the Court to be more effective, and received with more respect, not only by those who approach the Court as appellants, but by the Railway Companies themselves. When we come to the question of the Board of Trade being constituted as a special tribunal to settle, in the first instance, the nature and amount of terminals, and to settle the whole of the classification of all the railways—I do not desire to express any definite opinion, but it does seem to me that you are putting on the Board of Trade an amount of work which is so vast that it is somewhat doubtful whether they will be able to cope with it; and at this early stage I submit to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether it might not be more effectually dealt with by the appointment of a Royal Commission for the sole purpose of dealing with the difficult questions of the re-classification of rates and terminals? The question as to the right of Railway Companies to charge terminals outside their maximum rates was before the Railway Commissioner quite lately. The contention of the trade interest was that the maximum rate includes within it the ordinary rate. The Railway Commissioner's judgment supported the traders' contention. That decision was

    583
    questioned, and the point is still sub judice. Whatever may be the result as between the traders and the Railway Company, the question of terminals must not at this moment be regarded as settled; and I am of opinion that the traders will not be satisfied with an arrangement which leaves the question of terminals an open one. I do not understand whether the Board of Trade will give what the Railway Companies now claim — namely, that they may have at every station on their lines the right of imposing a separate and definite terminal. It is the contention of the Railway Companies that they have the right to do this. Does the Bill give power to the Board of Trade that they are to determine, and that they are to publish in a Bill to come before this House, the whole classification of every rate of the Railway Companies, together with every terminal which the Railway Companies are to be allowed to charge at each station? I do not wish to say anything in a contentious spirit; but, having been interested in this question for a long time, I desire to make the matter as clear as it can be. At this late hour I have only to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the able way in which he appears to have grappled with the subject as a whole. After listening to that statement, I am induced to hope that when I have read the Bill I shall be able to give it my support.
    SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSON: Sir, I desire to add the expression of my satisfaction to that of other hon. Members at the comprehensive way in which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) has dealt with this question. I shall reserve anything I may have to say as to its provisions until the Bill comes forward for second reading. I should not have spoken to-night had it not been for two or three words which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Richard Webster) with reference to the Railway Commission. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the impression was abroad that the Court, as constituted at the present time, did more than justice, which was equivalent, in point of fact, to doing injustice. Now, Sir, having served on the Committee of 1881–2, before which Sir Frederick Peel was examined, I am bound to say that,
    584
    so far as justice is concerned, every decision of the Court which was impugned was fully justified by the evidence which Sir Frederick Peel gave before that Commission. Those decisions were justified not only as being consonant with common sense, but also as being in conformity with previous decisions of the Court of Common Pleas; and when we are told that the Railway Commission does not possess the full confidence of the public, I think I am justified in saying that it has the full confidence of the traders of the United Kingdom, and that, not because it has done more than justice, but because it has done equal justice. I thought it my duty to say this; but I will not at this late hour say anything else, except again to express my full concurrence in what has been said by my hon. Friend (Sir Richard Paget) on the opposite side of the House, that there is in this Bill a promise to all those who are interested in railway traffic that the grievances that have been felt will be remedied, and that a system will be created which will prevent the recurrence of similar grievances for the future. There are many other questions that have been raised in the long and interesting speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) to which I shall have other opportunities of adverting. As I said at the outset, notwithstanding my desire to do justice to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this important question, I should not have been induced to rise had it not been for the reference made to the Railway Commission.
    MR. CHANNING: I do not intend to go into the question of railway rates at any length at this late hour, nor to comment on the details of the measure brought so clearly and exhaustively before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella). I am quite content that he has recognized the maxim of one of the late Inspectors of the Board of Trade, that if the State does not control the railways the railways will control the State; and that he has recognized that the interests of the public and the interests of trade are safer in the hands of the State and the Bodies that the State appoints as representatives of the interests of the public than they are in the hands merely of Railway Directors, The rea-

    585
    son that I have ventured to rise for one moment to ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to make one or two remarks is this—there is an omission in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has himself referred to it; and it is because I am responsible for the measure to which he most kindly referred, and to which he drew the favourable attention of the House—the Bill for securing the greater safety of railway passengers and railway servants—that I desire to refer to that omission. I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment; but I certainly do desire to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision as to the non-admission of clauses dealing with the question of safety. What are the facts? The Royal Commission which reported on Railway Accidents took an immense body of evidence, and gave us an elaborate Report about nine years ago.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in referring to matters which are not within the Bill. He is now speaking upon a totally different subject.
