Commons Sitting of 4 May 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Mines (Limitation of Hours)*[241]; Merchant Seamen (Widows and Orphans' Pensions)*[237]; Footpaths and
1348
Roadside Wastes*[238]; Colliery Tenants Relief*[239]; Factory Acts Amendment*[210].
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue [202], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading Water* [227].
Report—Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough), &c.*[192]; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse)*[194].

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY—THE CHIEF OFFICIAL RECEIVER.
  MR. ELTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, How long the present provisional arrangement, under which a sum of £8,000 per annum is allowed to the Chief Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, as an officer of the Board of Trade, to be expended by him as he may think fit on his personal staff, is to continue; and, whether he will take the necessary steps for bringing the Chief Official Receiver's Office under the immediate control of the Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners, by placing it on the permanent establishment of the Civil Service?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The appointment of the Chief Official Receiver in Bankruptcy was originally made for a period of five years, which will expire during the present year. The whole arrangements of the Department are, however, at present under consideration; and I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to give the hon. and learned Member any undertaking.

  POST OFFICE—LICENCE TO THE WRITING TELEGRAPH.
  MR. M'EWANasked the Postmaster General, If his refusal to grant a licence to the Pro-

  1349
  prietors of the Writing Telegraph is indicative of a resolution to depart from the position taken up by the Government, as defined by Sir Henry James (then Attorney General) on the 29th of November, 1880, in the case of the "Attorney General v. the Edison Telephone Company (and others)," now United Telephone Company (specially reported for The Telegraphic Journal, 15th December, see vol. 8, page 425), as follows:—
  "There is no desire on the part of the Crown to check invention. I most emphatically disclaim that inventors and Companies will always be dealt with in a liberal spirit, if they consent to become licencees of the Crown;"
  and further, in the same case, the Attorney General said (see Engineering, vol. 30, page 514)—
  "The Government has no wish whatever to stop energy for increased knowledge in telegraphy. The sole object of the Crown on the present occasion being to obtain an order for a compulsory licence upon all persons who should use the telephone;"
  and if that action did not arise in consequence of the Telephone Company having refused to become licencees; whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Attorney General, on his application to two Judges of the High Court on the 11th of April, 1881, to vary the decree (see Telegraphic Journal, vol. 9, page 149)—
  "The litigation has now come to an end. When once the claim of the Crown to the monopoly was admitted, they would be ready, in the interests of the public, to grant licences, so that there might be no impediment in the way of the active carrying on of the telephonic communication;"
  whether, seeing that the proprietors of the Writing Telegraph only ask to become licencees of the Crown, he will state on what grounds they are refused to use their telegraph system; and, has he discretionary power to alter the principle on which Government has declared its intention to deal with inventors and Companies, as in the Edison case?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the declaration which his Question gives in the first person is not a quotation from the report in The Telegraphic Journal of December 15, 1880. That report is a condensed account of the proceedings, and is given in a narrative form in the third person. The
  1350
  report in Engineering is also a mere condensed account. I can cite nothing in the shorthand writer's notes which conveys such an impression as the hon. Member has received. I may further say that the then Postmaster General did not, on the judgment being given in his favour, immediately concede a general licence even to those who were parties to the case before the Court. He freely exercised his discretion, refusing a licence here, and granting a licence there. I have, on a previous occasion, stated to the hon. Member that the Government has never assumed the position of granting indiscriminately a licence to every inventor of a new form of apparatus. I have also informed him that if there is a substantial demand for the establishment of exchanges to be worked by the instruments of the Writing Telegraph Company, I think it preferable that they should be in the hands of the Post Office, the instruments being supplied by the proprietors on terms to be arranged. To both these statements I still adhere.

  SUEZ CANAL—RETURNS OF SHIPPING AND TONNAGE.
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, with reference to the Commercial Paper, Suez Canal Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, annually presented to Parliament, there would be any difficulty in keeping a record of the countries from and to which vessels enter and clear the Canal, so as to add to that Return a Table showing the aggregate number and tonnage of vessels entering and clearing the Canal from and to each country each year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Secretary of State is in communication with the British Directors on the Council of the Suez Canal Company, in order to ascertain whether such information can be afforded.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL (EXPERIMENTAL WORKS).
  SIR CHARLES PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is now any reason why the explorations should

  1351
  not be continued, so as to test the possibility of making a tunnel between this country and France, and so remove the danger and discomfort in the communication between this country and the Continent, as has been recently shown by the loss of the Invicta?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Invicta has not been lost, or even damaged; and having regard to the vote arrived at by the House last Session on the Channel Tunnel Bill, I certainly should not be justified in agreeing to the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  NAVY GUNS—THE RETURN.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can hold out any hope that the Return asked for by the hon. Member for East Marylebone on the 17th of February, 1888 (relative to the number of ships of war waiting for their guns, as well as the probable date on which those guns will be mounted on board) will be presented to the House of Commons before Whitsuntide; and, if not, whether he can fix a date for the presentation of that Return?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; certainly before Whitsuntide. It is a difficult Return to prepare, as the destination of guns has been frequently changed.

  WAR OFFICE—FIRST AND SECOND ARMY CORPS—HORSE AND FIELD ARTILLERY.
  CAPTAIN COTTONasked the Secretary of State for War, in the event of the First and Second Army Corps, including ammunition columns, being despatched on active service, What will be the number of batteries of Horse and Field Artillery remaining available for the following purposes respectively:—the supply of the waste of the Army in the field; the reinforcement of the Indian and Colonial Establishments; and action with the Regular, Militia, and Volunteer Infantry remaining in the United Kingdom?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In the event of two Army Corps being suddenly sent upon foreign service, it would be necessary, if there was no
  1352
  time to organize other ammunition columns, to utilize for this purpose 14 batteries of Field Artillery, and there would then be left only 537 officers and men of the Royal Horse Artillery, with 16 guns, and 2,069 of the Field Artillery, with 40 guns, including the depoôts; but in the event of mobilization for home defence, there would be no occasion to break up the 14 field batteries not required for service with the two Army Corps, and they would be all available. The establishment of Royal Artillery was fixed after an elaborate inquiry two years ago into the whole organization of our Army.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —THE POST OFFICE AT ABERAMAN.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the functions of the Post Office at Aberaman as respects savings banks payments, Post Office orders, postal orders, and telegraphic communications have been suspended for several weeks, to the great inconvenience of the inhabitants generally, and of the working classes especially; and, whether he will give instructions that those branches of the postal business be there resumed without delay?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The transaction of those branches of Post Office business described by the hon. Member has been temporarily suspended at Aberaman, owing to the necessity of immediately taking the office out of the hands of the late receiver. Steps are being taken for the appointment of another receiver; and when this has been done, no time will be lost in arranging for the transaction of all branches of Post Office business at Aberaman as before. I am informed that there is a post office within a short distance, where the required accommodation is supplied.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —RAILWAY COMPANIES—USE OF PRIVATE WIRES.
  MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck) (for Mr. JOICEY)asked the Postmaster General, If, to suit the public convenience, he will consider whether he can arrange to allow Railway Companies to

  1353
  transmit public telegrams by their private wires during hours in which the postal telegraph offices are closed, or at any time where no postal telegraph office exists within a reasonable distance of the population surrounding the railway station; and, whether such arrangements would increase the revenue of his Department without any expenditure of capital on the part of the Post Office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have to state that there are nearly 1,600 railway stations now open for the transaction of telegraph business during hours fixed by the Companies; and in cases of emergency telegrams are, with my entire concurrence, accepted at other times and also at other stations. Such telegrams are included in the accounts with the Department, and the Companies receive the usual commission for transmitting them.

  CANAL COMPANIES—PROTECTION OF BANKS AND TOW-PATHS.
  MR. AIRDasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will consider the desirability of introducing a Bill to give to some Public Authority the right of requiring Canal Companies to protect the tow-paths and banks of canals when passing through populous neighbourhoods?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The matter referred to by the hon. Member is one of some difficulty, and I am not sure that it appertains solely to the Board of Trade to deal with it. If he will communicate to me the circumstances of any case that has come within his notice, I will consider whether any clause on the subject can properly be introduced into the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill now before the House.

  RAILWAYS—OLD RAILWAY STATIONS —IMPROVEMENT.
  MR. AIRDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the interests of the public safety, he will consider the advisability of applying to many of the antique stations still existing, the requirements now held to be necessary in the construction of new railway station works; and also of conferring powers on the Board of Trade to exercise afterwards
  1354
  reasonable supervision and to enforce such additions being made as may be proved necessary for the altered condition and increase of traffic?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Board of Trade have power to direct an inspection of all new works made from time to time on existing railways, and in the exercise of this power the circumstances of old stations are frequently brought under their notice. Whether the Board of Trade should or should not have the further powers referred to by the hon. Member is a matter of policy which I cannot deal with in the limits of an answer; but the matter will receive my consideration.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— CHAPLAINS' SALARIES.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can inform the House on what scale, or on what principle, the salaries of chaplains in the English prisons are fixed; and, if the salaries of chaplains in Scotch prisons are fixed on the same scale or principle; if not, if there is any objection to apply the English scale to the chaplains of Scotch prisons of the same size as to cell accomodation and daily average population?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied)said, the salaries of chaplains in both English and Scotch prisons were fixed on a general proportion to the average number of prisoners under their charge; and though it is difficult to apply the English scale, as a whole, to Scotland, I believe that there is little, if any, difference between them when fairly compared. A Memorial for increase of pay has recently been received from the chaplains and surgeons of the three largest Scotch prisons, so I am precluded from discussing the question further at present.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE LICENSING CLAUSES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Local Government Board, If, having regard to the opposition, evidenced by numerous Petitions to this House and

  1355
  the expression of many public meetings, to the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill, on the part of the Licensed Victuallers and the off-licence holders, as also of many actively engaged in the furtherance of greater general temperance, Her Majesty's Government will withdraw or postpone those clauses, as calculated to divert into side issues the consideration of the extension of local government?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): As I have already stated, the Government do not propose to withdraw these clauses from the consideration of the House.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL—UNSTAMPED BEARER SECURI TIES.
  MR. MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, a holder of unstamped bearer securities must stamp them should he deposit them after July 1st with two bankers for safe custody, or for the encashment of his coupons; whether a banker who delivers such securities to the owner, or to another banker for the owner's account, must stamp them also; and, whether the holder of such securities who has to leave them with agents for the renewal of the coupon sheets, or to justify his attendance at meetings, must stamp them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): It is assumed that in neither of the cases put does any change in the ownership of the bonds or any assignment of any interest therein take place. If that be so, no liability to the new duty would arise.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POSTMEN.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Postmaster General, What is the position of the men employed in the Parcel Post; whether 18 s. a-week is the maximum limit of their wages, or whether there is any increase contemplated after a certain term of service; and, whether the hours of the men employed in this work are to be maintained at the present average?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The
  1356
  men employed in the Parcel Post are taken on without Civil Service certificates, and at all ages. Those who do well, and are within the limits of age prescribed for permanent appointment, are subjected to examination by the Civil Service Commissioners and pass on to the establishment as vacancies occur. As many as 66 so passed during last year. At 18 s. a-week, which is the maximum wage they can receive until promoted to the establishment, there is no difficulty in getting candidates. Indeed, a large number are now waiting for employment. The attendance averages eight hours in the day, and this average there is no intention of changing.
  MR. LAWSONasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would give the total number employed in the Metropolitan area?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he would be glad to supply the hon. Gentleman with the information.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —CONVEYANCE OF LETTERS BY RAILWAY—SPECIAL STAMP.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Postmaster General, If he can state what the difficulty is in issuing special stamps for the conveyance by Railway Companies of letters which have not passed through the post; and, whether, having regard to the great convenience to the public of allowing the practice of transmitting letters by rail to be continued, he can hold out any hope that the difficulty will be met?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): There are several difficulties in the way of issuing special postage stamps for the purpose of conveying letters which have not passed through the post. These need the most careful consideration. But with the desire to arrive at a satisfactory solution, I have appointed a Departmental Committee to report on the subject, and the Committee has already commenced its inquiry.

  LOTTERIES ACTS—EDINBURGH EAST DIVISION CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIA TION.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the fact

  1357
  that one Kenneth J. Brand, describing himself as secretary, is now offering for sale tickets for a drawing, in the nature of a lottery, announced to be in aid of funds to furnish a hall for Edinburgh East Division Conservative Association; whether the drawing is advertised to take place on June 1; whether the prizes include cigars; whether Kenneth J. Brand is licensed to sell tobacco; and, whether the Government will take any action in the matter?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am making inquiry into this case. The hon. Member has supplied me with a list of prizes. Except as regard three framed engravings of Lords Beaconsfield, Salisbury, and Randolph Churchill, a photo album, and an embroidered silk draught screen, and, possibly, also Lord Beaconsfield's selected speeches, I cannot hold that they properly come under the description of works of art falling within the principle under which by Statute Art lotteries are made more moral than others. The list does include a box of cigars, and I am informed that Mr. Kenneth J. Brand has no licence to sell tobacco. I shall call the attention of the Inland Revenue to this part of the case. When my inquiries are complete, I shall be in a position to judge what action should be taken.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—PORT SANITARY AUTHORITY FOR DARTMOUTH.
  MR. MILDMAYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Local Government Board still adhere to their proposal to issue an Order constituting a Port Sanitary Authority for Dartmouth; and, whether, seeing that a Local Government Bill, based upon a representative system, has been brought in, they will consider the advisability of postponing the constitution of the proposed authority until after the passing of the Local Government Bill, when it can be brought into harmony with the provisions of the Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Board have deemed it necessary to issue an Order constituting a Port Sanitary Authority for Dartmouth. The Order has been ob-
  1358
  jected to by the borough of Totnes, and will not take effect until it has been confirmed by Parliament, and the Order will be submitted for confirmation. The provisions of the Local Government Bill do not, in my opinion, afford any ground for not proceeding with the Order.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—OPOBO— KING JA-JA.
  SIR EDMUND COMMERELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, taking into consideration the circumstances of the extradition of King Ja-Ja of Opobo, as set forth in the Correspondence now before the House, Will he hold out any hopes that when matters are more settled in Opobo, Ja-Ja will be allowed to return?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Only the conviction that the presence of Ja-Ja at Opobo, or on the neighbouring coasts, would prevent the quiet settlement of affairs in that region would have induced Her Majesty's Government to consent to the extreme course of deporting him, and they have no desire that his exile should continue longer than is necessary. He will be treated with all possible consideration and courtesy; and when, under the measures which are contemplated, the delta of the Niger has been brought under a settled government, and it is ascertained that his presence will no longer be injurious, Her Majesty's Government will gladly consider the propriety of sanctioning his return to his native land.

  INDIA—PORT TRUST FOR ADEN.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Port Trust of Aden has been, or will be, empowered to dredge the inner harbour for shipping, under cover of the new forts, by means of money to be raised on security offered by the Port?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The establishment of a Port Trust for Aden has been for some time under the consideration of the Government of India; but no intimation has yet been received that the question is settled, or a Port Trust in existence. Dredging is

  1359
  going on meanwhile under the orders of the Government of Bombay.

  CHINA—POLL TAX ON CHINESE SUBJECTS IN THE AUSTRALASIAN COLONIES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Is it true that the following protest from the Chinese Ambassador in London has been forwarded to the Australian Governments:—
  "Chinese Legation, 12th December, 1887.
  "Lew-to-Jen to Lord Salisbury.
  "My Lord,—The Chinese Commissioners who recently visited the Australasian Colonies for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of Chinese subjects residing in these parts of H.B.M. Dominions report that in each of the Colonies they visited a poll tax of £10 is imposed on Chinese subjects from which the subjects of other Powers are exempt. I am also informed that at the present moment a Bill, which passed the House of Assembly of Tasmania in September last, is under the consideration of the Legislative Council of that Colony, having for its object the imposition of a similar tax on all Chinese subjects who may hereafter visit the Island for the purpose of trade:
  "The Imperial Government hopes that, with a view to the elimination of any part of such laws which may be found to be at variance with Treaty obligations and international usage, Her Majesty's Government will be pleased to institute an inquiry into their nature, and how far they are compatible with the increasing growth of the friendly relations which now happily exist between the two countries.—I have, &c., LEW;"
  and, if so, what steps the British Government intend to take in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The passage quoted is a correct extract from a letter received from the Chinese Minister, dated the 12th of last December. The Governors of the Australasian Colonies have been instructed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to furnish Reports on the subject of any exceptional legislation affecting Chinese subjects which is in force in the Colonies under their Government. Her Majesty's Government are awaiting the replies from the Governors of those Colonies. They are fully aware that a strong indisposition has been shown in the Australasian Colonies to admit large numbers of foreigners who would not permanently reside there or contribute to the future stability of the community; and they
  1360
  will anxiously endeavour to procure an arrangement satisfactory to the Colonies and acceptable to the Chinese Government, with whom Her Majesty's Government are in friendly relations.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT—DISTRIBU TION OF VOTING PAPERS BY THE POLICE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the recent vote taken on the proposal to establish a public library in Marylebone, the police who distributed the voting papers in some cases actually delivered with the voting papers another paper calling on ratepayers to vote "No;" whether the policeman who actually delivered such papers at 53, Berners Street, Oxford Street, stated that he believed the paper asking ratepayers to reject the scheme was issued by the same authority as the voting paper; and, whether he will take immediate steps to prevent any recurrence of such employment of the police?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the fact is not as stated. The police distributed the voting papers, but no other paper. I am not aware what belief the policeman who delivered a voting paper at 53, Berners Street, expressed about the other paper with which he had nothing to do. The police have been engaged in distributing voting papers since 1837. This practice has been adopted at the desire of the parishes, and I see no reason to interfere with it.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether, if he placed in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman evidence that papers of the kind described were distributed by the police with the voting papers, the right hon. Gentleman would direct inquiries to be made?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would be happy to consider any evidence the hon. Member laid before him.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. DEVERS, POSTMASTER AT CARN DONAGH.
  MR. O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.) (for Mr. CAREW)asked the Postmaster General, with reference to

  1361
  the execution recently levied on Mr. Devers, the newly appointed Postmaster at Carndonagh, Whether he is aware of the considerable time during which the fi. fu. remained in the hands of the Sheriff's bailiffs, and what Return was made by the Sheriff on the fi. fa.;whether he is aware that the Sheriff's bailiffs endeavoured to effect a seizure on frequent occasions, but that Devers had on all occasions, except one, succeeded in closing the door before the bailiffs effected an entrance, and that on this exceptional occasion, owing to the resistance of Devers, the bailiffs were obliged to retire; and whether, under the circumstances, he will approve of the appointment of Devers as Postmaster?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The inquiries on the subject which I promised not yet being complete, I have nothing to add to-day to what I stated when the Question was asked on the 26th ultimo.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS— COUNTY COUNCILS—TAXES ON CARTS.
  MR. KELLYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared to give an option to the County Councils of imposing the taxes on carts?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Seeing the considerable difficulties with which the Government is confronted in dealing with the opposition to this tax, I confess I should doubt the expediency of putting so critical a duty on the County Councils at their first starting as the decision whether or not to impose this tax. And the difficulties created by adjoining counties would be very great. The roads of the one county might be used by the carts of another, while the county where the carts were kept might not levy the tax. You might have a war of licences between different counties.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS— LICENCE ON TRACTION ENGINES.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the proposed £5 licence on traction engines will be in addition to, or in lieu of, the licences now levied by the County Authorities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The proposed duty will be quite apart from the licences now levied by the County Authorities; but I may remind my noble Friend that the Act of 1878 gives the County Authority the option of altering and repealing their bye-laws in respect of these licences, and reducing the fees charged for them. It fixes a maximum fee which may not be exceeded; but the fee may be less than the maximum, and occasionally is.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—CONVERSION INTO COMPANIES.
  MR. MOWBRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that certain Friendly Societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act are seeking to become converted into Companies; and, whether, if converted into Companies, they will or will not be subject to the provisions of the Life Assurance Companies Act?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: The Chief Registrar informs me that he has heard unofficially of two cases answering to the description in the Question. The second paragraph, however, should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

  NAVY GUNS.
  MR. HARDCASTLEasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that five first-class iron-clads already complete are now waiting for their guns, and that two more nearly completed will have to wait till March, 1889, for theirs, and that this delay has arisen from miscalculation on the part of the manufacturers (including Messrs. Armstrong and Whitworth) as to the date of completion, Will he say whether these firms are manufacturing largely naval guns for Foreign Powers; and, whether, in the present condition of Europe, the Government will permit priority in the delivery of such guns to, or in the manufacture of such guns for, any Foreign Power while so considerable a portion of our Fleet is left wholly unsupplied?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE):

  1363
  I know that the firm of Sir William Armstrong and Co. have had foreign orders for guns; but I believe that the work which they carry out for the Italian Government will, for the future, be executed in Italy. I have no knowledge of any such foreign contracts being held by Messrs. Whitworth. The last Question raises a very grave question of public policy, which must be for the decision of
  the Government as a whole.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—RIOT AT CLASHMORE—CASE OF HUGH MATHESON, COTTAR.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet considered the 12 statutory declarations submitted to him between the middle of March and beginning of April, and containing evidence which, if true, proved that Hugh Matheson, a crofter at present undergoing 12 months' imprisonment for mobbing and rioting, was innocent of the offence for which he was sentenced; and, when it is expected that a decision will be come to in his case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The decision of the Secretary for Scotland in this case has been delayed partly by the serious illness of the presiding Judge, and partly by the earnest desire of the Secretary for Scotland to go more fully into the cases. He regrets that, after giving it his most anxious consideration, and making the fullest possible inquiry, he sees no sufficient ground for interfering with the verdict of the jury.

  PRIVATE BILLS—THE POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS COMMITTEE.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any of the Private Bills referred to the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee contain clauses imposing restrictions on the liberty of the subject not imposed by the existing law; whether the Home Office has reported against these restrictions being enacted; and, whether, in the event of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee inserting these clauses, he will call the attention of the House to these clauses before the Bills containing them are passed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): There were clauses against Sunday processions in streets in the Kingston Improvement Bill, the Lancaster Corporation Bill, and the Llanelly Local Board Bill. In the case of the Kingston Bill, the clause was withdrawn by the Promoters. The clause in the Lancaster Bill has been struck out before the Committee this afternoon. The Llanelly Bill has not yet been disposed of. In all three cases the Home Office reported adversely to the clause against processions, as being matter for general legislation. The Under Secretary of State has, at my request, been in communication with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations, and with the counsel to Mr. Speaker; with the result that the Chairman has promised to consult the Committee as to the possibility of bringing to the notice of the House, in a manner more effective than that hitherto adopted, those matters upon which the Standing Orders bind the Committee to make a Special Report. I should be unwilling to interfere with the discretion which the Standing Orders show that this House intended to vest in the Committee, and which it exercises after hearing local evidence and obtaining local information not usually accessible to any Public Department. Either the House must trust the Committee to exercise the powers which the Standing Orders give it, or must withdraw those powers altogether.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS— GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
  MR. O'HANLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Did he read the address, delivered in Belfast on the 3rd of April, at the annual conference of the Northern Union of Irish National Teachers; whether he is prepared to advise the Government to make a grant of at least £50,000 to that badly paid class, the Irish school teachers; and, whether he will say by what date a Bill will be brought in by the Government to put the Irish National teachers on equal grounds with the teachers of England and Scotland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have seen the address referred to, and greatly

  1365
  regret that anything I have said in this House should be interpreted as indicating that I do not sympathize with the difficulties under which the National school teachers may labour. It will always be my desire to do anything in my power to improve their position; but I am met by the same difficulty which my Predecessors have been unable to surmount—namely, that already the contribution from Treasury sources towards elementary education in Ireland is enormously greater per child than in England or Scotland, while the contribution from local sources is enormously less; and I cannot at present see my way to increasing this disparity, as the hon. Member seems to suggest.
  MR. O'HANLON: When will the Government introduce a Bill to improve the position of the Irish National teachers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought I had already intimated that the Government have no proposals to make on the subject. I greatly regret our inability to do anything in the matter.

  INDIA—CASE OF MR. TAYLER, LATE COMMISSIONER OF PATNA.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the allegation that the India Office contains no record of any communications between Mr. Tayler, late Commissioner of Patna, and Sir Stafford Northcote in 1867, Whether the India Office possesses any record of communications between Mr. Tayler and Sir Stafford Northcote in 1868; whether it is a fact that such communications terminated, on the change of Government in that year, with an assurance from Sir Stafford Northcote to Mr. Tayler that his case would be fully investigated by the new Secretary of State; whether that assurance was ever communicated to the Duke of Argyll; and, whether the question submitted to the decision of the Duke of Argyll referred to the general merits of the case, or only to the particular point as to whether the case should then be re-opened?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): There is no official record of any communication between Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Tayler in 1868, other than that printed in Parliamentary Paper 308
  1366
  of 1879. But a letter addressed to Lord Salisbury in 1877, which, being practically an application for honours, was, according to the usual practice of the India Office, dealt with personally by the Secretary of State, and not officially by the Secretary of State for India in Council, is still preserved in the India Office. This letter enclosed copies of the correspondence which Mr. Tayler alleged to have taken place between himself and Sir Stafford Northcote in 1867–8. There is no record of Sir Stafford Northcote's alleged assurance, other than a statement of Mr. Tayler; nor any record of such assurance having been communicated to the Duke of Argyll. There is, however, no ground for supposing that the case was not fully investigated. by the Duke of Argyll. The questions submitted to the Duke of Argyll by Mr. Tayler's Memorial of October, 1868, were—(1) That the order for his removal from the office of Commissioner of Patna in 1857 might be cancelled; (2) that he might be recommended to Her Majesty for honorary distinction; (3) that pecuniary compensation might be awarded him.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, if the hon. Member would inquire of the Duke of Argyll in regard to the matter?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, his official experience had been too short to enable him to say whether such an inquiry would be proper; but if the Question were put on the Paper he would find out.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—CLAUSE 66—BORROW ING CLAUSE.
  MR. RANKINasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of the Government that Sub-Section (f.), Clause 66, of the Local Government Bill, should merely afford extended facilities for carrying on emigration in the same way as is now done by Boards of Guardians, or whether it is intended that it should give power to County Councils to borrow money for the purpose of colonization or the settlement of emigrants upon the land; and, whether the Government intend that, if such powers are given to County Councils, they shall be regarded as a substitute for any further action on the part of the Central Government?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): We hope that the sub-section of the Local Government Bill referring to emigration will have a more extended operation than the powers now possessed by Boards of Guardians; but my hon. Friend will see that it is not possible, within the limits of an answer to a Question, to deal with such important points as he raises. This can only be adequately done when the measure comes on for discussion in Committee.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS (1861) AMENDMENT ACT.
  MR. RANKINasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Local Government Board declines to certify any school or home under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 43, if the children at that school or home are sent out to any of the elementary schools in the neighbourhood; and, whether, if that is so, the Local Government Board will consider the desirability of relaxing the Rule?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): It is not the case that it is the practice of the Local Government Board to refuse to certify a school under the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 43, on the ground that the children are sent out to an elementary school in the neighbourhood. There are many cases in which schools have been certified by the Board where the arrangement exists; but the statute only applies to schools; and to constitute an institution a "school," if there is no mental instruction given, the Board consider that there must be skilled industrial training.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE LICENSING CLAUSES —REFUSAL OF RENEWALS—COM PENSATION.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board, if the holder of a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors commit an offence against the Licensing Laws, and his licence be endorsed for a first or second offence, in case the Licensing Authority refuse to renew the licence, will the holder of the licence or the owner of the licensed premises be entitled to compensation?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Before
  1368
  renewal of a licence can be refused without compensation under the provisions of the Bill, it is necessary that a report against the renewal should be made by the Justices. A report to this effect may be made after an endorsement of a conviction for either a first or second offence, or after an offence has been committed, although there has been no conviction.

  EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES) BILL—GOVERNMENT CONTRIBU TIONS FOR USE OF ROADS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill passing into law, it is intended that Government Departments, which in many cases are most extensive users of public roads for the purposes of haulage, shall pay contributions (in lieu of duties) to the Local Authorities in respect of such use, following the analogy of contributions from the Exchequer, in lieu of rates, in respect of Government property?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Vans and carts employed under contracts with the Government will be charged with the new duty; but there is no intention of imposing it on Artillery carts or ambulance waggons, or other vehicles which are not used for the conveyance of any goods or burden "in the course of trade."