    MR. CHANNING: I simply wished to draw attention to the fact that in the Bill brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) in the Session of 1884 this question of public safety was dealt with; and I would, therefore, appeal on these grounds to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider his decision, and to admit considerations of safety into the scope of his Bill.
    MR. LIONEL COHEN: I am sorry, Sir, to detain the House at this late hour; but I only wish to say a word or two. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), I must say, has introduced his Bill in a most clear manner. For 20 days the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade has been taking the evidence of traders, many of whom feel aggrieved by undue preference been given by the Railway Companies to certain other traders or certain other districts. With three sheets of the memoranda of specific grievances of which they complain in my hand, I can state most emphatically that there is scarcely one of these grievances that will not be covered by the clauses of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward. If the clauses of the Bill are
    586
    examined they will be found to deal satisfactorily with this question of rates, which is a most difficult one to touch. If it were dealt with in any other way than that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to adopt, as regards the general principle, I am satisfied that the result would be an utter failure. You must have an elastic system if you are to succeed. If you are going to fix a maximum or a minimum rate you will find that the circumstances of the country change so rapidly that you will have, in the course of time, to renew your legislation. It would then be impossible, without new legislation from time to time, to do justice to the interests of the traders and the railways. You must have some elastic tribunal that will have it in its power from time to time, without fresh legislation, to take cognizance of the circumstances of the development of trade and the other elastic circumstances which it is necessary to bear in mind. I am some what anxious with regard to one part of the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman did not speak of it with that extreme confidence which I should have liked to see him exhibit—I refer to what I may call the conciliatory tribunal of the Board of Trade. It seems to me that in the clauses which give power to the Chambers of Commerce and other authorities and Local Bodies to be heard before the Board of Trade or Railway Authority, he did not allow any facility for the individual trader to appear before it; therefore, unless there is that tribunal of conciliation that he speaks of, the individual trader would have no locus standi. I remember an instance in which a trader was advised to appeal to the Commission; but he asked what power could he have against the Railway Companies? That was a farmer in the North of England. It is most important that there should be a tribunal like that referred to which will be easily open to the individual trader just as the public tribunal will be open to public bodies. So far as I can speak on behalf of the commercial community with which I have been connected, without pledging myself to all the minute details of the Bill, I think our best thanks are due to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Predecessor for their services in dealing with this question in so exhaustive, and, at the same time, so complete a manner.
    MR. LANE: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will value any expression of congratulation from hon. Gentlemen sitting on these Benches; but it is so seldom that we Irish Members have an opportunity of congratulating Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite on the Bills they introduce, that I, for one, cannot deny myself the luxury of expressing my satisfaction at the very conciliatory and comprehensive manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this question. As a Representative of an Irish constituency, and also as a member of a very large trading body in Ireland which has suffered from these differential rates that are given to English Companies and shippers of foreign agricultural produce, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that though it has been challenged by an hon. Member behind him, he will find that in what he has said this evening as to the inequalities and preferential character of the rates charged by the Railway Companies, many hon. Members, particularly those from Ireland, will be able to corroborate him. They will be able to more than corroborate him, because I think, on the second reading of the Bill, we shall be able to bring before the notice of the House cases of most exorbitant charges on the part of the Railway Companies—such extraordinary charges as he probably does not dream of at the present time. With reference to his having been challenged in regard to the fish trade in Scotland, I certainly must admit that the hon. Member (Mr. J. C. Bolton) on the Bench behind the right hon. Gentleman went into figures to prove that the fish trade in Scotland is not handicapped to the very extraordinary extent that the statement in the Report read by the right hon. Gentleman would indicate; but I shall be able to prove—and other Members from Ireland will be able also to prove—to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman that hundreds of tons of fish captured along the Irish Coasts in the fishing season are actually used as manure, because the railway rates from the different towns on the Western and South-Western Coasts are so prohibitive that it would not pay the fishermen and dealers in fish to send their takes to the English market. If