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—IMPRISON MENT OF MR. JOHN ROCHE, OF WOODFORD.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that Mr. John Roche, of Woodford, now imprisoned in Galway Gaol under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, has been in hospital since Monday week, and is now suffering from acute lung disease; whether he will consider the propriety of ordering his release, with a view to sparing his life; and, whether it is the fact that no Visiting Justice has visited the gaol for some days past; and, if so, why not?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Owing to the short Notice, I have been unable to obtain a detailed reply. A Report was, however, received this morning at Dublin Castle from the medical officer of Galway Prison, stating that the condition of the health of Mr. Roche is such as to render him unfit for further confinement. In accordance with the practice in such cases, the Lords Justices have ordered his immediate release.
  In reply to a further Question from Mr. CONYBEARE,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the course pursued in the case of Mr. Roche had been the same as in the case of any other prisoner.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE COUNTY COUN CILS.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is now prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the number of members of the County Council in each county of England and Wales?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, that he hoped to be able to lay on the Table a Paper by the time the House was in Committee on the Local Government Bill; but he was not sure that it would be ready before the Whitsuntide Recess.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—STERRY v. MASTERS.
  MAJOR RASCHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the decision of the Divisional Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Field, that the contract in the case of "Sterry v. Masters" was not an agistment, will apply to cases of graziers on the Barking and Purfleet Marshes, in Essex?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)who replied, said: In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that the decision in "Sterry v. Masters" will not, in my opinion, apply to graziers in the Barking and Purfleet Marshes unless they have entered into an agreement to the same effect as that which was discussed in that particular case.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCES—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the forcible statements recently made by distinguished officers of the Navy and Army regarding the dangerous weakness and inefficiency of both Services to carry out their duties of national defence; and, whether, in view of these statements, he will assure Parliament that the Royal Commission which was promised by the Government to inquire into the system of administration will be appointed before Whitsuntide; and, if not, at what date?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir, I am not prepared to enter into any argument with my noble and gallant Friend as to the preamble of his Question; but I may say that the Government are by no means willing to admit the dangerous weakness of the Army and Navy, nor the inefficiency of either of those Services. I am, however, glad to be able to announce that the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) has consented to preside over the Royal Commission which is to inquire into the most important question which has been raised in the course of these discussions—namely, that of the administration of the defensive services of the country; but I may say that the reference of the question to that Commission is not quite so wide as was contemplated in the first instances. It has, however, been deemed advisable to frame it in such a manner that it will be possible for the Commission to report in the course of the present year, if not before the end of the present Session of Parliament. The Government have felt that it would be most undesirable, after full consideration, to ask the Commission to undertake a duty so wide as to render it impossible for us to obtain early advice on that which the Government and the country regard as the most important part of the question which has been raised in recent discussions. The Reference to the Commission has made in these words—
  "To inquire into the civil and professional administration of the Naval and Military Departments, and the relation of those Departments to each other and to the Treasury; and

  1371
  to report what changes in the existing system would tend to the efficiency and economy of the Public Service."
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: How soon may the House expect to know the names of the Members of the Commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is our desire to form the Commission as rapidly as we can, consistently with the object which we have in view—to secure the service of the most able and experienced men in the discharge of the duties which will be assigned to them. The noble and gallant Lord must be aware that the selection of Members is a matter of exceeding difficulty. I hope, however, that we may be able to announce the names to the House in the course of the next week or 10 days; but I cannot enter into an engagement to do so, having regard to the importance of the decision with which we have to deal.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: Will the terms of the Reference enable the Commission to pronounce any opinion as to the efficiency of the Navy to carry out its duty of national defence?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No. I distinctly exclude that from the Reference to any Commission whatever. In the debate which took place in March last it was stated that it was the duty of the Government of the day to determine what measure and quantity of force shall be employed in the Public Service, and we cannot devolve that upon a Commission.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I am bound to say that I have listened with great regret to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. As one of those who originated the debate which has resulted in the appointment of this Commission, I think it is necessary to express my extreme regret—["Order, order!"]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to interfere, except by putting a Question.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I was going to give Notice of a Motion.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member may do so at a later stage.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: The First Lord of the Treasury will see that this is a totally different Reference to the one which was proposed before—namely, to inquire whether our means of defence were
  1372
  efficient, or whether they were not; and, as far as I am concerned, I think that Reference will hardly meet the agreement which was then come to.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have preserved the terms of the Reference which I read out in March last. It was in these words:—
  "The extent to which our naval and military systems, as at present organized and administered, are adapted to the national wants."
  I have stated to-night that it has been found on examination that this Reference would be so wide as to render it impossible for any Commission to report within a reasonable period upon any one of the points about which the House and the country want advice and guidance. We have, therefore, taken the question of the organization and administration of the Departments as being in itself the question on which at present there is the greatest desire for guidance and direction. The Commission that will be appointed will, therefore, have to consider the existing administration and the relations of naval and military officers with the First Lord of the Admiralty and with the Secretary of State for War, and to ascertain for themselves whether or not that system of administration is best calculated to secure the efficiency of the Services and economy in administration.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: In consequence of the—to my mind—somewhat unsatisfactory answer now given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that at the earliest opportunity that the Rules of the House permit I shall call attention to the undertaking of the Government with regard to this Commission given by the Government at the instance of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and also to the narrowed terms of the Reference announced to-night; and I shall take the opinion of the House as to whether this is for the benefit of the Public Service.
  MR. LAWSONasked, how far the inquiry of the new Commission would differ from that of the Commission that investigated the Civil Service Establishments?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The inquiry is altogether different. It refers to the principles on which these Departments are administered. I may specially refer

  1373
  to the position of naval and military officers attached to the Departments as indicating the very grave questions that will be raised and investigated by the Commission to be presided over by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington.)

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMISSION OF STRANGERS.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.) (for Mr. ATHERLEY JONES)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether facilities will be afforded to the House for considering and expressing an opinion upon the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the admission of strangers to the House, and more especially to the suggested curtailment of the privileges of Members in that respect, and the transference of duties from the officials of the House to the Police?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Report of the Committee alluded to has only just been circulated; and I am not prepared to make any statement in regard to a matter which affects the convenience and privileges of the Members of this House until I have had fuller time for consideration and for consultation with the officers of the House and until the wishes of Members have been ascertained.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, whether Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill had not been reprinted; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the Bill had been considerably altered in Committee, he would consent to postpone the third reading until it could be reprinted and circulated?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, the alterations which had been made in the Bill were alterations of detail, which could not be changed at the stage of third reading. He understood that the reprint of the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members within an hour, and he certainly could not postpone the measure.
  In reply to Mr. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, the principal Business on Monday must be the Local Government (Electors) Bill, and the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill would not be taken on that day.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— MESSRS. WARBURTON AND CADDELL, R.M.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has obtained any information with regard to the statement which appeared in The Daily Telegraph yesterday—namely, that an old man, aged 80, and his wife, both persons in feeble health, had been sentenced to one month's imprisonment by Messrs. Warburton and Caddell, Resident Magistrates, for the offence of retaking possession of an outhouse on the farm from which they had been evicted; and whether, considering the age of the old couple, and the fact that the wife is in a very emaciated condition, the Government will see their way to order the reconsideration of this exceptionally harsh sentence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have received no information as to the facts of the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but I will inquire into it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF RAIL WAYS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. WATTin rising to call attention to the present position of affairs with regard to the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when the Government should appoint a Committee or Royal Commission to take into consideration the question of acquiring the railways of the United Kingdom in accordance with the provisions contained in the General Railway Act of 1844,"

  1375
  said, he thought that he need not apologize for introducing this subject, having regard to its immense importance. So far back as 1844 a very considerable section of the community was in favour of the purchase of railways by the State; but the Committee appointed in that year declared that they would deem it unwise to enter into any engagement which would tend to interfere with the action of the Legislature in future times. How much the State had lost in consequence could be seen from the figures he would give to the House. At that time the receipts of the Railway Companies amounted to between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 sterling. Within eight years from 1844, that was in 1852, they exceeded £15,000,000, and within 21 years from that time they amounted to more than £32,000,000. In 1843, then, the receipts of the Railway Companies amounted to £4,500,000, while the capital employed exceeded £72,000,000. At the expiration of 21 years the growth had been enormous, the total revenue exceeding £32,000,000, and the capital employed amounting to £455,500,000. As to the present state and condition of railway enterprise in this country, according to the last Returns published by the House, dated December 31, 1886, the total capital employed in the railways amounted to nearly £828,500,000, and the total receipts from all sources exceeded £66,500,000, and the net receipts £30,000,000. As to the different Stocks at present constituting the total of £828,000,000, he found that of Ordinary Stock the capital exceeded £305,000,000, and Preferential and Guaranteed Stock £314,500,000, and of Debenture Stock and Loans £208,500,000. The amount which had been paid by way of dividend upon the Ordinary Capital exceeded £12,000,000; upon Preferential and Guaranteed Stock, £13,000,000; upon Debenture Stock and Loans, nearly £9,000,000. The average rate per cent upon Ordinary Stock had amounted to 3·94; upon Preferential Stock to 4·14; and upon Debenture Stock and Loans, 4·18. The average rate of interest paid had therefore slightly exceeded 4 per cent. These figures would show what a source of profit the railways might become to the State, and he considered that it was neither expedient nor possible for this
  1376
  country to take up an isolated position with regard to this matter. He would call the attention of hon. Members to the action of Germany, as well as that of Belgium. Although in France the system was similar to our own at present, yet France was moving in the direction which Germany and Belgium had pursued, and Switzerland was arranging within the next 15 years to take into the hands of the Government the entire control of the railway system throughout the Federal States. Nearly all the railway lines in our Australian Colonies had been constructed by the different Governments of those Colonies, and the opinion of the best-informed authorities was that their railways would constitute for the future an increasing source of revenue to the Colonies. On the question of economy, the disadvantage under the existing system was obvious if they compared rates current throughout the different countries. In Sweden the estimate was 30 s. 4d. per ton per mile; France, 12 s. 10 d.; Great Britain, 11 s. 3d.; Holland, 9s. 10 d.; Austria, 9s. 3d.; Italy, 9s.; Germany, 7s.; Belgium, 6s. 10 d.; United States, 5s. 3d. The English rates, therefore, were nearly 20 per cent above the average of Continental rates, and more than double those current in America; but if they took the two Continental countries which had control of the railways, they found that our rates were 85 per cent above those of Belgium, and 60 per cent above those of Germany, showing the enormous extent to which our traders and manufacturers were handicapped by the present system as compared with our two chief rivals. The terminal charges were also much higher in England than in other countries. Reverting to the question of capital, the amount required to be provided if the Government decided upon taking over the Railway Companies would depend entirely upon the terms of purchase, and the rates of interest proposed to be paid to existing shareholders. Even assuming that shareholders should receive the same rates of interest as at present, he estimated that by means of uniform rates, a superior management and consequent economy, a saving might be effected of not less than £10,000,000 sterling per annum. One of the principal reasons which could be urged in support of State purchase

  1377
  would be the material benefit resulting to our great industries, and the consequent stimulus to production which would follow. The rapid strides which certain Continental countries had been making, and the harder competition which our merchants and manufacturers had had to contend against, had resulted from no source more potent than the existing high tariff in this country as compared with Continental rivals. In addition to that it was notorious that certain Railway Companies had offered inducements in rates to Continental competitors for the importation of their products. He maintained that State purchase of railways would tend largely to remedy the disadvantages under which our great national industries laboured owing to the present system. Anyone conversant with the action of Railway Companies in the past would agree with him that their operation and action had been based entirely on a regard for selfish interests, and not either to further the trade and commerce of the Empire or to give the facilities and low rates which the community as a nation had a right to expect. The great object of a Government ought to be to develop to the utmost our internal resources, and to afford every facility for utilizing the products of every district of our country. Under the present system towns of which the industries had been decaying for years past, and where the consequent wealth and influence of the inhabitants were on the decline, could not possibly bring to bear that influence on Railway Companies which, by securing cheaper rates, might, at least, check that unfortunate condition of things, and the inhabitants of the more remote districts possessing advantages for certain manufactures by a uniform scale of rates would be able to develop new industries upon the introduction of capital which would follow the facilities afforded by cheap rates. While 1d. on the Income Tax realized a sum of about £1,500,000 sterling, 1d. upon the railway rates of the United Kingdom represented a sum of over £4,000,000, so that in a life-and-death struggle the Chancellor of the Exchequer would possess a financial source of boundless capabilities. The acquisition of railways by the State would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the near future so to develop and increase the Revenue of the country
  1378
  as to proportionately lighten the burden of the taxation, while materially reducing the amount paid for the transit of goods and passengers. He felt convinced that the acquisition of the railway system would tend to stimulate further the energy, wealth, industry, and national credit of the country, and that every industrial enterprize would thus become developed to its utmost capacity, so that we would be enabled in a manner unparalleled in past history, great as that had been, to retain for generations to come our foremost position among the nations, and a hold of those markets which it was the complaint of politicians of every Party we were fast losing from no cause more than from the fact that one of the greatest motors of commercial enterprize had been allowed by successive Governments to become a monopoly, to the discredit of the country and to the disadvantage of the entire population.
  MR. HOWELLsaid, he would have preferred to have seconded the Motion after the Mover of the Amendment to the Motion (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had addressed the House, because then he would have known on what arguments the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was based. The terms of the Amendment were—
  "The principles laid down in the Resolution of 28th April 1874 ought not to he departed from."
  That was a very much larger question than the purchase of the Irish railways, though he was persuaded that the same arguments applied in both cases. As to the Irish railways, he ventured to say that if the sage advice of Lord Melbourne had been followed in 1838 many of the troubles in Ireland, economical, social, and political, would probably by this time have disappeared. If the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had been able to bring forward any argument of any weight in support of his contention that it was financially inexpedient for the State to purchase the railways, the other two heads of the argument might not have been insisted upon. But he (Mr. Howell) contended, on the contrary, it was financially expedient that the State should purchase the railways. It was financially expedient when the inquiry was instituted in 1844. The great misfortune to the country was that at that time the House did not see fit to follow