    588
    the steamers plying between these Irish Western ports and the English ports are not at hand when the large takes of fish occur in Ireland the fishermen absolutely consent to sell their fish by the car load to the farmers for manure rather than trust to the enormous charges of the Irish and English railways for sending their fish to market. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, when further considering this matter, to give his most careful attention to this question of the preferential rates that are being given to all kinds of foreign produce coming into this country. It is one of the greatest grievances that producers of the whole of the United Kingdom have to labour under, for this reason—that, as a rule, the Railway Companies have almost a monopoly of the carriage of goods from all the different parts of the country. Goods from Scotland must come on one or two lines, also goods from Ireland, and this likewise applies to goods brought from different parts of this Kingdom. But goods coming into this country from other countries have so many different ports of entry—Bristol, Liverpool, Southampton, Grimsby, Hull, London, and so on—that the competition between the railways to carry these goods from the different ports to the centres of commerce is so keen that it is impossible for some home producers to compete in the English market with the foreign supply on account of the preferential rates which the foreigner receives. There is another point on which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to stand by the clause he referred to in the final part of his Bill—that is that particular part in which he requires the Railway Companies to send regular Reports to the Board of Trade. No matter what has been said by hon. Members who followed the right hon. Gentleman, I can assure him, as a trader myself, and one who has had a large experience in connection with railways, that there is no point on which they are more susceptible of influence than that particular point of publication being given to complaints which are made against their charges. There is no clause in the whole of the Bill which will be found to operate more to the benefit of the trading community and to the prevention of litigation—to the prevention of the Companies pushing traders to that extreme point of pressure when they have to resort to

    589
    litigation—than that part which requires justifiable complaints to be made public by the quarterly or annual publication of Reports. Of course, the hon. Gentleman who spoke from this side of the House is quite right in saying that it would be ridiculous for the Board of Trade to publish every trifling complaint sent down to them; but whoever is at the head of the Board of Trade should discriminate and make a choice of the complaints to be published in the quarterly or annual Reports. I should like on another point to ask a question—that is to say, as to the clause dealing with the cost of bringing these complaints before the Board of Arbitration. The right hon. Gentleman said the cost would be borne by the representative or other Body that would make the complaint to the Railway Commission. I should like to ask this—if these Bodies, or even if individuals, substantiate their complaints, showing just ground for them, and compel the Railway Companies to adopt the rates they demand, or to yield in any other respect to their claims, should not the Companies, under the circumstances, be compelled to pay the costs incurred, as in any ordinary case where a plaintiff obtains a verdict against a defendant? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough to inform us on that point? It would, I think, be a hardship upon the ordinary taxpayer if the cost of trying a case where a Railway Company presses unduly on one particular branch of trade is imposed upon the general community. While we shall all, I am sure, be very glad to see the local representative Bodies allowed to appear before the tribunal, many of us would be inclined to object to the clause, unless it were so drafted as to allow the costs to be charged against the Companies where they are proceeded against successfully.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I do not wish to detain the House; but, as a Member of the Railway Rates Committee, I cannot allow the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. J. C. Bolton) to pass unchallenged. I think that a consideration of the facts and figures brought before that Railway Rates Committee will show that a large number of the charges as to the existence of preferential rates which were brought against the Companies
    590