  1379
  up the indication given them by the Committee; but he thought the House was more at fault in 1865, when it refused to carry out the Act passed by the House. It was very singular why in 1865 the House did not see fit to put in motion the powers of the Act of 1814. On that occasion the House refused because the terms were exorbitant, because it was thought that the terms could not be carried out to the advantage of the country. That depended upon circumstances—it depended upon whether they took one isolated case, or whether they regarded the matter from a bread point of view. Taking the case broadly, as it was formulated in the Act of 1844, the terms were elastic enough to cover whatever was needed at the present clay. Financially inexpedient. Surely, when by a mere stroke of the pen the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen)—who was so wonderful at finance—could convert the National Debt; there were many Railway Companies perfectly willing to accept the scrip of the Government in lieu of that already in existence. A great number of railways, that to-day could pay no dividends at all, would be able to pay dividends if they were under the control and management of the State. But, taking the case as it stood, what did they find? As his hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) had said, the fact was that about 4·8 per cent would cover the entire dividends paid on all the railways in the United Kingdom. Many of the Companies could pay no dividends, and possibly one of the reasons was the way in which they had been hampered by other Companies that wore able to pay dividends. As a matter of fact, our present railway system was ruinously expensive in every way. It was expensive to the great body of the shareholders. Notwithstanding that, the average profit was something over 4 per cent. A certain number of the railways paid considerably over that amount. Under judicious management all the railways could participate in the advantages of the immense traffic there was in the country. One of the reasons why some of the Irish railways could pay no dividends at all was that Railway Companies in Ireland had the very singular habit of running their trains in such a way that they could not by any means accommodate one another. Pas-
  1380
  sengers frequently found they arrived at a station just after a train by which they had desired to travel had started. He could quite understand that under such a system of management many of the Irish Companies were unable to pay dividends. But if the lines were under the control of the State, not only the particular bondholders or shareholders, but the whole nation would be considered—the advantages would be with the nation at large. Not only did he contend that it would be financially sound, as a mere matter of business, for the State to purchase the railways, but that it would be of immense advantage to the traders of the country. They had heard a great deal, both in and out of the House, of the depression of trade, and of the way in which many people were handicapped in their business. One of the reasons why many of our agriculturists were not able to compete with the foreigner was that every obstacle was thrown in his way by the Railway Companies. Cattle and corn could be brought across the Atlantic and carried through England at a cheaper rate than they could be carried from two points in this country. Girders could bo manufactured on the Continent and sent rid Grimsby to Sheffield at an immensely less cost than home manufactured girders could be carried from Grimsby to Sheffield or from Sheffield to Grimsby. This was the fault of the Railway Companies, which he hoped would be remedied by the Railway Rates Bill. He maintained that it was wise that the nation should take into its own hands an immense monopoly of this description, and administer it, not for the benefit of the shareholders of any particular railway, but for the benefit of the entire nation. He knew, judging from the observations made in a debate upon this subject in 1874, he would be met by the remark that it was not desirable to take away from individuals and place in the hands of the State too many matters. He held that opinion, but he also maintained that the State had the right to control everything in connection with our body politic. The railways had become an immense monopoly—possibly the greatest monopoly in the world—and from his point of view the State would have a perfect right to interfere with it, and especially to interfere on the lines of the Act that had already been passed. But another

  1381
  reason urged for the Amendment—and, of course, he was only able to anticipate the arguments of the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) by referring to Hansard, where he found the terms of the Amendment moved on a previous occasion—was that the purchase of the railways would unduly enlarge the patronage of the Government. He would not have been surprised at such an argument being used by a Member holding views similar to his own with regard to politics generally; but one would have thought the hon. Baronet would not have objected to enlarge the patronage of the Government. Speaking broadly, he (Mr. Howell) was not so much opposed to enlarging the patronage of the Government. What he wanted to sea was the patronage of the Government wisely bestowed. If the patronage of the Government was bestowed for the benefit of the entire nation there was no harm in giving to the Government a large amount of patronage. The misfortune in the past had been that this patronage had been used, not for the benefit of the many, but for the advantage of the few. He fancied that, with the extension of our representative institutions, that was not likely to recur in the same ratio. But there was a third argument used by the opponents of this proposal, and that was that the pressure of Business in Parliament would be seriously increased. His experience of Parliament had been by no means equal to that of the hon. Baronet; but he ventured to think the effect would be in a contrary direction. The fact was that a large amount of time was taken up now by the consideration of Railway Bills by Committees sitting upstairs. A very considerable portion of this time would be saved if the railways were under the control of the State, to say nothing of very great expense. To-day the Board of Trade had a very great deal to do with the management in an indirect way of railways, and it cost the nation a very large sum of money to keep the Railway Companies straight. Then there was, in addition, the Railway Commission, which had been sitting for many years, and whose powers were, he supposed, to be enlarged by the Railway Rates Bill. By the same Railway Commission, or some such Commission, the entire railways of the State could be managed with more economy and better
  1382
  effect than they were managed to-day. It had been said by many men, who were capable of judging, that the absolute cost of management could be reduced by one-fourth. If that were so, the State would derive a splendid revenue, and that very speedily. As to the time of Parliament being wasted, it was wasted now, and for what purpose? For the purpose of preventing free competition in railways. They heard a great deal about free competition and not interfering with the right of contract, yet Railway Companies fought each other year after year, spending large sums of money belonging to the shareholders in the first instance, but which had to be paid by the public in the long run, and for what reason? Simply to prevent that free competition that was intended to be enlarged by the Act of 1844. He fancied that, instead of enlarging and increasing the pressure of Business in Parliament, so far as this particular matter was concerned, it would do just the reverse. Whatever time was spent upon railway matters would be spent for the benefit of the entire country. The main reason why he supported this Motion—and it was no new question as far as he was concerned, because he had held this opinion for over 30 years—was that great advantage would accrue to the nation. He thought that an immense development of home industries would result. Our home industries would be able to compete with the foreigners, if they were not handicapped as they were to-day. It was all very well to deprecate competition on the part of the foreigner. It was all very well for some hon. Members to be looking forward to the time when we might be able to resort to Protection in regard to our industries. Let them remove the obstacles in the way of the industries at home. If they did that they would have little reason to fear the competition that might take place in respect of many matters. America, if she were only wise enough to remove her protective tariffs, would prove a great competitor with us. France was no great competitor of ours, and had not been for years. Germany, however, with her State railways, must be regarded as our greatest competitor. Belgium, with her management of railways, and now Switzerland with her railways were competing with us, and certainly

  1383
  France had an advantage over us with regard to the control of the traffic of I the railways. What was proposed to be done by the Railway Rates Bill was to regulate to some extent our railways with regard to tariffs, and so forth. That was all very well, but what was asked by the supporters of the Motion was that the State should assume some kind of authority with regard to railways. He believed that the purchase of the railways by the State would prove of immense advantage to the country, and for that reason he had pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when the Government should appoint a Committee or Royal Commission to take into consideration the question of acquiring the Railways of the United Kingdom, in accordance with the provisions contained in the General Railway Act of 1844,"—(Mr. Watt,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the hon. Member who opened the discussion (Mr. Watt) appeared to have ignored the fact that the House of Commons had, on more than one occasion, considered the question whether it was desirable that any portion of the railway system of the United Kingdom should be purchased by the State. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) remembered at least three long and important discussions upon this great question. They applied only to a small section of the railways of the country—namely, the Irish railways; but he referred to the matter in order to show that there was something in the history of the past to which it would have been well that the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) should have turned his attention. The first debate took place in 1872, the second in 1873, and the third in 1874. In the Division in 1873 there voted for the purchase of the Irish railways 65 Members, and there voted against that purchase 197. The Motion was brought forward by the late Lord Claud Hamilton, and at that time they were distinctly told there were several reasons, connected with the poverty of
  1384
  the country and the large number of small Companies in Ireland, which ought to induce Parliament to consider the question of purchasing those railways, and which did not apply to the railways in England or in Scotland. The same thing was repeated in 1871, when the Motion was made by Mr. Blennerhassett, and opposed by himself (Sir Julian Goldsmid). Upon that occasion there voted in favour of the proposed words standing part of the Question 56 Members, while there voted against it 241, and there voted for his (Sir Julian Goldsmid's) Amendment, which the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) had just referred to, 235 Members, and against 156. That being the more recent history of the question of purchasing a small part of the railway system of this country, he should have expected that the hon. Member, who, with great courage, proposed that the country should go into a business, which would involve an expenditure of capital of more than £1,200,000,000, would have given them some strong reasons for departing from the principles laid down in the Resolution adopted by the Government of Lord Beaconsfield. But the hon. Member had done nothing of the kind. He had quoted a considerable number of figures from the Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom, to which all of them had access, but which merely wont to show that the railway capital had increased enormously in the last few years; and that, as far as they were concerned, they could not complain at the high rate of interest which was paid upon that capital to the shareholders. But the real question was, was there any great, any overwhelming necessity which ought to compel them to embark on this new business? He looked to the authority of great men, who had experience of Public Business in this country, and he asked himself, what did they say upon this matter? He found that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in 1873, uttered these very significant words—
  "Nothing but a case that might be said to amount to very nearly a rigid necessity could warrant the State in undertaking a trade or business."—(3 Hansard, [215] 1158.)
  That was a proposition in which he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) entirely agreed, and

  1385
  upon that ground, if upon no other, he should be prepared to oppose the proposal of the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). There was no paramount necessity—in fact, there was no necessity at all—for the adoption of the present proposal. But if there were a necessity, what would be the result? Again, he referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, for that right hon. Gentleman had said—
  "It was totally impossible to suppose that if the State attempted to work railways directly, and under principles of Parliamentary responsibility, the persons entrusted with the carrying out of that system would not be liable to pressure, legitimate and illegitimate in every sense, from every quarter."—(1bid. 1163.)
  There were many other disadvantages which would ensue upon the purchase of the railways by the State. In the first place, they must remember that the present capital of the railways was nearly £900,000,000 sterling, and that to purchase the railways of this country would involve an expenditure of something like £1,200,000,000; because if the capital paid 4 per cent, and if they were to give 2¾per cent to the holders of the Stock, it was perfectly obvious that they must give a much larger nominal amount of capital. That was a serious undertaking, for which he thought Parliament was not prepared. But they must remember the constant pressure which was brought to bear in former times upon Members of Parliament, and upon the Government, even with regard to very small and unimportant posts connected with the Post Office. What would not happen with regard to the 300,000 employés who were now under railway control? They would have constant Motions made in the House with regard to salaries, with reference to the promotion of officials, and respecting the superannuation of officials, with which the House of Commons would have to deal. Then they would have a higher and a larger class of questions. One town would consider itself unfairly treated in comparison with another. One town would consider that insufficient advantages were given to it, and complain that it had not sufficient terminal facilities, and so on. It was easy to see that the House and the Government would be overwhelmed if they undertook that immense business. The hon. Member
  1386
  imagined that the possession of the railways by the State would promote the industries of the country. How would it do that? Why, the moment the Government took the management of any undertaking, they did their best to stifle private enterprize. What had been the experience of Government management in many cases? Had they not heard of Dockyard scandals, and of War Office discredit? Were they not going to have a Commission appointed to inquire whether the State was doing its duty in one of the most elementary departments of the work which was entrusted to it? They were told by hon. Members opposite, and by hon. Members on that side of the House, that the State had not done its duty, that the Admiralty and the War Office did not fairly allow the country to be defended in the way it ought to be, because their work was badly done, and when they were told this day after day, it was proposed to impose upon the responsible Government the duty of managing the greatest financial and commercial undertaking in the world. It was an impossibility, for reasons which could be given, that the Government could undertake such onerous and enormous duties. They were told just now by the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green that the method of managing this great Railway State Department would be by means of a Commission, and that that Commission would be more economical than the Boards of all the great Railway Companies. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) supposed there was nobody who had had greater experience of railway matters than Mr. Moon, the Chairman of the Loudon and North-Western Railway Company, and what had he said? He had said that every member of a Board of a great Company like his should undertake a particular section of work and be responsible for it, and he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was informed by a gentleman who had been connected with that Board that each man had to do separate work, and that each man had as much to do as he could fairly undertake. That meant that if they had a great Railway Board it would be impossible for them to manage all the railways in the United Kingdom. They would be obliged to have a largo number of Committees. They would bring all the railways under Government manage-

  1387
  ment and place them under Committees, so that, in fact, pretty much the same system as the present would prevail, only that the Government would be responsible, and that there would be frequent discussions in the House of Commons upon that responsibility. He did not wish to labour the question; but it was well known that if the House of Commons in 1873 and 1874 was of opinion that it was undesirable to add to the commercial relations of this country by purchasing the Irish railways, it would be all the more unwise to add to them by purchasing the railways in this country, because the new louse of Commons ought to remember that the business of the Government was to govern, and not to trade. It was quite right, in the interests of the public, to regulate the method and management by means of the Railway Commission, and by rules established by Parliament; but it did not follow, for that reason, that they ought to obtain this immense monopoly. He believed that the desire of all the best railway men in the country was, by reducing the rates, to serve the public as far as they possibly could; and he thought they would find that there was no country in the world—and he knew a great deal about foreign countries—where there were as many trains and where the public convenience was so largely consulted, and where, on the whole, the people were served better than in England. He had lived for many years in France, and he knew that, although there was a slight difference in the price of a ticket per mile between the French and the English ticket, it cost him more to travel in France than in England, for the very reason that every pound of surplus luggage was charged for; whereas, in England, there was scarcely any charge for luggage.
  MR. HOWELLsaid, he did not say that the railways in France belonged to the State.
  SIR JULIAN GoLDSMIDsaid, that certain lines in France were laid down, and Companies were authorized to work them upon certain conditions. The Companies were under certain regulations. In Germany the trains were few and far between. He had travelled much in Germany, and he had seen a good deal of the proceedings of German rail-
  1388
  ways. No complaint was scarcely ever attended to, because they could not complain to anybody but Government officials, who would not forward them to headquarters. Then there were hard-and-fast rules which must be accepted by people, whether they liked it or not. What was the difference between England and Germany in this respect? If hon. Gentlemen took the trouble to inquire, they would find that there was hardly a main line in England on which I a train did not run at least once in half-an-hour. There was nothing of the kind in Germany; and he was satisfied that if we had State management here, similar to that in Germany, the hon. Member (Mr. Howell) would be the very first to revolt against it. The hon. Member referred to Switzerland; but there was a more important instance which he entirely refrained from mentioning—namely, that of Italy. Italy found that it was impossible for the State to manage the railways satisfactorily, and having purchased the railways they immediately created two great Companies to manage the railways instead of the State. These Companies held a lease of the railways, and regulations were laid down for the management of the lines by the State. He considered that the right system was that the Government should not hold, and should not work, railways, but should control their management on behalf of the public where there was any necessity for doing so; and he was satisfied the interests of this country would be best consulted by not increasing the debt, by not undertaking this immense administrative and Parliamentary responsibility, but by leaving matters as they were, with such improvements of the law as the wisdom of Parliament might from time to time suggest. He understood that he could not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, because the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) was itself an Amendment. He was certain, however, that the Government would not give the Commission asked for; because, if they did, it would imply that they were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member. Knowing the Government's past history and present opinions, he was satisfied they would not do anything of the kind;

  1389
  and, therefore, he contented himself with opposing the proposition of the hon. Gentleman.
  LORD HENRY BRUCEsaid, that in Canada and Australia, under Government management, the people had far more lines in proportion than we had in this country. He noticed that in the observations that had been made nothing had been said as to what would be for the interest of the country. If previous Governments had done their duty in this matter the present system would never have been maintained, and the railways of the country would have been conducted in the interests of the nation, and not for the benefit of private individuals. He supported the Motion, because all that they now asked for was that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the subject, and sooner or later this great question must come to the front and be encountered.
  SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONsaid, that he was unable to support the proposal. If he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) would supply a remedy for the grievances which they complained of in connection with Railway Companies, he (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) might be disposed to look with favour upon the appointment of the Parliamentary Commission which the hon. Member asked for; but he saw no possibility of any good arising in that direction from such a Commission. If the result of the deliberations of a Commission should be a recommendation that the railways should be purchased by the State, he believed that no Government would adopt it, and, in his judgment, they would be perfectly right in refusing to do so. We had had our own experience of the State purchase of the telegraphs. At the head of the postal telegraphs was a most efficient officer, Mr. Preece; and everyone acknowledged that that gentleman was a person of great scientific attainments, and quite capable of managing his Department, which, in fact, he did manage in a most excellent way; but in the purchase of the telegraphs we acquired at a cost of £11,000,000 what we might have constructed for £3,000,000 or £4,000,000; and for railways that we might construct for £400,000,000, we
  1390
  should have to pay £1,200,000,000. After we purchased the telegraphs, there was a new invention, the telephone; and in other countries this invention had been enormously developed; but it had not been so largely developed in this country, simply because it would interfere with our vested interests in the telegraphs. In all such things there was nothing like private enterprize for promoting their development; indeed, he might say that the Mover of the Resolution had himself proved that, and had answered himself when he told the House that between the years 1844 and 1865—that was in 21 years—the income of the railways had increased from £5,000,000 to £32,000,000. Would anyone believe that such an increase, which meant an equivalent increase in the accommodation afforded to the country, would have occurred if the development of the railway system had been left to the Government? But it was notorious how badly the Government in this country, at all events, managed all industrial undertakings. The Government had been the shipbuilders of the Navy for he was afraid to say how many years, and at the end of that time they were told at the beginning of the Session that things had hitherto been so badly managed that by some new regulations our ships were to be built 40 per cent cheaper than before. Whether that economy would actually be realized was another and a very different question. So also with the construction of our artillery, we were constantly hearing of guns parting from their trunnions, of guns losing their muzzles, and of their lining tubes being cracked from end to end. He believed that in Germany railways were well managed by joint Boards of Government officials and commercial representatives, with regard to the interests of traders as distinct from those of passengers. In this country we had a competition of a curious kind between the railways themselves—to carry goods and passengers, not at their cheapest rate, but in the shortest time. In many cases facilities were afforded which were more than were really necessary, and they had to be paid for whether they were wanted or not. Mr. Oakley, of the Great Northern Railway, had told him that the competition between the railways in the manufacturing districts was

  1391
  as to who was to carry goods and to keep them longest in warehouses; and the result was that enormous warehouses had been built in order that customers who did not require goods immediately might have them warehoused. For affording these facilities rates were much increased, for those who did not require these facilities had to pay equally with those who did require them. The payment for this kind of facility, which was afforded at great cost, might well be regulated so that there should only be a claim for payment on account of services actually required and asked for, and to this extent the provisions of the Railway Rates Bill of the Government, or, if he might allude to it, of his own Bill, would, no doubt, be of considerable service. There were three trains starting at the same time from London for Manchester, and each, it might be, carrying very few passengers, and because they afforded these facilities the Companies could not afford to reduce their fares. While he was altogether opposed to the acquisition of railways by the State, he thought that much might be done by regulation and by amalgamation. One advantage would be a fusion of the directorates. But, of course, measures would have to be taken for the protection of the public. The Midland Company recently came to Parliament with a Bill asking for power to make arrangements with six or seven other railways for a joint purse, and that might have been a good thing for the railways, but perhaps not for the public, unless there had been full provision for the protection of public interests. He had insisted on clauses being introduced giving that protection, and the Railway Companies assented to their introduction; but in the end they withdrew the Bill. Without such protection was afforded, it might be doubted whether railways would care for the public interests. If amalgamation could be effected under proper conditions to be laid down by Parliament, it might be accompanied by a reasonable reduction of rates, and the public might be benefited and the railways too. That he believed to be the alternative to the purchase of railways by the State. It was not surprising that the question had been brought forward, because the Companies did things which could
  1392
  not be justified, and the traders were feeling their action more and more. It was true that the merchandize rates on the Continent, particularly those of Germany and Belgium, were lower than those of this country. We had to compete with the manufacturers who used those railways, and the competition was becoming keener every day. Antwerp was as magnificent a port as any in Europe, and it enjoyed facilities of cheap transport from North Germany, from the manufacturing districts of Westphalia, from those of Belgium, and even from France. It was not surprising that Glasgow should have moved in this matter, because Glasgow suffered from the competition of Belgian manufacturers and engineers. Still, he did not believe that State purchase of railways would be a remedy. A truer remedy seemed to be amalgamation under proper conditions imposed by the State, and such amalgamation would do far more for the commerce of the United Kingdom and for the railway proprietors—because the two interests were bound up together—than any legislation such as that contemplated by the Railway Rates Bill could possibly effect.
  MR. J. C. BOLTONsaid, he agreed with much that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Bernhard Samuelson), but he thought that he had taken a wrong moment for the ventilation of his particular views with regard to the railway system on the Continent. But while, undoubtedly, he had obtained a large amount of information on these matters a year or two ago, he thought he had probably forgotten that his facts were for the most part dispelled by the late Mr. Grierson. Undoubtedly, cases might be found in which the rates and fares charged on the Continent would compare favourably with those in this country; but it was not only the rates charged, but there was the question also as to the work performed for those rates. They all knew, or ought to know, when they expressed decided opinions on points of this kind, that the speed at which merchandize was carried was very different in this country from that with which it was carried on the Continental railways. His hon. Friend had referred to the fact that there were many more trains in England than were actually necessary for the convenience of

  1393
  the public. Undoubtedly, if they looked to the convenience of one man alone, there were far too many trains running at the present time, and he was prepared to admit that, even looking at it from the point of view of the public as a whole, there were too many trains running; but deprive the public of one of these trains, and he said the result was many and repeated complaints. Referring to the remarks of the Mover of this Resolution, he (Mr. Bolton), speaking as a railway shareholder, and having had many years' experience of the management of railways, said that railway shareholders would welcome very heartily a scheme for the purchase of railways by the Government if they considered only their own pecuniary interest. But he was not of that opinion, if he could transpose himself for a moment from the position of being a railway shareholder and director into one of the general public; for he was quite certain that the public would not derive those advantages which they anticipated, if once the railways became the property of the State. Undoubtedly, there would be enormous advantages to be derived from concentration of management, and to that extent he agreed entirely with the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid), when he said it would be a great advantage to the public were amalgamation of railways possible without extravagant cost. But he did not think that any Railway Company would, without some prospect of strong help from the Government, propose to amalgamate with any of its neighbours. Speaking for one line in which he was interested, he said that the cost of the fight would absorb nearly the whole of the ordinary revenue of the year. The hon. Member who introduced the subject based his argument, to some extent, upon the great advantages that would have accrued, judged by the state of railways 20 or 23 years ago. But if the railways had been taken over by the Government in 1865, was there a sane person who could imagine that, under Government control, the country would have been covered by such a network of railways as at present existed? It was competition that had done that; but competition was killed the moment a Government took over railways. The hon. Gentleman told the House also that this country was the only one where the Govern-
  1394
  ment had not made some progress in obtaining the control of railways; but he had forgotten the United States of America, where, perhaps, there were as many miles of railway as existed on the whole Continent together; and, as far as he was aware, not a single mile of those railways was under Government control, nor had any proposal been made for their acquisition by the State. Then, the hon. Member told the House that railway directors had been governed in their conduct by selfishness, and not for the general public advantage. Why, how could a railway director be expected in that sense to act without any regard for his own interest? The whole interest of railway shareholders and directors lay in the development, as much as possible, of the trade and commerce of the country. To be selfish in the sense in which he would have the House judge of railway directors would be suicidal; it would mean to kill the traffic by high rates, or the withdrawal of facilities, whereas the whole object and purpose of railway directors was to see how they might best serve the public, which was by increasing the facilities they afforded. He also, as well as the hon. Baronet below him, had travelled a good deal on the Continent, and he must say that he always felt great delight when he left a Continental railway carriage and entered an English one. Let hon. Gentlemen picture to themselves the position of men of business living 10, 15, or 20 miles from London. If the railways of this country were managed as railways are managed in Germany, they would have men hurrying away from their breakfasts in the morning to get to the railway station 20 minutes before the train started. There they would be locked up in a pen, and when the train was about to leave would have to rush out, and as many of them as were able find places. Those who could not get into the train would have wait for another, for the idea of putting on carriages for the accommodation of the public was a thing unknown on the Continent; whereas they all knew it to be the usual custom in England immediately to put on additional carriages whenever more passengers presented themselves than the train would accommodate. Therefore, he said that those gentlemen who expected to find increased facilities

  1395
  under Government management upon the German system would awake to very great disappointment. The hon. Baronet below him had spoken of storage being provided by Railway Companies in a general way. He did not quite follow him; but he did know, in connection with the Railway Company to which he had referred, that stores were being built as a means of affording free storage, or at a small charge, with a view of attracting more traffic to the line; but he must refuse altogether acquiescence with his assurance that it was the custom of any Railway Company in this Kingdom to retain goods in warehouses for purposes of their own. He would not trouble the House with any further remarks on that point. He could say a great deal more on the comparison of charges which had been made against Railway Companies of misusing their privileges; but he imagined they would have shortly a more full discussion of the subject in connection with the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, and he should therefore defer such remarks he had to make until that measure was before the House.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The hon. Member who has just sat down remarked on the academic character of this debate. I may add, that I do not remember ever hearing so important a proposal supported by weaker arguments. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt), desires that steps should be taken by the appointment of a Commission to consider the advisability of the purchase of the railways by the State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act of 1844. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) will bear me out in this opinion—namely, that Parliament did not intend at that time to lay down the principle that the railways ought to be purchased and managed by the State, but merely to make provision for perfect freedom on the part of its Successors in dealing with railways constructed after the passing of the Act. Therefore, the hon. Member who has made this proposal has no right to refer to the Act of 1844 as in any way establishing the principle that the railways
  1396
  ought to become the property of the State, or to be managed by the State. But I am convinced that if Parliament should attempt to undertake the purchase of the railways, it would be found practically impossible to purchase them under the provisions of the Act of 1844. There are more than 2,000 miles of railway, many of them parts of the great main lines of this country, which were constructed before the passing of that measure, and which, therefore, would not come under its provisions. The Government have no right to accept the proposal of the hon. Member unless they can agree to the principle of the purchase and management of the railways by the State. In my opinion, nothing could be more injurious than the policy advocated by the hon. Member. There is no ground for it. If it were acted upon, many of the evils which he has alluded to as existing at present would be aggravated, and we should certainly be brought face to face with new evils of far greater magnitude than any which we now know. The House has been warned of the enormous magnitude of the operation which the hon. Member contemplates so calmly. It has been said that the purchase of the railways could not be effected without adding £1,200,000,000 to the Debt. Whether that would be the exact addition or not, the sum would certainly be immense—so immense as to cause a financial disturbance in the Money Market of a kind which might oven affect the credit of this country. Of course, we should, to a certain extent, obtain value for our money, but only to a certain extent. The purchase of the telegraphs ought to be a lesson to us. We all remember how, owing to the necessity of taking prospective increment into consideration, the State had to pay far more for the telegraphs than it would have paid had it constructed them itself. Ever since the purchase, the Government have been pressed without pause to cheapen telegraphic communication and to extend it, and the result has been a deficit last year of £500,000. When we compare the far greater cost of railway construction and management with the cost of telegraphic construction and management, we may imagine what would be the cost to the State of carrying out the proposal of the hon. Member below the

  1397
  Gangway. When this proposal has been made on former occasions it has always been stated that if the Government should become the owner of the railways it ought to lease them to Companies or individuals. I will not detain the House with arguments to show that no such arrangement could secure the objects aimed at, for both the hon. Member who moved this Amend meat and the hon. Member who seconded it distinctly stated that they desired the railways to be worked as well as purchased by the State. This means that the Government should undertake a commercial enterprize of the greatest magnitude. Everyone will, I think, admit that the Government has no right to enter into competition with private individuals merely for the purpose of profit. It is, therefore, essential to the case of the hon. Member that he should make out that the railways would be better managed by the Government than they are at present. Would they? I do not believe it for a moment. Our railway management is not perfect; it might be improved; but I believe that, owing, to the financial success that has attended much of our railway enterprize in England, the Railway Companies do better work at a cheaper rate than any other railways in the world. There may be lower rates and greater punctuality on the Continent; but the public pay for these by having less frequent and slower trains and great delay in the delivery of goods.
  Mr. J. C. BOLTON: I did not suggest that there was greater punctuality on the Continent; quite the reverse.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Well, that is an argument that is sometimes used. The great objection to the hon. Member's proposal is that the Government could not manage the railways so well as they are managed now, and that if such management was attempted it would involve this country in grave political evils. Something has been said about the mismanagement of our naval administration. Many of us would be disposed to admit that such maladministration has in some degree been due to the political representation of the Dockyard Boroughs. This proposal would involve our taking into the service of the Government an army
  1398
  of railway employés numbering about 367,00. Differences between the employed and the employers sometimes occur in the railway service of a very serious character. These, under the present system, are settled on their merits, and without any reference to political influences. I would decline to introduce the curse of political influence and Party sympathy into the railway service of England. I think it would be a great public evil if the business of this House were to be smothered by innumerable Questions as to the disposal of railway patronage, the pay or the grievances of railway employés, the punctuality of trains, the rates and charges on the Government railways—all the multifarious details of railway management which would perpetually become the subject of question and debate in this House. I should be very sorry indeed to see the Government of this country laid open by such a system to the temptation which more than one foreign Government has not been able to resist—namely, the temptation of bribing localities by concessions to them of better terms for railway working and greater railway accommodation, and the construction of branch lines at the expense of the general taxpayers. The Royal Commission of 1865 reported, with only one dissentient—namely, Sir Rowland Hill—against a proposal of this kind. Since that time great changes have been made in the political system of this country. Public corruption, rather than private bribery, is the danger of an extended franchise, and no greater instrument of public corruption could well be devised than the ownership and management of the railways by the State. Reference has been made to the evil of railway monopoly. I admit that some of the anticipated methods of competition against railways have not been realized. There has never been any real road competition with the railways, and competition among the railways themselves has been reduced by amalgamations and working agreements, though not always to the public disadvantage. In this country, however, it is impossible that there should ever be complete railway monopoly, for it has been calculated that at three-fifths of the railway stations there is competition by sea. There is also competition from the artificial waterways of the country.