    were proved. With regard to the representation of the railway interest on the Committee, I may state that an examination of the divisions will show that Railway Directors, on an average, formed a third of the Members who attended. It is almost unnecessary to say that those Gentlemen invariably voted in a body together. As to the extraordinary system of charging and carriage on some of the railways, the statements to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade referred are not altogether so apocryphal as the hon. Member seems to suppose. It seems to me probable, from very trustworthy information I have received, that the charges on the railway with which the hon. Member for Stirlingshire is himself connected—namely, the Caledonian—shows that the allegations are not ill-founded. With regard to the reconstruction of the Railway Commission, I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman will give satisfaction. It has always been considered that the legal element on the Commission is somewhat defective; the law element on the Commission should be of the highest standing to deal with such important questions as those which come before it. I think, however, it would be more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us, before going into Committee on the Bill, that the services of Sir Frederick Peel and Mr. Price will be available as Members of the now Commission. Speaking for the public generally—that is to say, the traders—I must say they have the greatest confidence in these two gentlemen. So far as I have been able to ascertain, they have acted in the most independent, impartial, and practical manner; therefore it would add to the satisfaction and confidence of the traders in the tribunal if the right hon. Gentleman were able to inform us, before going into Committee, that these gentlemen will form part of the Commission. With respect to this new duty of conciliation or arbitration, which the right hon. Gentleman has hinted at, I am glad to believe that he has, so far, adopted the suggestion made to him by the deputation that attended at the Board of Trade the other day. I am glad also to see that the right hon. Gentleman has been taking counsel with what has taken place in the United States of America. I may explain that there are various

    591
    kinds of Commissions in America. He referred to that in Massachusetts; but I would point out that, although that may be the best, there is a good one in Iowa, and another one in Illinois. As the right hon. Gentleman has not the Reports of these Bodies before him, and an account of their constitution, I would strongly recommend him to obtain them. For myself, I am strongly of opinion that it will be necessary to go a step further, and make this new Department of the Board of Trade something more than a Board of Conciliation and Arbitration. In the first instance, after having tried conciliation and negotiation with the Railway Companies, if the Board is satisfied that the Companies are acting illegally and unjustly, I think it should have the power to bring them before the Commission. That is a duty which I think lies upon the State to perform. Parliament has given to these Companies exclusive right and privileges; and I think it is the duty of the State to see that these rights and privileges are not abused or exceeded. I was not quite sure about the right hon. Gentleman's idea of giving the Companies power to develop trade. I think that is a power which is liable to very great abuse. No doubt, private traders do, in certain cases, work for a time without profit in order to create a business; but they have to sacrifice their own profits in order to accomplish this object. But the complaint against the Railway Companies is that they develop traffic in one part of the country at the expense of traffic in another part. I think it is altogether a mistake, and beyond the province of Railway Companies to develop, or rather to divert, trade out of its natural channel, which is the cheapest channel. When they attempt such a thing great mischief to the country is the result. Take the case of this fish traffic from Wick. I think the rate charged from Wick to London is a very reasonable rate. Hon. Members who represent Railway Companies in this House will be able to explain the principles upon which this charge is made. The charge from Wick to London, a distance of 784 miles, is 65 s. a-ton, and from Leith 60 s., so that for about one-half the distance we may say the charge from Wick is 60 s. a-ton, and for the other half 5s. a-ton. The natural route for the carriage of fish
    592
    from Wick is by steamer, and such a steamer traffic would be developed were it not for this fact—that when a steamer is started to contend with a railway the Companies reduce the rate under that which is a paying rate to the steamer, so as to deprive the latter of the traffic. As an evidence of this, I need only point to the fact that between Dundee and Liverpool the railways have been carrying goods at a very low rate in order to drive off the route a steamer which has been competing with them. I think we are very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for dealing with this subject, and I am sure the House will give him every support in carrying through a measure which will put the traffic system of the country in a much more satisfactory position than it occupies at the present moment. As to the proposal for the classification of rates, I quite appreciate the convenience and desirability of simplifying the classification, and especially after what we have seen, from the Report of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, Banbury (Sir Bernhard Samelson), has been accomplished on the Continent. I do not see why there should be any difficulty in bringing about the same results in this country. I do not know, however, that the Board of Trade is the best authority for this object. I think a small Royal Commission acquainted with trade and traffic, who would have the precedent of the foreign railways to go by, would be the best authority. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will soon proceed with his Bill, and be able to carry it to a successful issue.