  1399
  I would suggest that hon. Members would do much more towards preventing railway monopoly if they were to devote their attention to the possibility of the State acquiring the canals. The canals would not require a great rolling stock, or a large staff for their management. The carriage upon the canals has always been in the hands of private carriers, and possibly they might be purchased at a reasonable cost; and if they were owned by those who were able and willing to develop them, the traffic might be largely increased. Parliament has tried, but hitherto vainly, to prevent canals passing into the hands of Railway Companies, and I believe that there is a strong desire among the authorities of our great towns that some further step should be taken to preserve the competition of our artificial waterways. On this point I have only expressed my own opinion, and I am far from saying that there would not be grave objections to the acquisition by Government even of our canals. But from every point of view it is a more feasible and arguable proposal than that which we are discussing this evening. The railways have not, and are not likely ever to have, such a monopoly as would justify the heroic remedy which the hon. Member suggests. By means of legislation such as the Railway Rates Bill, by the competition of our artificial waterways and of the sea, I think it possible to preserve and safeguard the freedom of the commerce of the country. It must be admitted that the Railway Companies have themselves done a great deal to develop industry. What can have been more advantageous than the enormous third-class traffic on railways which has been promoted by the generous treatment of the public on the part of the Railway Companies? Treatment which was adopted by the Companies at the risk of their dividends, though it has ultimately resulted in their own pecuniary benefit. In conclusion, I can only repeat that I think that there is hardly any project that could be brought forward which is so little warranted from a financial, commercial, or political point of view, as that proposed by the hon. Member.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is now a long interval between the present time and 1844; but the circumstances under which
  1400
  the Act of that year was passed are sufficiently fresh in my recollection for me to respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I do not think he has mis-stated the general intention and effect of that Act. Undoubtedly, the idea of State purchase of railways at that time was in an undeveloped state. It was quite impossible at the time to form any accurate judgment as to the extension of the railway system, and it appeared right that measures should be taken to establish the freedom of the State as to dealing with Railway Companies; but whether it was to be on the general basis of control or purchase it was then absolutely impossible to decide. It is almost ludicrous to look back upon the infant state of the whole question at that period when compared with the enormous development it has now attained. As this subject is of great interest, perhaps I may mention a fact which is within my own knowledge and recollection—a fact of very considerable interest—as being illustrative of the manner in which this vast subject has passed beyond all human computation of the possibilities it at first appeared to involve. About the year 1841 or 1842, when I was at the Board of Trade, the question arose whether there could be a railway into Scotland. I think at that time we owed a great deal to a gentleman well known in connection with railways, as a very bold, and not at all an unwise, railway projector—I mean Mr. Hudson. It is a great mistake to look back upon him as a speculator. He was a man of great discernment and possessing a great deal of courage and rich enterprize, and owing, perhaps, partly to him and partly to other men, we were bold enough at that day to entertain the idea of making a railway into Scotland, and the unusual course was adopted by the Government of Sir Robert Peel of appointing a Commission of a scientific nature to examine the whole question of what ought to be the line of railway into Scotland; and the House may be curious to know why it was the Government intervened in that particular case, simply to determine where the railway ought to run, when, I believe, there is no other example in the entire history of railways of a Government having attempted anything of the kind. I remember perfectly well the motive of the

  1401
  Government. The motive was this—that as it was known, and firmly believed to be absolutely impossible, that there should over be more than one railway into Scotland, it was considered of the highest public importance that the best scientific power of the country should be brought to bear on the choice of the line. As it was admitted that there could be only one line, it was most important for the public interest it should be the best, and upon that principle an inquiry was held and a Report was made in favour of a line which now crosses Shap Fell; and that single circumstance will illustrate more than any detailed statement the infant state of our ideas of railways about that time, and certainly it would have been most premature and unwise if that Commission had been appointed with a view to commit the State to the principle of the purchase of railways. Substantially, therefore, I agree with the account given by the right hon. Gentleman of the Act of 1844. I need not now go into the circumstances which prevented the more full operation of the control contemplated by that Act, for it would be a matter of considerable length, and it is not necessary to trouble the House with it. I think, with the right hon. Gentleman, that, upon the whole, the Railway Companies of this country have a very honourable record. They have set a very good example to the world. We may endeavour to pick out here and there points in which greater advantages are given on railways abroad; but it is quite plain that the public opinion of this country never would tolerate the restraints put on the movements of passengers which are of habitual occurrence on the Continent. I think one may fairly make this statement in justice to the Railway Companies—that when the first news was brought of the free movement of the locomotive on the first trial trip from Liverpool to Manchester, it was unquestionably considered an enormous innovation and a wonderful invention; but since that time—more than 50 years ago—it is hardly too much to say that we now travel at twice the pace and at half the price. I have always thought that if the purchase of railways could have been dealt with merely as a great financial operation, so that the Government should be the owners of the freehold in the per-
  1402
  manent way, and that vigorous and active commercial Companies should have undertaken the working under the Government, there would have been a great deal to say in favour of such an operation; but then comes the question, whether leasing is a practical system, and I am afraid that, upon the whole, the commercial mind of this country has arrived at the conclusion that it is not a practical system, and that if the Government owned the railways they must also be the managers of them. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, upon the whole, the objections to that system are conclusive. The Government of this country is the heaviest-laden Government in the world. There is no Government existing which has such a complexity and diversity of functions to discharge, and for us, unless in the case of the most urgent necessity, to load ourselves with an operation involving the taking on the back of the State of what I may call roughly the one-tenth part of the property of the country, and then to become responsible for the management of the railways, is, I really think, a suggestion which, though I admit it does present many attractions, would not for a moment be entertained by Parliament. In point of fact the Commission of 1865 went, I think, to the bottom of that question. I remember it well, because I was then the person principally concerned with the appointment of that Commission. Undoubtedly the attempt was made to fill that Commission with men of the greatest weight and of the most diversified qualifications, and when their Report came out it could not but be regarded as constituting a reliable and almost conclusive authority in favour of the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. At that time, I must own, I looked with considerable interest to that limited part of the question which is expressed by the word "Ireland." It appeared to me that if the question of purchase was one that could be entertained at all, Ireland was the portion of the Empire within which to apply it, because there the railway system had received a very limited development. The public were suffering then—I fear they suffer to some extent at the present time—from the very limited nature and extent of the operation of railways in that country; and it was then felt that

  1403
  if the question of purchase was a question to be entertained at all, Ireland was the portion of the Empire in which it might best be carried out. But the investigations of the Commission went to the point that even in Ireland the subject could not be entertained, for even there it appeared unwise and impracticable, mainly because of the inexpediency of charging the State with the management of the railways, and the impossibility of conducting State railways on any other basis. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has referred—I think very properly—to the hope that Parliament will exercise its best abilities in the reasonable control of the railway system, and he has referred to a subject in which we all feel a friendly interest—that of the Railway Rates Bill now before Parliament. I hope also, Sir, that due consideration may at some time possibly be given to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the canals of this country. It does undoubtedly appear singular that the canal system, which has suffered so considerably, should have been checked so much in its development and so contracted in its operation in consequence of the great development of railways. But I will not enter upon that subject further than to say that if the right hon. Gentleman is able to give his attention to it in connection with the other subjects that demand his attention as President of the Board of Trade, ho will possibly be able to do something practical in respect to it. It is undoubtedly, I think, one of the weakest portions of our present system of communication. There is no doubt that in these days and the days to come, the means of communication between different parts of the country form a subject of great interest and importance—an importance so great and so vital to the prosperity and development of productive industry that it is impossible to overstate it. I think, Sir, we cannot expect Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Commission on this subject until it can be shown that the investigation of 1865 was an insufficient investigation. Until we can entertain a reasonable hope that there is some other mode of progress to the national advantage which was unknown and undiscovered at that time, I should very much doubt whether it would be wise for us to undertake an
  1404
  inquiry, and unquestionably the Government would not be justified in assenting to it unless they saw their way as a matter of probability to some important practical results.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT, SOUTH KENSINGTON—CIRCULATION OF WORKS OF ART.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the subject he had to bring before the attention of the House was not one of an exciting nature, but of very considerable importance—namely, the desirability of circulating in towns and large centres of population those specimens of art, science, and industry, which were considered essential to the improvement of technical education, and the advancement of the workmanship of the artizans of the country. He hoped it would not be thought that he wished in any way to question the amount of work done, or to reduce the amount of money spent by the country on this very important subject. He believed we did quite as little as we could do; but the point of his remarks would be to endeavour to show that though the money voted by the House had greatly developed and very largely increased, we were not doing as much as we might do, and that we had not greatly increased the facilities given to artizans in closely populated districts for the study of works of science and art. He need not dwell on the importance of museums. The country voted several hundred thousands a-year for the purpose of museums, not only in London, but in Dublin, Edinburgh, and different parts of the Kingdom, which showed that the House of Commons and the public at large were fully aware of the importance of exhibiting to the masses of the people those specimens of art, workmanship, and industry, which so much tended to improve their trade and working capacities as artizans. Some people supposed that this was only needed in the interest of art; but it was not only necessary to promote industries which were essentially connected with art but also the various other

  1405
  industries carried on in the community. The necessity for the circulation of works of art and industry applied to almost every trade with which the country was connected. Those interested in the question desired that the artizans of this great Empire should enjoy at least as great facilities as the artizans of other nations of the world; and there was no trade, industry, or mechanical branch existing where the artizan would not be benefited and improved by being enabled to visit and see for himself the various specimens of different sorts of manufactures, which showed the development of his particular trade, industry, or handicraft, and enabled him to compare his own work with that of others who had excelled in his and kindred branches of manufacture. It was well understood that examples were important to engravers and designers of wall papers, painted glass, &c. But their importance was not confined to art work. They were equally important to the engineer, furniture maker, worker in metal, builder, textile fabric maker, chemist, and dye maker—in fact, to the artizan of every industry of the country it would be of advantage to secure that he should be able to visit and study the typical examples of his particular trade. But the real problem was how they could best place these specimens before the working classes of the country—how they could use them to the greatest advantage, and so secure that the largest amount of benefit might be received from them by the public. He wished to do away with the notion that some of his friends had—namely, that he desired to circulate those valuable works of art to small local museums which were irreplaceable. He did not intend that at all. He divided the art collections of the country into two classes—first, those unique works which were of great value, because they could not be replaced, they forming together one class; and, secondly, those which might fairly be devoted to the purpose in view—namely, many pictures, duplicates, triplicates, photographs of various works of art, specimens of manufactures and science, models, casts, reproductions, &c., which, if lost, were not irreplaceable, because they could be re-purchased or reproduced. He wished to be under-
  1406
  stood to mean that he did not in any way desire to circulate the first class—those articles which could not be replaced he thought ought not, except on special occasions, to leave our central museums, where students should go to see them. There might be some occasions on which those works might be exhibited elsewhere; but, as a general rule, they should never leave the national collections. But the other class to which he had referred—namely, duplicates and reproductions, were, no doubt, almost as valuable for students as the originals; and inasmuch as the artizans could not come up to London to see them, he thought it reasonable and proper that they should be sent into the Provinces for them to study. He went further, and said that it was essential that they should send these things about to a larger extent than at present, if they were to develop that technical education which hon. Members thought was so necessary for the future welfare of the country. Now, the idea of circulating art objects was a very old one. The first idea which occurred many years ago was that the art specimens should be sent about to the art schools in the country. In 1854 a Circular was issued by the Department of Science and Art, and signed by Sir Henry Cole and the present Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) to promote circulation, and to tend to the establishment of local museums. It was laid down that there should be admission to those museums on three nights a week at an entrance fee of not more than 1d. The first collection was sent out in February, 1855, and led to very considerable results. That was the beginning of the present system of sending out objects of art and industry, and from that beginning had come a great deal of good. He wished to dwell on three special features of the development of the system of circulation. First, he wished to show what was done 30 years ago by the authorities at South Kensington; secondly, he should endeavour to show what extra resources Parliament had during that period given to those authorities; and, lastly, what was being done now, and what might be done with the larger resources now at their disposal. To show what was done 30 years ago, the first refer-

  1407
  ence he should read was from Mr. W. Cowper, the Vice President of the Council. He said, in 1857—
  "The circulation of works of art which, in two years, have been exhibited to 88,000 persons in the Provinces, adding greatly to their appreciation … has induced their Lord- ships to extend the benefits of the valuable Library of Art in a similar manner."
  An extra £500 was allowed, as also money to supply schools and museums with photographs of works of art. In 1858 the circulating collections went to 20 places, and were visited by 197,812 people in Birmingham, Nottingham, Macclesfield, Dublin, Clonmel, Glasgow, and other towns, although he could not find record of any having gone at that time to the suburbs of London. In the same year, Sir Charles Eastlake, at the National Gallery, urged that there should be a sort of out-of-town museum, where newly-painted pictures might be placed for some years, and then the best placed in the National Gallery, and he also suggested that a portion of the works might be lent to provincial museums. To show the extension of this system—in 1860, owing to the munificent gift of Mr. Sheepshanks, the South Kensington Museum was able to do a great deal more in circulating works of art. It was in consequence of that gift that they were able much more freely to circulate pictures, and special series which included engravings of the English school, wood engravings, wall decorations, painted glass, textile fabrics, pottery, glass, metal, furniture, water colours, oil paintings by ancient and modern masters, bronzes, reproductions, ivory, photographs, architectural drawings, &c. Thus, 30 years ago, the principle he was contending for was recognized, and he wished it to be borne in mind that it was so developed that, notwithstanding the comparatively small resources at South Kensington, they were able to send out collections to no less than 20 places. That was the first feature in this matter which he wished to bring before the House; and it was very important, because, if South Kensington was able to do all this 30 years ago, it would be seen, having regard to the extra grants since given, that the results at the present time were not proportionate to their increased re-
  1408
  sources. There had in the last 30 years been an enormous development throughout the country of the idea as to the importance of works and specimens of art and industry being circulated. There had been, owing to education, a hunger for these collections in all parts of the country; and in the densely populated districts generally there was a desire to share to some extent in the grants now made by Parliament for the Metropolis and other large towns. This matter was continually referred to in the Reports of the South Kensington Museum. The Science and Art Department, in 1861, reported that—
  "Applications for the loan collections had been received from all parts of England in the present year."
  And, so important was the matter considered, that in 1864 a Select Committee of the House sat to inquire into it, under the Presidency of Sir Stafford Northcote, and he would read a short extract from their Report, as it bore upon the subject in hand. The Committee said—
  "There can be no doubt that the fine collection at South Kensington is calculated to raise the taste of the country; or, at all events, of those persons who are able to visit it; but it is equally certain that it is only a small proportion of the provincial public which have the opportunity of doing so, and it appears that the arrangements made for circulating portions of the collections to the provincial towns are as yet far from perfection."
  The Report went on to say—
  "Mr. Cole suggests some relaxation of the conditions under which works of art are sent to the provincial schools, which he thinks might induce the local committees to borrow more freely than at present. He also threw out some valuable suggestions as to the formation of local museums to be supplied in great part by a system of circulating some of the works of art belonging not only to South Kensington, but also to the National Gallery and the British Museum. These suggestions are well worthy of consideration."
  And, in consequence of that Report, it was resolved—
  "That the collection of works of decorative art at South Kensington be made more generally useful than at present throughout the country, especially in connection with local museums."
  It would be seen that the great feature of that Report of the inquiry so ably conducted by the late Lord Iddesleigh was the extension of the system of circulation and lending out works of art to local museums in different parts