    MR. P. MCDONALD: I join my hon. Friend the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) in having introduced a Bill which, for the first time in railway legislation, will do justice to Ireland. It is a Bill that has been very much needed in Ireland; and though I do not propose to detain the House long, I desire to say a few words on the subject from an Irish point of view. The portion of the Bill that has struck me as being, perhaps, the most commendable is that relating to arbitration, inasmuch as I think that if a fair and equitable arrangement or agreement can be come to by both

    593
    parties, there will be an avoidance of litigation on the part of either the Railway Company or the public. Now, Sir, what we have mainly to complain of in Ireland is the high rates—the railway rates in Ireland are, I regret to say, much higher than they are in England. I have taken the trouble to go into the matter with some care, and I find that upon the leading lines in England first-class goods are carried at the rate of 1⅛d., while in Ireland we have to pay 1½d., or, in other words, something like 33 per cent more. That we should have to pay such an increased price for the carriage of our goods is certainly not just. But it is not merely in the case of goods that we are overcharged. We are obliged to pay for our passenger traffic more than is paid in England. In comparing the mileage rate, I find that on the English lines the average is 74 s. 5d. per mile, while in Ireland it is 84 s. per mile; the Irish Railway Companies, therefore, charge 10 s. per mile more than the English Railway Companies do. But this is only one of the grievances we have in respect to our treatment by the Irish Railway Companies. The terminal charges in Ireland are most excessive; they are such as, if brought to light by the investigation which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed, will astonish the English trading public. We have, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Cork, to complain very bitterly of the preferential rates. We claim that in justice to us there should be an equalization of rates—in other words, that there should be equal rates for equal distances. Preferential rates always have an injurious tendency towards some portion of the public, and an advantageous tendency towards another portion. In my opinion, public Companies should deal and act justly with all parties; that certain individuals should not be allowed preferential rates, while the general public are deprived of the advantages of such rates. In order to give you some proof of what I have said concerning preferential rates I will read to the House a letter. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members need not be afraid. I will not detain them long. This is a letter which was read before the Select Committee on Irish Industries, which sat last year. It was written to the
    594
    Committee by Messrs. Dixon, Hughes, and Co., of Dublin, soap manufacturers. Writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), by whom the letter was read to the Committee, they say—
    "We beg respectfully to draw your attention to the evidence given before your Committee by Sir Ralph Cusack, Chairman of the Midland Railway Company, and also to the following facts. The Midland Company carry soap from Liverpool viâ Dublin to Westport at a through rate of 22 s. 6d. per ton. This rate we have asked them to reduce, but they have refused to do so. We think this action of the Midland Railway Company, in thus carrying goods for the English manufacturers over their line from Liverpool to Westport for a lower rate than goods from Dublin, most unjust, if not illegal."
    The Chairman of the Committee, Sir Eardley Wilmot, asked mo, as being the witness on the occasion, what I thought of that; and my reply was—
    "My view of that is, that if I were in the position of Messrs. Dixon, Hughes, and Co., I would not stop agitating till I had used every possible means by which such egregious wrong should be remedied. It is a matter of impossibility for this firm to hold their own against the English manufacturers, while the Irish railways are offering advantages to the one, and denying them to the other."
    I will only trouble the House with one more quotation, for the time is getting late; it is a letter from myself, bearing very strongly upon the question of preferential rates. It was as follows:—
    "On my return from London, I again looked up the rates charged to my firm by the several Irish Railway Companies for the carriage of our goods, which are rated fourth-class. The anomalies which I discovered are so striking, that I am induced to submit to your Committee a few out of the many such cases. From Dublin to Belfast, a distance of 113 miles, the rate is 15 s. per ton; and to Galway, 126 miles, it is 33 s. 4d. per ton, or more than double for corresponding distance, both seaport towns. From Dublin to Clones, 93 miles, the rate is 21 s. 6d. per ton; but to Bandon, 181 miles, and to Kin-sale, 185 miles, it is for each 27 s, 6d. per ton, including the cartage through Cork City from one station to the other. Clones and Bandon are both inland towns. From Dublin to Cavan, 108 miles, the rate is 20 s. per ton, while to Newry, 76 miles, it is 20 s. 10 d., or about 50 per cent more to the latter, though Cavan is an inland town, and Newry a largo seaport. From Dublin to Dundalk, 54 miles, the rate is 15 s. 5d., while to Cork, 161 miles, or nearly three times the distance, it is only 17 s. 6d., per ton, both seaports. From Dublin to Ennis-killen, 116 miles, the rate is 28 s. 4d. per ton, and to Tralee, 206 miles, it is 32 s. 6d., or nearly double on the Great Northern of that on the Great Southern. Enniskillen and Omagh are both inland towns on the Great Northern, the

    595
    one 116 miles and the other 142 miles from Dublin, yet the rate is equal to both places—namely, 28 s. 4d. per ton. Londonderry and Waterford are both large seaports, distant from Dublin respectively 177 miles and 162 miles; the railway rate to the former is 27 s. 6d. per ton and to the latter 12 s. 6d. per ton. The rate to Newry, a large seaport, is, as already stated, for 76 miles, 20 s. 10 d. per ton; while to Kilmallock, an inland town on the Great Southern, it is only 20 s. for 124 miles. From Dublin to Limerick, 129 miles, the rate is 17 s. 6d. per ton; and to Portadown, on the Great Northern, it is 22 s. 4d. for 88 miles. But the most remarkable case is one on the Midland line, and to illustrate it more fully I send you the correspondence relating thereto. In April last we sent two casks of whisky, equal in contents and weight, the one to Ballina, distant from Dublin 166 miles, and the other to Westport, on the same line, and distant 161 miles; yet the rate to the former, as you will see by letter marked No. 2, was 4s. 7d., and to the latter 8s. 8d., as per letter No. 1. On the 13th instant (July, 1885), we asked for an explanation of this discrepancy, and in reply (letter No. 3) were told 'that in one case the rates are competitive, owing to steamers coming to Ballina, and in the interest of Dublin firms the Company try to keep out the Scotch and English houses.' Now, as the Scotch and English houses do not send Irish whisky into Ireland, this alleged reason will not hold good; and still more so, in the face of the letter received from Messrs. Dixon, Hughes, and Co., which was read to the Committee on the day I gave evidence, and in which it was stated that the Midland Company charged 22 s. 6d. per ton for carriage of soap to Westport, while the English manufacturers can send it over the Midland line to the same place at exactly the same rate."