  1409
  of the country; there was no talk of extra grants, and it was taken for granted that the collection was sufficient to do a great deal more in the way of circulation than was being done at the time. The result of this was that in 1864 a Minute was passed by the South Kensington authorities in which it was resolved—
  "That all works exhibited at South Kensington which can be lent and removed with safety are available for temporary exhibition to the public in local Schools of Art for short periods."
  Year after year they found the Report referring to the wants of the Provinces. In 1876 it said that—
  "The demand from the Provinces is so great…."
  In 1880 collections were first sent to Corporations and free libraries, the circulation of which had up to that time been confined to Schools of Art; and in 1881, such was the pressure from the Provincial public, that the Report stated that South Kensington existed, not wholly, or even chiefly, as an institution for the exclusive advantage of visitors to London; but that it was in truth also a great national collection or storehouse formed and conducted for the benefit of the whole Kingdom.
  He thought he had now shown his two points—first, what was done 30 years ago; and, secondly, that the country had been clamouring for a greater and greater share of the grants of Parliament during the last 30 years. Now, he could state briefly what had been done in the matter of Parliamentary grants in that period. And upon that subject he would have to go into some hard and dry facts of finance. What had been granted for the purchase of works of industry and specimens of science and art? Having gone through the Estimates, he thought he should not be far out in saying that in the last 30 years there had been granted for Works of Art, £316,000; Science Collections, £34,000; Aid to Local Museums, £8,400; Examples, £88,000; Reproductions of Works of Art, £57,000; Hire of Specimens, £9,200; Photographs, £20,000; Historical College of Painting, £15,000; Exchange of Works of Art, £5,500; Art Library, £63,000; and Catalogues, £38,000; making a total of something like £660,000 granted by Parliament dur-
  1410
  ing the last 30 years for specimens at South Kensington. In addition to that £32,000 had been granted for purchases of specimens for Jermyn Street, £50,000 for Edinburgh, and Dublin £47,000, or a total of £116,000; and, as far as he could make out, about £800,000 had been granted for similar purposes for the British Museum, and about £400,000 for the National Gallery. All those grants, in round figures, amounted to over £2,000,000 sterling for works of industry, science, and art. He wished to show that, having granted £600,000 to South Kensington alone, the public had a right—the provincial public had a right, and the suburban public of our great towns had a right—to a much larger proportion of this sum than they had at present. Supposing that of this £600,000 granted to South Kensington half was available for the purchase of those specimens of great value which it would be undesirable and improper to remove, there still remained £300,000 available for those specimens which could circulate from one part of the country to another, and he said that £300,000 would form a sufficient fund for a fine and complete system of circulating collections. But that was not all; because, as those who studied the Reports of the South Kensington authorities knew, in addition to the grants made by Parliament, they had received an enormous amount in gifts and bequests which, in themselves, formed a magnificent collection. In 1859 it was stated that the proposed purchases in the grant made by Parliament were only supplementary, the objects of these collections having been, for the most part, presented to the nation by the public. Among those gifts he might instance the following:—Sheepshanks' collection, numbering 522 objects; Ellison, 51; Brooke, 1,114; Duke, 1,314; Wollaston, 270; Ella, 326; Mrs. Plumley, 63; Townshend, 7,828; Dyce, 16,153; and Parsons, consisting of 139 objects. Those were some of the larger collections, leaving out of consideration the smaller ones, the list of which occupied many pages of close printing in the Reports for almost every year. He thought he had now shown clearly that 30 years ago the South Kensington Museum was able to circulate their collections to 20 places, and that their resources had since

  1411
  been added to, not only by an expenditure to the extent of £600,000, but also by gifts and bequests which amounted to almost the same value. He thought it quite clear that the amount of circulation now was not proportionate to the enormously increased resources which Parliament had placed at the disposal of the South Kensington authorities. What had been done by way of extra circulation with all these increased means? In the Report of 1886, it appeared that to 30 provincial museums, 26 temporary museums and science and art classes, there had been lent a total number of 26,164 specimens. This number of specimens, however, was not much greater than the number of gifts to the museum above referred to, to say nothing of the £600,000 granted by Parliament for the purpose of purchases on the understanding that the Provinces should have the benefit of them by the circulating collections. As they were told by the Vice President of the Council last year, in answer to a Question, that 26,000 specimens were circulated to 56 museums, he had taken the trouble to look into the matter, and see how long each collection remained in the country. He found that only four collections were lent for a year, seven for 11 months, six for 10 months, four for nine months, only one for eight months, and so downwards, till at last they had 23 collections circulated for one month only. But when they looked into the Report they found that the one month dwindled down, and a good many places had two collections a-month, and, in some eases, collections were lent for one or two days only. That was the case with regard to Brighton, which had a collection of 203 specimens lent for exhibition during three days in January. He was aware that a circulation of 26,000 specimens was referred to, and he said that they were the same specimens treated over and over again, like the army on the stage represented by the frequent reappearance of the same soldier. In the Report the number of days was distinctly shown during which these specimens remained at the places they were sent to, and hon. Members would see that the number of specimens calculated on these figures dwindled down to a very small number. He found, taking the whole of the exhibitions together,
  1412
  the average was 20 days each—that was to say, if two or three collections only were available, the South Kensington authorities would be able to do the whole of the work with those collections. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would explain how it was announced that 26,000 specimens were circulated, while so many of them were only made use of for so short a period of time. He referred to the Blue Book to show that the same specimens were spoken of over and over again; that the maximum number of specimens sent out at one time was 9,351, and during all the rest of the year those not circulating must remain at South Kensington. If that were so, he thought it a very misleading statement to say that there was a circulation of 26,000 specimens. It would probably be said that the cost of these collections was very much greater then than it was 30 years ago. The 1886 Report stated that 30 collections, valued at £2,000 each, were issued. Taking that as correct, it amounted to £60,000 out of the £600,000 voted by Parliament for the purchase of specimens, and this the Report described as a "severe tax on its resources." He would now examine one or two details of expenditure. First, there was the photographic grant, which in 30 years amounted to £20,000. That was a very large sum, and some might say that it was excessive. But they had a statement of what the photographs cost, and at what price the Department was prepared to sell them to the public, and it was 2½d. per 25 square inches, or 1s. 3d. per square foot; if mounted, the cost would be, say, double, or 2s. 6d. a-foot. Working this out, it would be found that the £20,000 would supply a number of photographs sufficient for 80 collections at £250, and these would cover for a width of six feet a room 100 by 50 feet. He thought it was only fair to ask where were all those photographs; where had they been put to? They were good, although not quite so good as the works of art which they represented; they would be of immense use for the purpose of circulation. The House of Commons had granted in 30 years £60,000 to the South Kensington Museum for reproductions alone of works in metal and plaster. Now, £60,000 was a very

  1413
  large sum of money, and they knew that a very large collection of reproduced works could be obtained for £1,000. It was, therefore, sufficient to supply 60 such collections to different parts of the country; and for all practical purposes there was no doubt that reproductions of such things as he had referred to were as useful to the student as the originals. He maintained that this sum was sufficient to insure that the Museum should have in store a number of articles sufficient for these circulating collections.
  He would also point out that there was always a cry at South Kensington that more space was wanted there; and it was true that the cases were so close together that some persons found it extremely difficult to squeeze between them. He was there a short time ago, and in one case he saw two Persian lamps practically identical, and at a few yards' distance, across the passage, there were three more lamps of the same kind. The furniture was crowded together, and he found three or four Chippendale chairs, side by side, identical with two others at a short distance. He asked why that should be, seeing that those specimens would be more valuable in small local museums in various parts of London where furniture, &c., was made, rather than huddled together at South Kensington. In one case there were two tables almost identical in pattern; in a second case, two, three, four, and five specimens of china all alike; and in a third case might be seen 18 similar knives, forks, and spoons. The specimens of earthenware were crowded together in such a manner that a visitor could scarcely see them. He found four duplicates on one shelf. All this showed that at South Kensington there was an immense amount of material which it was most desirable should be circulated, and it was these things which he desired to get into local museums. He knew that remarks would be perhaps made upon the subject; that he might be attacked personally, and be told that the objects were wanted to be circulated for political purposes. But all that he wanted was to have the specimens circulated—["Hear, hear!"]—and if the hon. Gentleman who cheered his last remark would only start another museum in his district he should be most pleased. He (Mr. Bartley) had estab-
  1414
  lished a museum in his district, and all that he wanted was to assist others to do the same. Seeing the immense educational value of placing such collections close to the homes of the workers themselves, they wanted the masses of the people to have the benefit of the collections as near their homes as possible. How was local effort and interest treated at South Kensington? In 1870 the Report stated that—
  "As a matter of course, the extent to which large towns can advantageously use the privileges now available for the circulation of objects illustrative of science and art in its application to industry depends very much on the accommodation in each locality for the purposes of exhibition …. . Clearly the function of the Science and Art Department was to assist local efforts, and not to originate them. The future supply of means for promoting such education must depend rather upon the provincial wants and demands than upon any arrangement of a class in the centre from which such wants may be met."
  And, again, the Report in 1883 said—
  "The advantages of the art collections are such that they can be extended to any part of the Kingdom where any real desire exists to participate in them."
  Those were nice words; but what were the facts of the case? In 1864 a deputation came from South London and North London to endeavour to get museums established in those districts where everyone agreed they were urgently wanted. The South Kensington Authorities said they were willing to aid; but now, 24 years afterwards, there was no museum in either of those two parts of London. The local effort had been smothered, and when application was now made it was always stated that there were no funds available. But he had shown that if South Kensington were only to keep half the specimens and only use half the Vote—that is, £300,000—for their own Museum proper they would still be able to supply 150 collections at £2,000 a-piece for circulation throughout the country; whereas they now had only 30 collections circulating, or one-fifth of the proper number. But he did not think that £2,000 was needed for every collection. His own collection cost about £1,000; and he thought if they had 100 at a cost of £500 each, 100 at a cost of £1,000, and 75 at £2,000, there would be 275 collections for £300,000, as against 30, which they now had for the same money. He saw no reason why the actual cost of

  1415
  circulating the objects should not be defrayed by the localities. He said that 275 collections would have done infinitely more good in promoting education than the small number on which the money had been expended. He ventured to criticize the action of the Department in spending £2,500 in purchasing five salt-cellars. As he thought two or three additional circulating collections would do much more practical good, this proposal would be a step of immense value for technical education.
  With regard to the rules of circulation, it was not till 1880, owing to the agitation in Birmingham, that the rule was relaxed which now allowed the collections to be sent to Corporations. Why, he asked, were they to be confined to Corporations and free libraries? Perhaps, in the case of London, which had no Corporation, the rule would also be relaxed, and the County Council would be allowed to have the collections. They wanted in London at least 50 of those small collections. To have small museums close to their homes would be most beneficial in elevating the minds of the people, and be the best antidotes to drink and other evils. What they wanted was to have these small places of education, of recreation, and of industry within the easiest reach of the people. He believed that where these places were established they would be of enormous benefit to those who used them. Who stopped this great progress? It was not very difficult to say. He did not wish to say a word against a Department with which he was for so many years connected, and which had done more good for education, perhaps, than any other institution in the country. He believed they had been ahead, to a great extent, of the national wants; but he must candidly say that he was filled with disappointment that the Vice President (Sir William Hart Dyke), when he accepted his great Office, did not shake off the red-tape rules of officialism which governed his Department. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman considered himself a great Educational Minister; but he knew the right hon. Gentleman did consider himself a man of common sense—a man of keen sympathy with the wants of the people; and he (Mr. Bartley) thought the right hon. Gentleman would be the means of
  1416
  breaking down the red-tape officialism which existed at South Kensington. He was sorry to say, however, that up to the present they had not been able to induce the right hon. Gentleman to do that; but he (Mr. Bartley) hoped the result of this debate might tend in that direction. The rules of the Office were such that they did hamper the work to a great extent. He had urged that these collections should be lent freely, taking every precaution for their safety. He knew it would be said by some that he had an interested motive. It was always said, whatever one did, that one's motive was wrong; but if they were to be deterred from attempting to promote education, from attempting to promote local museums, not only in the Metropolis, but in the centres of industry and the large towns and villages, simply because the individual interested was of one political type or colour, it would be a bad thing for the country. This was an object for the attainment of which they ought all to combine, and he regretted there had been any Party spirit thrown into the matter by some hon. Members, because he happened to differ from them. If they would take charge of his own particular institution, he would be extremely happy to hand it over. He had shown conclusively that 30 years ago a step was made in the direction he suggested. What was wanted was that places of education and recreation, with specimens of art and industry exhibited at them, should be brought close to the homes of the people. It was no use telling the people of North London that they could go to South Kensington. They could not go to South Kensington in the evening after they had done their work. They could visit a small museum close to where they lived and study works of art and industry there, and if the collections were changed from time to time by a system of circulation immense educational benefits would follow. He thought he had shown that the Department had the means of making frequent changes in the specimens when exhibited. He trusted the view he took would be adopted, and although he knew that he could not carry his Motion to a Division he hoped the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) would give them some encouragement that he would frame such rules, and make such regulations, as would secure that the

  1417
  artizans resident in the large centres of industry might have the advantage of study, and the opportunity of comparing their works with the specimens of others. He hoped. that, in this matter, our country would not be handicapped as it had been, but that Parliament would offer to the people those advantages which other countries considered were essential to the welfare of the working populations.
  THE. VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he desired to express his thorough sympathy with his hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) and assured him that as long as he (Sir William Hart Dyke) was connected with his present Office he should always deem it his duty to extend the system to which his hon. Friend had referred, as far as that could be done, with due regard to efficiency and economy. His hon. Friend had traversed a large extent of country in the course of his remarks, and he did not think the House would expect him to pursue his hon. Friend through all his statements. He might observe, however, that he was at variance with his hon. Friend. in regard to the sum which he said had been expended in purchasing science and art specimens. The figure cited by his hon. Friend differed by about 50 per cent from that which he would presently state to the House. His hon. Friend seemed to forget that they must consider the parent as well as the welfare of the children. In other words, they must consider the primary object of the parent institution at South Kensington. His hon. Friend made it a great grievance that the Department in the time of Lord Spencer purchased some salt-cellars for a large sum of money. In point of fact, those saltcellars were specimens which were absolutely unique, and the purchase was made on the recommendation of some of the best and most responsible judges of art in this country. He maintained that within the last 30 years the system of circulating the objects at South Kensington had been developed to an extent to excite the envy of many large towns on the Continent, and to have been productive of enormous use in the instruction of the working classes. Now, what was the progress which had really been made in regard to the practice of circula-
  1418
  ting objects? The point which the House ought to consider was of a twofold character. First, were the present resources of South Kensington in regard to these specimens utilized to the fullest available extent; and, secondly, would it be safe to extend the rules and regulations now laid down for lending these specimens? The system at present adopted at South Kensington was as follows. They lent for a period of 12 months objects of science and art connected with manufactures, not only to museums under public authority, but also to temporary exhibitions when there was some guarantee that a museum would be ultimately established in consequence of those exhibitions. They also lent specimens for a shorter period of six months to schools of science and art. It had been urged by his hon. Friend that they should classify the specimens sent out, but he could conceive no alteration which would be more prejudicial than that. His hon. Friend suggested that minor objects should be lent out and the more expensive objects should be retained. To that he would say that if it once got abroad that we were only lending out second-class specimens there would be great irritation throughout the country. If specimens were to be supplied they should be the very best, and every effort should be made without distinction. With respect to the Metropolis, which his hon. Friend said had been badly treated, he would. say that South Kensington and the British Museum were practically in the centre of the Metropolis. The most urgent appeals had come to the Department from the large centres of industry and manufactures, and this he conceived to be the best proof of the success of the system. In Birmingham, for example, in 1887, there were 433 objects exhibited, and, the number of patents and drawings was 64, and these were opened to the public and inspected by 898,000 people. He contended that the system was a sound and proper one. The best specimens of each class of work were sent to the most important centre of the industry to which the work belonged, as ironwork to Birmingham, lace to Coventry and Nottingham, porcelain to Stoke-upon-Trent. In 1879 collections were sent only to seven permanent local museums, including Bethnal Green, and to 10 local exhibitions. In 1887 loans were made to