    I have only to say, Mr. Speaker, that while such anomalies as these exist on Irish lines, and while preferential rates are being offered to traders in any one district for the advancement of the interests of those traders, justice cannot be done to the people of Ireland. Unquestionably, Irish industries are "Boycotted" for the furtherance of the industries outside Ireland. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella), with the justice which seems to have prompted him in the introduction of this Bill, will see that anomalies of the nature I have pointed out, and which injure seriously the trade of Ireland, are removed.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I only desire to say a very few words. At this late hour (1.40), it is not desirable to discuss this Bill very much more upon its merits. I have to thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) for bringing it in, and I only hope
    596
    it will prove a solution of that long controversy in which many of us have been engaged. With regard to the Railway Committee of 1881–2, I must protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), that the railway men were in anything like over whelming force on that Committee—we were 7 to 27. We sat there with the patience of Job and the resignation of Saints, whilst all sorts of charges were brought against us for two years. My position was that of a large trader, as well as a Railway Director; and I think the recommendations of the Committee are not all embodied in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot agree with all the plaudits heaped upon the Railway Commission. I do not think it had the full confidence of traders, or of the Railway Companies. They have done their best, but they were weak—["Oh!"]—owing, no doubt, to the fact that they had no judicial head. I maintain that they were weak in their decisions, and I could give case after case in which they have acted in the weakest possible manner. The whole drift of this Bill is contained in Clause 24. The Company with which I am connected came to Parliament with a new schedule of dues, and a new classification; and that involved giving up, to some extent, the powers which they at present possess. Parliament threw the Bill aside for the reason, which I think was correctly described by the right hon. Gentleman, that it was not desirable for every Company to go in for a separate Bill. What I want to remind the House of is that, if there be complaints against railways, there have been still graver complaints against this House. This House has for years legislated with regard to railways in the blindest possible way, without having any great scheme of national policy before it. They have gone on granting or refusing, as the case may be, powers to Railway Companies; but they have not had before them any settled line of action for the development of great industries. The want of a settled purpose on the part of Parliament has resulted in great injury to the trading interests of the country. These things, however, are past, and cannot now be remedied. If railways are to be regulated, Parliament ought not to forget the interests of those who have subscribed the millions of capital. I see

    597
    hon. Gentleman from Ireland in their places, and I should like to call their attention to one paragraph of the Report of this Committee, of which nothing has been said this evening, and that is the paragraph which says that there came up a universal complaint from Ireland of the management of the railways of that country. The witnesses from Ireland desired that there should be almost one management of the railways of Ireland, in order that many of the anomalies of the Irish railways might be redressed; and, above all, that the management might be confined within narrower limits. I will not trespass further upon the attention of the House, the Committee of 1881–2 having exonerated the railway interest from the charge that it had betrayed the trust which the public has placed in it.
    MR. MAGNIAC: I only wish to make a few remarks upon one part of the Bill—namely, the part relating to arbitration, and to fortify the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in standing up against any attempt to whittle away his arbitration proposals, About two-and-a-half years ago I happened to be the President of the London Chamber of Commerce, and at that time I instituted an arbitration which has been very successful in certain trade cases. We are endeavouring to extend the principle, and have good hope that we shall, before many years are over, establish in London some such system of arbitration as exists in France, Spain, Germany, and, in fact, in every trading country in the world except our own. I do think that, with all the authority of a Government Department, a system of arbitration may be and will be established which will be of the greatest benefit indeed to traders. As has been said to-night, traders have been beaten in details by the Railway Companies. If traders are able to go into details with a Government Department, I feel confident the Railway Companies will be aware of it. I feel certain that very great disappointment, at any rate, will be avoided. Traders will be able to ascertain what their real position is, and they will be able to avoid the necessity of going into the Railway Court. I am glad that this Court is going to be made a Court of much greater authority than it has hitherto been. Mr.
    598
    Speaker, I do not think this debate ought to be allowed to close without some words in acknowledgment of the great labour bestowed upon the question of a re-adjustment of railway rates by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Banbury Division of Oxfordshire (Sir Bornhard Samuelson). In my opinion, that hon. Gentleman, if he has not influenced this Bill, is responsible for the direction it takes. Certainly, he has had a great share in directing public opinion on this matter in the right direction. The Report which the hon. Gentleman has made is the most extraordinary document I have ever seen with reference to any trade matter. I have no doubt many hon. Gentlemen have read it; but should there be some who have not seen it, I hope they will take the trouble to go over it; for from it they will see it is possible to have a reasonable system of classification of rates and charges. I will conclude by saying that I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) intends to pass this measure. The Bill has met with much assent; but there are many of us who have known Bills brought in with quite as much approval as this Bill, and yet at a particular period of the Session they have been abandoned. I hope my right hon. Friend will not allow that to be done in this case, but that he will insist upon the Bill passing. The agricultural and commercial interests are intimately concerned in the matter; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will redound not only to his own credit, but to that of the Government, if he succeeds in passing, at least, a fair and satisfactory measure dealing with the great anomalies which exist.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered, to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. ACLAND, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 138.]

    EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (1880) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
    (Mr. Burt, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Joicey, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Lockwood.)

    [BILL 76.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Burt.)
    MR. TOMLINSON: I trust that when this Bill is referred to a Select Committee the question whether its operation is to be compulsory or not will be open. Many men of various occupations can be brought forward to say that the working classes do not desire that the Act should be compulsory—in fact, I personally would regret it very much if the Act were made compulsory, because I think it would operate in a retrograde direction.
    MR. LLOYD: The object of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 was to strike at injurious contracts which may be made between employers and their workmen. Now that, of course, is a most desirable thing to accomplish; but it is questionable whether the proposal of the Act does not go to prevent beneficial agreements being made. Some workmen would be injured if they were prevented from making beneficial agreements; and, therefore, I hope the Proposer of this Bill will take care that nothing is done to damage the interests of the working classes. I also desire to know whether any evidence will be given before the Select Committee to which it is intended to refer this Bill, because there are several points on which I think evidence should be adduced. In the Act of 1880 there is a mistake made, to which it is well the attention of the House should be drawn. In Section 6 of Clause 3 it is said that in County Courts in England cases can be heard before a jury; and it is also stated that the Sheriff's Court should be taken as a synonymous Court. Now, the fact is that in the Sheriff's Court in Scotland there can be no jury. The two Courts, therefore, are not synonymous; and I would ask that the Select Committee may have their attention called to the clause, If people wished to have a jury in Scotland they were forced to go into the Superior Court at very great expense; whereas a case can be heard before a jury in an English County Court, providing the sum in dispute does not exceed £50. I wish also to say that the objection which is raised to the compulsory character of the Act is more imaginary than otherwise. I approve of the compulsory character of the Act,
    600
    though I think that if the employers go beyond the Act and give something better than the Act they ought not to be prevented from doing so. Some working men have suggested to me that every contract that is made should not be valid unless it is agreed to by, we will say, the Board of Trade, that the Board of Trade should have the power of making a contract valid if it was considered beneficial to the contracting parties. It seems to me that that would be a great improvement.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment Bill.

    CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) [REMUNERATION TO OFFICERS, &C.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to any Commissioners and Officers who may be appointed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session, for amending the Law relating to the Tenure of Land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and the payment of remuneration to Sheriff Clerks for duties arising under such Act.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    COMMONS.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Land Commissioners for England, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order:
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, in respect to each such Provisional Order, to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament, and, if so, whether with or without modification; and in the event of their being of opinion that the same should be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly, with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Land Commissioners:
    Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members, Seven to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection:—Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Mr. WALTER JAMES, Mr. RICHARD POWER, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. ARCH, Mr. EDWARD BUXTON, Mr. WROUGHTON nominated Members of the Committee:
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.