  1419
  33 provincial museums besides Bethnal Green, and to 28 temporary exhibitions. These various museums were visited by no fewer than 4,900,000, exclusive of Dublin and Edinburgh; and in last year the total number of specimens lent for exhibition was 28,163 out of a total of 40,100. His figures did not tally with those of his hon. Friend as to the cost of these articles. During 30 years the total cost of art objects and reproductions was £370,000, whereas in last year alone the value circulated was £110,000, or more than a quarter of the total. He could be no party to relaxing the rules which at present regulated the loan of exhibits by the Department. There ought always to be someone on the spot to safeguard these treasures. He spoke feelingly on the subject, inasmuch as he had many years ago lent a collection of Sèvres china, which no money could replace, to the Alexandra Palace, of which only a heap of ashes remained after the great fire by which that building was destroyed. He fully realized that the loan of these objects of art was an enormous benefit to the people, and he would gladly do all in his power to carry out the system so far as it could safely and economically be carried out. Notwithstanding the criticism of his hon. Friend, he (Sir William Hart Dyke) ventured to urge that there had been an enormous advance, sure and gradual, as regarded dealing with the question which formed the subject of the Motion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to answer the challenge which had been thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He had to charge the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) with having used the Science and Art Department at South Kensington for personal and electioneering purposes in his own constituency. He was prepared to substantiate that charge whenever he had an opportunity of doing so. In a book called "A Guide to Mr. and Mrs. Bartley's Institution and Social Works in North Islington," the name of the hon. Member occurred two or three times on every page. This was clone for the purpose of self-advertisement, and for the purpose of getting from the South Kensington Museum those works of art of which the hon. Member had just been speaking. If the Department were compelled to make the
  1420
  terms of lending its treasures more severe, he hoped gentlemen who so used the liberality of the Department to their own purposes would suffer thereby.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was of opinion that no works of art ought to be allowed outside the Museum, except under the most stringent precautions. He believed no advantage to education would be gained by merely sending out specimens, and that was why he could not agree with that part of the Notice. He was of opinion that there ought to be exhibitions of this kind, where the working classes, and the professional classes as well, could take advantage of them. He could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) that technical education would be promoted by his proposal. They had these Museums, containing specimens, and they turned a lot of people into them without any education at all. No doubt they appreciated the exhibitions, but they did not understand their meaning. Therefore, in his opinion, these collections were valueless on that ground. One thing he would like to see done, and that was the teaching of principles. lie advocated the employment of lecturers where these collections were displayed, so as to educate the people who inspected the works of art, as to the different objects, forms, and periods. If they could get lectures and information founded on principles they would do far more real good than by efforts at haphazard selections from Museums. They had a collection at South Kensington which was not surpassed by anything in the world, and, notwithstanding some mistakes made, he took that opportunity of bearing his testimony to the admirable manner in which the Museum had been formed and managed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BIll. 202]
  (Mr Courtney, Mr William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third
  time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not intend to detain the House at any great length, but there is one point I deem to be of great importance in respect to this Bill, and on which I must make some remarks. I mean the Wine Duties. I am not going to repeat any of the objections taken on former occasions to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), but I am very desirous to say nothing that will increase in any way the difficulties with which he has to contend. I regret very much, and I think it possible he also regrets the vigorous manner in which his majority came up to support him, and the circumstances under which it was swollen even beyond its ordinary limits, when this question was formerly discussed; because I am not without a suspicion that my right hon. Friend would not have experienced any very keen or poignant regret if the feeling of the House about the measure had been such as would have enabled him to recede from the position he has taken up. What I wish to impress upon him is that, as he has shown a disposition to mitigate the effect of it, I hope he will lose no time in proposing the amending legislation now before us. The right hon. Gentleman must be sensible that the trade is necessarily thrown into a state of confusion and stagnation by the present state of things. It does not follow that because an alteration has in former times appeared impossible, it is still impossible, because I know that in the course of administration and experience sometimes modes are found of overcoming difficulties which have long appeared to be insurmountable. I have a good deal of misgiving as to the plan by which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to mitigate the effect of the tax he is about to lay on, and to restrict it to the more expensive wines; but I most cordially hope he may succeed in that purpose, and I trust he will lose no time in making his attempt, because it is quite evident that if anything can be done it may be done with great despatch as well as after considerable delay. The other question on which I wish to say a few words is the condition in which the Death Duties are left in the Vote now before the House. At the time we debated this subject before, I
  1422
  began by stating that the relation of the Death Duties to personalty, after the new enactment has come into operation, as compared with the Death Duties on realty, would be that of about three to one, and afterwards, having found myself in a certain error as to the sum I ought to have calculated and not taken into view, I pointed out that that would not materially modify the calculation I had made, and that the relation would still be nearly that of three to one. On reconsideration I am not at all inclined to modify my original estimate, but shall be prepared to contend that the rate upon personalty as compared with realty after those changes have taken place—I mean for Exchequer purposes, because, of course, if we include the local contributions the charge becomes much heavier—will be three to one. But what I wish to call attention to is the reason which has been alleged on certain occasions for maintaining the inequality—namely, that land is unduly taxed in other respects. Now, that proposition I wish to meet with the most unqualified contradiction of which Parliamentary argument admits. There is no unjust taxation upon land whatever which can be pleaded to sustain the inequality in the Death Duties, and I will state to the House why. The only two points which have been alleged, or which I believe can possibly be alleged, are these—first, the Land Tax; secondly, the Income Tax. Now, with respect to the Land Tax, I must say it requires much Parliamentary courage, I think, to urge on the part of the land that the incidence of the Land Tax upon land constitutes an inequality as between the owners of land and the owners of other descriptions of property in respect to taxation. The Land Tax represents a portion of the condition on which they hold the land. They did not obtain the land gratuitously, but for services. Undoubtedly they got rid of those services upon very easy terms, but the Land Tax is a relic of those services. It is impossible, in my opinion, to make the smallest claim on account of the Land Tax for compensation in any other form. But in respect to the Income Tax, I was myself the inventor of the doctrine that the landlord, under Schedule A, paid more than the normal rate of Income Tax, and I do not recede from that doctrine. It is, indeed a doctrine which

  1423
  applies unequally. In Ireland it does not apply at all. The Irish landlord does not pay a 6d. more, I believe, than the nominal rate of the tax. In Scotland the incidence has been altered since I said that on the average the payment of the landlord might be taken at 9d. as the equivalent to 7d., by allowing to the landlord permission to deduct public burdens which at the time I spoke would not be deducted. As regards England, however, the matter remains very much what it was. I will not enter into details, but it is certainly true, in my opinion, that the landlord in England to a great extent, and in Scotland to a considerable extent, pays more than the nominal rate of Income Tax. Yes, Sir, but why was that argument produced on the part of the landlord? It was produced in order to meet the counter-argument of those who insisted that the trades and professions and the fluctuating and transitory incomes of the country are placed at a cruel disadvantage in comparison with land. That is an opinion which, whether true or not, has at times unquestionably had the assent of a majority of Members of this House, though it never was the law; and I make no doubt whatever that upon some future occasion the proposition which now slumbers for a while as a mere opinion will come forward and become a practical question. I may remind the House that at the time I urged this subject upon the House Mr. Disraeli had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what had he done? He had proposed an Income Tax of 7d. upon land, but reduced to 5d. upon trades and professions. It was to counteract that argument I pointed out that the landlord paid more than the nominal rate; but if that over-charge upon the land in respect of Income Tax is to be taken as a set-off against the severe operation of the tax upon trading and professional incomes and fugitive and transitory incomes, it cannot do duty over again. In 1853, when I entered that plea on behalf of land, the whole Tory Party in Opposition supported a Motion made by Sir Edward Lytton (afterwards Lord Lytton) attacking the plan of the Government simply on the ground that they proposed to re-impose the Income Tax without applying a remedy to the tremendous inequality between permanent and transitory incomes. I, therefore, wished to place on record, as a perfectly
  1424
  indisputable argument, that it is impossible to make use of the condition of the landlord under the Income Tax as a justification of the inequality of the Death Duties. This is a subject so important that it is absolutely certain, in my opinion, to become again a practical question before the House in future Sessions, if not in the present Session. My desire is to see established a perfect equity and evenness as between the Death Duties upon land and personalty respectively, otherwise, in my opinion, the result will be to raise in a very serious form a claim of the trading and professional classes in this country for relief under the Income Tax itself, and I by no means feel sure that if landlords as a body choose to raise that controversy they will not before they issue from it find cause to regret it. I will not make any general remarks on the Bill, the progress of which I do not wish to slacken; I am anxious that the proposal promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall not be delayed, and that the right hon. Gentleman shall lose no time in the attempt he has gallantly undertaken to make a distinction between cheap and dear wines.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) as to the importance of despatch with regard to the Bottled Wine Duties, and I accept his challenge that I should lose no time; indeed, I have this day been engaged with the permanent officials of the Treasury in elaborating a plan by which our views can be carried out. I admit the difficulties, but I hope they may be overcome. My right hon. Friend had felt that there is force in the suggestion that the Income Tax falls much more heavily upon land than upon other property. Now, in 1853 the right hon. Gentleman did apply the argument that it was as 9d. to 7d. as a counter-argument with regard to Succession Duty. He may not be prepared to do so now, but at that time he made a long, a powerful, and an elaborate argument to show that this position of the land with regard to the Income Tax ought to be taken into account with regard to the Succession Duty. The right hon. Gentleman says that position still exists. I should like to show

  1425
  the House how that operates. Let me show how the additional Income Tax operates in the case of a mortgage. Suppose a man has land of a gross value of £2,000 a-year, mortgaged to the extent of £1,000 a-year. The owner will pay the tax on £12,000, which at 6d. means paying £50. He will recover from the mortgage 6d. on £1,000—that is, £25. Thus he will pay himself £25. But, inasmuch as the net value of the estate is £2,000, minus 20 per cent, or £1,600, all the income he really enjoys, after deducting the mortgage interest of £1,000, is £600 a-year. Thus he pays £25 on £600, or 10 d. not 6d., in the pound. Supposing this process to continue for 13 years, the owner of the estate would have paid £130 too much, not reckoning interest. If at the end of that time the property changed hands—and, as a matter of fact, it does not change hands nearly as often as once in 13 years—the successor would pay 1½ per cent on the life interest. The average life interest is 13—years' purchase of the net value. Therefore he would pay on £600, multiplied by 13½ equal to £8,100. One and a-half per cent on this would be £121 10 s. The argument is that he pays only half what he would pay if he succeeded to personalty; therefore, he pays £120 too little. But, on the other hand, the property to which he succeeds has been paying £130 too much Income Tax. Thus, through the additional payment of Income Tax, he puts himself precisely in the same position in this case as if he had paid the full Succession Duty. The right hon. Gentleman feels the weight of this argument; but he wishes now—differing from his own argument in 1853—to take into consideration the temporary nature of profits under Schedule D as compared with permanent profits under Schedule A. He is apparently thinking of the permanent profits made in 1853 on land; but I doubt very much whether land can now be regarded as yielding as permanent a profit as business does. But how about the Funds, and dividends on Railway Shares and Debenture Stocks? Land alone is paying on the gross income instead of on the net. This question will have to be argued out; but there are strong grounds for holding that the Income Tax presses with especial weight at present on the landed interest, and the right hon. Gen-
  1426
  tleman will be met on that point on future occasions whenever he enters upon it. He has not attempted to-night to argue that land is paying only in the proportion of one to three as compared with personal property in respect to the Death Duties. I will not now argue that question either. But the fallacy of his contention arises from his taking, not the owner but the land into view. He arrives at his conclusion as to the proportion of three to one by taking the whole of the land, and he looks at the land on one side and to personalty on the other in reckoning how much the land ought legitimately to pay. I gave the right hon. Gentleman the reference to the Report of the Inland Revenue Board, which he specially praised, in order to show that the Land Tax was taken in as a charge on land, although not as a charge on the individual owner if you compare him with the owner of personalty. I admit that the question that the right hon. Gentleman has raised is one of the greatest importance, not only as between Imperial and local taxation, but as between the various forms of property; and I quite agree with him as to one important point which ho touched to-night—namely, that visible personalty and the case of leasehold property ought to engage the attention of Parliament.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

MOTIONS.

  MINES (LIMITATION OF HOURS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Cunninghame Graham, Bill to limit the hours of labour by underground workers to eight hours a day, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cunninghame Graham, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Pickard, Mr. Conybeare, and Mr. Cremer.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 241.]

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' PENSIONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Hill, Bill for the providing of Pensions for the Widows, Orphans, and dependent relatives of Merchant Seamen, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Hill, Sir James Corry, Sir Gourley, Mr. Royden, Mr. Seale-Hayne, and Mr. Donkin.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 237.]

  FOOTPATHS AND ROADSIDE WASTES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Bill for the better protection of Footpaths and Roadside

  1427
  Wastes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Hastings, and Mr. Story- Maskelyne.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 238.]

  COLLIERY TENANTS' RELIEF BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Blundell, Bill for the relief of Colliery Tenants, and to secure them against the loss of the minerals for which they have paid, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Blundell and Mr. Frank Hardcastle.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 239.]

  FACTORY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Conybeare, Bill to amend and extend the Factory Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Burt, Mr. Cremer, and Mr. Cunninghame Graham.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 240.]
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.